Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Haaretz Lies About IAEA Inspections In Parchin

Moon of Alabama | November 6, 2011

Repeating the last piece of U.S. propaganda about a “nuclear Iran”, Haaretz lies about the history of IAEA inspections in Iran:

Iran is pursuing its nuclear weapons program at the Parchin military base about 30 kilometers from Tehran, diplomatic sources in Vienna say.
…
According to recent leaks, Iran has carried out experiments in the final, critical stage for developing nuclear weapons – weaponization. This includes explosions and computer simulations of explosions. The Associated Press and other media outlets have reported that satellite photos of the site reveal a bus-sized container for conducting experiments. Parchin serves as a base for research and development of missile weaponry and explosive material.
…
As far back as eight years ago, U.S. intelligence sources received information indicating that the bunkers would also be suitable to develop nuclear weapons.
…
The Iranians rejected an IAEA request to visit Parchin, saying that IAEA rules permitted the organization’s member states to deny such visits to military bases.

The last sentence is false and pure propaganda. Iran allowed two IAEA visit to Parchin in January 2005 and again in November 2005. The IAEA took environment samples there but found nothing that pointed to nuclear weapon research. Globalsecurity.org kept the records:

On 17 September 2004 IAEA head Muhammad El Baradei said his organization had found no sign of nuclear-related activity at the Parchin site in Iran, which several US officials had said might be tied to secret nuclear weapons research. “We are aware of this new site that has been referred to,” he said. “We do not have any indication that this site has any nuclear-related activities. However, we will continue to investigate this and other sites, we’ll continue to have a dialogue with Iran.” El Baradei also dismissed allegations that he had supressed information about Parchin in his latest report on inspections in Iran.On 5 January 2005 Mohamed El Baradei said “we expect to visit Parchin within the next days or a few weeks.” Iran allowed IAEA inspectors to visit the Parchin military site in January 2005 in the interests of transparency following the allegations of secret nuclear weapons related activity, but the visit was limited to only one of four areas identified as being of potential interest and to only five buildings in that area.

On 1 March 2005 Iran turned down a request by the IAEA to make a second visit to the Parchin military site, which has been linked in allegations to nuclear weapons testing. The IAEA was finally allowed access to the Parchin facility in November 2005. The IAEA reported in 2006 that they did not observe any unusual activities in the buildings visited at Parchin, and the results of the analysis of environmental samples did not indicate the presence of nuclear material at those locations. No further mention of Parchin as a suspected nuclear site had been made by the IAEA as of July 2008.

We can expect more such obvious lies in the coming weeks as the White House builds up its propaganda campaign for more sanctions on Iran.

November 6, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Saving Syria from Pro-Israeli ‘Humanitarians’

Middle East Today | November 6, 2011

November 6, 2011 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Video, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

UK army chief secretly visits Tel Aviv

Press TV – November 4, 2011

British military chief General Sir David Richards has secretly visited Tel Aviv earlier this week, the Israeli daily The Jerusalem Post quoted the regime’s military sources as saying.

Richards who is Britain’s Chief of the Defense Staff reportedly held several meetings with the senior commanders of the Israeli regime’s army though there are no details on the subject of his talks.

He also visited the northern parts of the Israeli occupied territories at the regime’s borders with Lebanon.

The secret visit comes as Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are reportedly making efforts to rally enough support in the cabinet to launch a military attack on Iran though an Israeli minister has dismissed a conflict as imminent.

“This issue [of military attack on Iran] should be discussed by the cabinet and put to the vote. But this event has not been taking place yet,” said the minister, who is a member of the eight-member ‘intracabinet’ group opposed to an attack on Iran.

The British media have also reported that Britain is developing plans for military action against Iran through deploying cruise missile-armed submarines and warships near the country’s waters to help a possible US strike.

This comes as it is widely believed that the media hype about an imminent attack on Iran is part of the psychological warfare over Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.

Nevertheless, Iranian officials have repeatedly pledged that any attack on the country will be costly to the aggressors.

November 4, 2011 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Territory of Lies

The Israeli-Occupied Hearing on Alleged Iranian Terror

By Maidhc Ó Cathail | November 4, 2011

In the wake of the much-heralded FBI sting that supposedly foiled a dastardly plot by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard elite Qods Force – involving a bumbling, failed used-car salesman’s botched attempt to hire a reportedly Mossad-trained Mexican drug cartel – to blow up the Saudi ambassador in a crowded but fictitious Washington D.C. restaurant, a duly alarmed U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security convened an urgent hearing on “Iranian Terror Operations on American Soil.” As evidence of Tehran’s supposed threat to the Homeland, the Committee heard testimony from “expert witnesses” who could best be described as propagandists for Israel. Commenting on the partisan line-up, an expert on U.S.-Israeli relations remarked, “If it wasn’t so serious, it would be satire.”

Among the five witnesses, two were from “conservative” think tanks closely aligned with the Israel lobby, while a third represented a supposedly more “progressive” pro-Israeli position. The first think-tanker to speak was Reuel Marc Gerecht, who cited his authority on the subject to explain away the Hollywood B-movie nature of the ludicrous murder-for-hire plot. “I might make a slight digression and just say all intelligence services aren’t as good as you think they are. And the Iranians are no exception. They make a lot of mistakes,” claimed the former Middle East specialist in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations. “So do not, for a moment, buy the argument from those who said it cannot be because this is too sloppy. This is the nature of the game. This is how it is done.” Gerecht, currently a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, went on to advocate an escalation of “the war and terror” [sic] against a supposedly emboldened Iran. “If they think they can get away with it, they will push forward, and they did get away with it,” he asserted. “Now, the only way that I would argue that you are going to stop that type of mentality and attitude is that you have to convince them that you will escalate. You don’t want to run away from that word, you want to run towards it.” In a July 19 report on the funding of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Eli Clifton observed that “its hawkish stance against Iran … is consistent with its donors’ interests in ‘pro-Israel’ advocacy.”

Next up was Dr. Matthew Levitt. “It is too early to tell what the consequences of Iran’s assassination plot may be,” he told the hearing, “but there should be no doubt the plot lays bare the myth that sufficient carrots – from offers of dialogue to requests for an emergency hotline to reduce naval tensions in the Gulf – can induce the regime in Tehran to abandon its support for terrorism, part with its nuclear weapons program, or respect human rights.” Instead, Dr. Levitt recommended applying the sticks of diplomatic pressure, pressing regional bodies to expel Iranian diplomats, building an international consensus against Tehran, military pressure, customs controls, financial pressure, and coordination with European and other allies “to allay their fears over the possible unintended consequences” of the latter. Levitt is the director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism & Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank created by AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, to “do AIPAC’s work but appear independent.”

In his testimony, Dr. Lawrence J. Korb counselled against military action, recommending instead that “[t]he Obama administration should use the Iranian plot to convince our allies to recommit themselves to enforcing the current sanctions on Iran.” Concluding by saying that “Iranian aggression toward the United States cannot be tolerated,” the Center for American Progress senior fellow advised the hearing that “it is important that the U.S. response to the Iranian plot furthers our long-term goals: deterring Iranian aggression and protecting U.S. national security.” Dr. Korb’s stated concern for American national security, however, has to be weighed against the two decades the former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration has devoted to working for the release of Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli agent who “did more damage to the United States than any spy in history.”

Sandwiching the testimony by the three think tank fellows were two former U.S. military officers known to be supportive of the hawkish Israeli line on the Middle East. Hyping Iran as “our number one strategic enemy in the world,” retired U.S. Army Gen. Jack Keane suggested “we put our hand around their throat right now.” In 2007, Keane co-authored with Frederick Kagan the American Enterprise Institute-sponsored policy paper entitled “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq” which proposed the so-called “surge” beloved of America’s Israel partisans. Retired Marine Corps Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, who has been echoing all the standard Israeli propaganda against Tehran ever since the 1983 attack on the 24th Marine Amphibious Unit in Beirut under his allegedly negligent command, didn’t hesitate to blame Iranian-backed Hezbollah for the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish centre in Buenos Aires. The U.S. ambassador to Argentina at the time, however, has said, “To my knowledge, there was never any real evidence [of Iranian responsibility]. They never came up with anything.”

During the hearing, the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Peter King, called for all Iranian diplomats at the UN to be “kicked out” of the United States for spying. That evening, his provocative statement was given traction through a live interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, who apparently just wanted to know “what’s goin’ on here?” The sincerity of Blitzer’s seemingly ingenuous concern about Iranian espionage on American soil is undermined somewhat by the fact that he was once editor of Near East Report, AIPAC’s bi-weekly newsletter, before serving 17 years with the Jerusalem Post, during which time he authored a sympathetic book on Jonathan Pollard. The title of that “slick piece of damage control” – Territory of Lies – would be a fitting description for the Israeli-occupied hearing on alleged Iranian terror.

~

Maidhc Ó Cathail is a political analyst and editor of The Passionate Attachment.

November 4, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

The Used Car Salesman, a Mexican Drug Cartel and the Saudi Ambassador

An Anatomy of Sanctioning Iran’s Central Bank

By SASAN FAYAZMANESH | CounterPunch | November 2, 2011

When on October 11, 2011, the Obama Administration claimed that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) had attempted to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the US, many commentators expressed skepticism. Why would IRGC-QF, supposedly a professional organization, hire a used-car salesman, with a dubious background, to carry out such a delicate task on the US soil, knowing full well that if the plot is uncovered, there would be severe consequences for Iran? Why would those involved in the plot converse on the phone, knowing full well that such phone calls might be monitored? Why would they wire money for the plot via a foreign bank to a US bank, knowing full well that Iran is under severe US financial sanctions and any transaction originating from Iran will be scrutinized? These and a number of other anomalies made the story hard to believe. Indeed the story was so bizarre that in announcing the case FBI Director Robert Mueller stated that it “reads like the pages of a Hollywood script” (Reuters, October 11, 2011).  Others, of course, saw it more as a Keystone Kops script.

The comical nature of the case made it appear so implausible that President Obama became defensive when he was asked about the issue in a press conference on October 13, 2011. In answering the question, Obama referred to the Attorney General’s “specific set of facts” and stated: “those facts are there for all to see.  And we would not be bringing forward a case unless we knew exactly how to support all the allegations that are contained in the indictment.”

Even though comical, it is difficult, at least in the short run, to prove or disprove the US allegation against Iran. After all, when invading Iraq in 2003 the US government showed a set of evidence that at first was hard to disprove. It was only later that the set of evidence was shown to be fabricated.

In the absence of evidence to prove or disprove the US allegation, one might approach the issue from a different angle. If the plot was somehow concocted by the US—for example, the used-car salesman was entrapped—what was the US motivation? This question is much easier to answer.

On the same day that the US Attorney General and FBI Director went public with the alleged plot, the Department of Treasury issued a press release announcing the “designation” of not only the used-car salesman but four “senior” IRGC-QF officers connected to the plot. Among the four individuals was IRGC-QF commander Qasem Soleimani. As the press release stated, the Treasury Department had designated Soleimani twice before, once for “his relationship to the IRGC” and again for his connection to “human rights abuses in Syria.” Soleimani’s name was also mentioned as a “key person” involved in “nuclear or ballistic missile activities” in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, issued on March 24, 2007. In addition, on June 23, 2011, the European council had announced that it is banning travel and freezing the assets of some Syrian individuals and companies and targeting three commanders of IRGC for supporting the Syrian government. Among these was Qasem Soleimani. Thus, it appears that the US was connecting a high profile character, such as Soleimani, to the assassination plot in order to make the case more significant and ominous. But why was the Treasury Department involved in what appeared to be a criminal case in the first place?

There was a partial answer to the above question in the Treasury Department’s announcement. The press release quoted David S. Cohen, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, as saying: “Iran once again has used the Qods Force and the international financial system to pursue an act of international terrorism, this time aimed against a Saudi diplomat. . . The financial transactions at the heart of this plot lay bare the risk that banks and other institutions face in doing business with Iran.” In his press conference on October 13, 2011, President Obama also gave a hint as to why the Department of Treasury was involved in dealing with the alleged terror plot and what the US intended to do about it. He stated that we will “apply the toughest sanctions [against Iran] and continue to mobilize the international community to make sure that Iran is further and further isolated and that it pays a price for this kind of behavior.”

A more specific answer became available on October 13, 2011, when Cohen gave his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee. Cohen announced that the Department of Treasury is “weighing more sanctions against Iran’s central bank to tighten the financial screws and deepen the country’s estrangement from the international financial community” (Reuters, October 13, 2011). After this testimony, many news sources correctly realized that the US Treasury Department was intent to use the alleged plot to sanction Iran’s Central Bank or Bank Markazi. Some also realized that such a sanction might paralyze the Iranian economy, since Bank Markazi is the bank of banks in Iran, and sanctioning it is equivalent to immobilizing the US Federal Reserve System.  Indeed, one AFP headline on October 14, 2011, read “US mulls Iran ‘sanction of mass destruction’”.  The news report correctly pointed out that after “three decades of blanket US sanctions against Iran, it has become received wisdom that the United States has few financial tools left to bend Iran’s will.” One of those tools, the report went on to say, was sanctioning “Bank Markazi—which sits at the center of Iran’s financial and energy interests.” The report quoted Avi Jorisch, a former advisor at the Treasury Department’s office of terrorism and financial intelligence, as saying: “Essentially financial institutions around the world would have to choose between doing business with the United States and with the central bank [of Iran].”

What was missing from the above reports, however, was the history of the attempt by the US to sanction the Central Bank of Iran. Also missing, was the host of characters and institutions behind the attempt. Below, I will provide a brief account of the missing pieces.

After decades of sanctioning Iran and not bringing about the intended “regime change,” the neoconservatives, Israeli lobby groups and their conduits in the US government came up with a novel idea: sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran. In late May and early June of 2008, two resolutions were introduced in the House and Senate, which effectively called, among other things, for a US blockade of Iran and sanctioning of Bank Markazi. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) summarized the two resolutions on its website under “Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program” and called for action:

Members of the House and Senate have introduced resolutions (H. Con. Res. 362 and S. Res. 580) calling on the administration to focus on the urgency of the Iranian nuclear threat and to impose tougher sanctions on Tehran. The resolutions, introduced in the House by Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN) and in the Senate by Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and John Thune (R-SD), urge the president to sanction Iran’s Central Bank and other international banks and energy companies investing in the country. They also demand that the United States lead an international effort to increase pressure on Iran by curtailing Iran’s ability to import refined petroleum products. Please urge your representatives to cosponsor this critical resolution.

The Bush Administration, however, realized that the rest of the world would not go along with sanctioning Iran’s Central Bank. Instead, the Administration relied on the Treasury Department to sanction major banks in Iran and prepare the ground for sanctioning Bank Markazi at some later date. Stuart Levey, the Treasury Department’s Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, who was well known for his connection to Israeli lobby groups and his personal war against Iran, was given the task [1].  Levey did succeed, and under his tenure, which lasted well into the Obama Administration, major banks in Iran were sanctioned. Yet, the neoconservatives, Israeli lobby groups and their conduits in the US government wanted more.

Sanctioning Bank Markazi became a campaign issue in the 2008 presidential election.  As I mentioned in my pre-election essay, “What the Future has in Store for Iran,” in spring of 2008 John McCain, who was being advised by the neoconservatives, delivered a speech at the AIPAC conference in which he mentioned sanctioning Bank Markazi. “Central Bank of Iran,” McCain stated, “aids in Iran’s terrorism and weapons proliferation.”

He further stated that the Europeans “can help by imposing targeted sanctions that will impose a heavy cost on the regime’s leaders, including the denial of visas and freezing of assets; as a further measure to contain and deter Iran, the United States should impose financial sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran which aids in Iran’s terrorism and weapons proliferation. We must apply the full force of law to prevent business dealings with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.”

The push to sanction the Central Bank of Iran continued during the campaign season, and just prior to the presidential election of 2008 Senator Charles Schumer pressed the Bush Administration to impose financial sanctions on Bank Markazi (AP, November 6, 2008). Yet, the Bush Administration remained unconvinced that other countries would go along with the sanction and left the matter to be handled by the next administration. Stuart Levey, who stayed in his post in the Obama Administration, continued to lead the sanction campaign against the financial sector of Iran and waited for an opportunity to sanction Bank Markazi.  Once he left office in March of 2011, the campaign was carried on by Levey’s deputy, David S. Cohen.

On August 8, 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported that more “than 90 U.S. senators signed a letter to President Barack Obama pressing him to sanction Iran’s central bank, with some threatening legislation to force the move, an outcome that would represent a stark escalation in tensions between the two countries.” This, as the report noted, would be a drastic action, a “nuclear option” that if implemented, “could potentially freeze Iran out of the global financial system and make it nearly impossible for Tehran to clear billions of dollars in oil sales.” The letter, as the report stated, was co-sponsored by Senators Mark Kirk and Charles Schumer.  It told the President:

We must do more to increase the economic pressure on the regime. In our view, the United States should embark on a comprehensive strategy to pressure Iran’s financial system by imposing sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), or Bank Markazi. If our key allies are willing to join, we believe this step can be even more effective.

As you know, the Iranian regime continues to pursue avenues to circumvent both U.S. and multilateral sanctions. In the banking sector, the Central Bank of Iran lies at the center of Iran’s circumvention strategy. In May, Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen stated that “the activities of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) have been, and continue to be, a focus of the Treasury Department. Treasury has noted previously that the CBI and Iranian commercial banks have requested that their names be removed from international payment messages to make it more difficult for intermediary financial institutions to determine the true parties to the transaction, and we remain concerned that the CBI may be facilitating transactions for sanctioned Iranian banks.”

The time has come to impose crippling sanctions on Iran’s financial system by cutting off the CBI. There is strong bipartisan support in Congress for the imposition of sanctions on the CBI. As recently as consideration of the FY10 National Defense Authorization Act, the Senate unanimously supported an amendment urging you to impose such sanctions. We urge you to strongly consider imposing U.S. sanctions against the CBI and to encourage key allies to join us in this important action.

According to the above report, in an interview Kirk stated that “he would introduce a law by year’s end to enforce sanctions on Bank Markazi if the White House doesn’t move independently.” The report quoted Kirk as saying: “The administration will face a choice of whether it wants to lead this effort or be forced to act.” It also quoted Schumer as saying: “It’s time for the administration to use the tools Congress has provided and choke off the money spigot.”

The pressure was on and Under Secretary David S. Cohen had to find a plot to push for sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran. The used-car salesman, hired by IRGC-QF to arrange for the assassination of Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, was just that plot. It was now time to bring on board the rest of the world.

Immediately after the alleged plot, US officials, particularly Under Secretary Cohen, were travelling around the world, trying to convince other countries, especially those that were reluctant to sanction Bank Markazi, that the plot was real. On October 14, 2011, Harakah Daily reported from Ankara that a “US team will travel to Turkey soon to brief Turkish authorities on what the US says a clumsy plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States on American soil.” On October 21, AP reported that following the visit by two US officials to Turkey to “brief the country on evidence they have in the alleged plot,” Turkey’s foreign minister urged Iran to cooperate with the US. On October 24, 2011, the headline of a news item published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty read: “Top U.S. Treasury Official [Cohen] in Europe for Talks on Sanctioning Iranian Central Bank.” After his stop in London, the report stated, Cohen will take his message to Berlin, Paris and Rome. On the same day, AP reported the same news and quoted Cohen as saying: “Iran needs to be held accountable for this plot. . . We are going to continue to look at those financial institutions that are involved with proliferation activity for Iran and continue to try to isolate them from the international financial sector.” According to the report Cohen added: “Any further sanctions would also be part of efforts to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear capabilities . . . and could target the country’s central bank.”

In sum, the bizarre story of the used-car salesman, Mexican drug cartel, and the Saudi Ambassador is inextricably linked to the US-Israeli desire to sanction Bank Markazi. It is expected that this “sanction of mass destruction,” or “nuclear option,” will do the trick and will help to paralyze the Iranian economy. Down the line, it is hoped, the shattered economy will create the right conditions for the overthrow of the “Iranian regime” and its replacement by a US-Israeli friendly government.

What a way to bring about regime change!

Notes

[1] On Levey’s connection to the Israeli lobby groups and the role that he played in sanctioning Iran in the Bush Administration see my book: The United States and Iran: Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment, Routledge, 2008.

~

Sasan Fayazmanesh is Professor Emeritus of Economics at California State University, Fresno. Sasan is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusions (forthcoming from AK Press.) He can be reached at: sasan.fayazmanesh@gmail.com

November 2, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Israeli minister slams open talk on Iran war

Press TV – November 2, 2011

Israeli Minister-without-Portfolio Benny Begin has criticized officials in Tel Aviv over their overt discussions regarding a possible military strike against Iran.

“There has never been a breakdown of responsibility and a campaign of recklessness like there is today,” The Jerusalem Post quoted Begin as saying on Wednesday.

The Israeli minister was making reference to the recent media hype in Israel over the efforts by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to muster a majority in the cabinet to launch a military attack on Iran.

Despite previous opposition of Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to a possible war with Iran, Netanyahu and Barak have recently persuaded him to throw his weight behind the move.

However, there is a “small advantage” in the eight-member Inner Cabinet of senior Israeli ministers for the opponents of such an attack, Haaretz quoted a senior Israeli official as saying on Wednesday.

Begin’s remarks come as four other Israeli ministers, including Israeli Minister of Finance Yuval Steinitz, Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon, Interior Minister Eli Yishai as well as Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor reportedly remain firmly opposed to an action against Iran.

The four ministers, who are still opposed to an anti-Iran attack, believe that Israel should proceed with efforts to encourage the West to exert more economic and political pressure on Iran.

They emphasize that any action against Iran should be carried out in full coordination with the United States.

Despite media hype over a possible Israeli attack on Iran, a member of the forum of eight senior ministers has recently claimed that talks are still underway but no decision had been taken yet.

Senior ministers and diplomats claimed that a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), due to be released on November 8, will have a “decisive effect” on the decisions Israel makes.

The United States and Israel have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the “option” of a military strike, based on the allegation that Iran’s nuclear work may consist of a covert military agenda.

Iran argues that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the IAEA it has the right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

In addition, the IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities but has never found evidence indicating that the country’s civilian nuclear program has diverted towards a military program.

November 2, 2011 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

The Zionist lobby’s First Lady in US Congress

By Alan Hart | Aletho News | November 1, 2011

After UNESCO voted to give the Palestinians full membership, the words of State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland contained a hint that the Obama administration at the highest levels is quite seriously concerned about the possible consequences for America of cutting off funds to the UN agency as required by Zionist lobby driven law enacted by Congress. (The U.S. funds about 22 percent of UNESCO’s budget or roughly $80 million annually; and $60 million was scheduled to be sent this month).

Most of Nuland’s shortish statement would have been sweet music to the Zionist lobby’s ears.

“Today’s vote by the member states of UNESCO to admit Palestine as a member is regrettable, premature, and undermines our shared goal of a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in the Middle East. The United States remains steadfast in its support for the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state (what nonsense, I add), but such a state can only be realized through direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians (again what nonsense). The United States also remains strongly committed to robust multilateral engagement across the UN system. However, Palestinian membership as a state in UNESCO triggers longstanding legislative restrictions which will compel the United States to refrain from making contributions to UNESCO.”

But the end words of Nuland’s statement (presumably reflecting her mistress’s views) would not have been so comforting for the Zionist lobby. “U.S. engagement with UNESCO serves a wide range of our national interests on education, science, culture, and communications issues. The United States will maintain its membership in and commitment to UNESCO and we will consult with Congress to ensure that U.S. interests and influence are preserved.”

One possible implication of the words emphasized is that President Obama and perhaps even Secretary of State Clinton have looked into the future and realised that if America did default on its obligations to UNESCO, there could be moves to suspend or even expel it from the agency. Probably many misinformed Americans would welcome that happening, but it would be bad for America’s image in the world. The further implication is that President Obama is at least thinking about trying to persuade Congress to untie his hands on the matter of cutting off funds to UNESCO with the argument that it’s not actually in America’s own best interests to do so.

That, it seems, is what Zionism’s First Lady in Congress fears. (We’ll get to who she is in  a moment). Her response to Nuland’s words on behalf of the State Department was the following: “This is no time for the U.S. to back down… Congress must pass pending UN reform legislation to cut off funding to any UN entity that grants any upgraded status to ‘Palestine’. Such strong action is the only way to deter other UN bodies from following in UNESCO’s footsteps, and to prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from paying for biased entities at the UN.”

In passing I have to say that I never cease to be amazed by the mind-blowing hypocrisy of almost all Americans in positions of political power. By far the most biased entity at the UN is the United States of America.

The Zionist lobby’s First Lady in Congress is the Cuban-American born Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. (Her maternal grandparents were Sephardic Jews from Turkey who became active in Cuba’s Jewish community. Her mother converted to Catholicism). She was the first Republican to be elected to the House of Representatives from Florida and she is today the chairwoman of its Foreign Affairs Committee. In that capacity she introduced the bill to cut off US funding to any UN organization that recognises Palestinian statehood. She also advocates cutting funding to the Lebanese Armed Forces and the West Bank and Gaza.

That’s on the one hand. On the other is the fact that one of her major campaign funders was Irving Moskowitz, a Florida businessman who is a major funder of illegal Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank including East Jerusalem. Also a fact is that the J Street lobby group called on her to return campaign contributions from him because, it said, “he actively works to de-rail the chances for a two-state solution.”

Against that background it was entirely logical that she would take (as she did) the lead in demanding that the Obama administration “halt its condemnations of an indispensable ally and friend of the United States.”

Once upon a time it was only those seeking to be elected on the Democratic ticket who felt the need to kiss the Zionist lobby’s bottom. Now the Republicans are at it, too.

What chance does any American president have of confronting this lobby in order to be able to put American’s own real and best interests first? My answer (I never tire of giving it) is no chance unless and until enough American voters are informed enough to call and hold their Congressmen and women to account.

Footnote

Ros-Lehtinen’s history indicates that she is a fan of targeted assassinations, so presumably on this matter she thinks Obama is doing a better job than George “Dubya” Bush.

She appeared very briefly in 638 Ways to Kill Castro, a Channel 4 documentary film broadcast in the UK on 28 November 2006. It told the story of some of the many attempts by the CIA to kill the Cuban leader. Her contribution included this: “I welcome the opportunity of having anyone assassinate Fidel Castro and any leader who is oppressing the people.”

When a 28-second clip of her saying that was circulated on the internet, she denied it by claiming that the production team had misrepresented her by splicing clips to make the sound bite. Director Dollan Cannell then released the unedited tapes of the interview with her, proving that she had twice welcomed an attempt on Castro’s life. It was the production team that had been misrepresented by her, not the other way round. Cannel asked for an apology but he didn’t receive one.

An inability to say sorry is, of course, one of the hallmarks of all who support Israel right or wrong.

November 1, 2011 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

America or Israel?

By Issa Khalaf | Palestine Chronicle | October 31, 2011

President Obama’s descent to Israel-groveling was fast and furious, considering it’s been a short time from his June 2009 Cairo speech to his September 2011 UN speech. MJ Rosenberg dubbed Obama as the most Israel-subservient president ever: “Obama isn’t lying about his ‘pro-Israel’ record… This administration has been the most one-sided supporter of everything Israel asks for since 1948. There is no competition. Not even George W Bush comes close.” Maybe, but it’s clear this president, as every president before him, will do anything to get re-elected. What humiliation: the American president, elected by wide mandate, rendered supine by a pair of fanatics like Benjamin Netanyahu and his gloating neo-fascist cohort Avigdor Lieberman. The road to Washington runs through Tel Aviv.

There has never (yes, “never”) been, since at least the 1940s but unquestionably since 1967, “honest” brokerage from Washington or at least, if insistence on honesty is misinformed or naively misplaced, temporary impartiality for the sake of US interests. There is a yawning gap between the fiction of US pressure on Israel and the reality of capitulation to Israeli demands. American presidents have not had the political will to use their national representation to challenge Israel for the sake of US interests. The US has always presumed to be able to manage and quiet Palestinian and Arab interest or opposition, usually by initiating activity towards mediation and peace process, but without ever exerting the required pressure on its ally Israel. The notion of American “pressure” on Israel has always been a tactic to mollify Arab frustration, ever holding out the promise of just resolution of conflict.

There has never been a Zionism desiring peace, only the erasure of the Palestinian national presence from historic Palestine and resolve to realize the Holy Land’s unblemished “Judaization.” (The Israeli state or elite is not interested in genuine peace, and those, like MJ Rosenberg, who point out that the Israeli public supports a Palestinian state by a significant majority fail to mention that this in effect means a Bantustan state requiring little to no Israeli compromise. With the exception of a small Israeli minority, the majority just want the pesky Palestinians to disappear from their lives.)

There has never been “national unity” among perennially, hopelessly factionalized Palestinian elites and leaderships, resolved to monopolize Palestinian politics, and who’ve historically been as much of a detriment to their people as of help.

The only honest part of this dismal reality, for over a century, is the unbendable dignity and resistance of the Palestinian people and their current historical willingness to coexist in peace and mutual respect with those who displaced them and continue to dispossess and torment them.

Washington’s frantic, fulminating response to the Palestinians’ UN bid, its determination to preserve its monopoly and management of the “dispute,” is neither startling nor new. The American diplomatic, political, economic, and military machine is set on autopilot in behalf of Israel—the Palestinians, the distressed American people, the decline of US power, economic bankruptcy, genuine US interests, and the Middle East be damned. This of course won’t last much longer as the US strategic role, more accurately domination, in the Middle East is losing ground, its respect vanishing worldwide.

In any case, it may be that the Palestinian leadership’s full UN membership bid far from represents a clean break from bilateral negotiations whose central function is enabling Israel to proceed with its colonization and annexations unabated. The Palestinians accepted, however reluctantly, a deferment on a Security Council vote, allowing the “Quartet” time to convince both sides to restart “peace talks” by devising a framework for renewed negotiations toward a deal at the end of 2012 (in time for US presidential elections). The Israelis of course will not accept “preconditions” while the Palestinians insist on a halt to colonial settlement construction and 1967 lines as the basis of negotiations.

The Palestinian calculation, in addition to fears of US retribution in the form of vital aid cut-off (which can be catastrophic for Palestinian livelihood), is that this will break the deadlock, perhaps lead to an exertion of pressure on Israel. But this, a way out for them via meaningful negotiations, is a forlorn hope from a leadership whose only self-justification for existence is the two-state, peace process industry. That twenty-year industry’s brief is interminable engagement with frameworks and mechanisms rather than the substance of peace.

All this craziness in the service of not cornering Washington into exercising its veto, which it realizes will weaken and isolate it, along with its reckless, destabilizing partner Israel, further.

Being open to negotiations is smart if, indeed, the Palestinians adhere to a synergistic strategy, based on an uncompromising set of principles, willing to eject without hesitation that component which does not work (bilateralism) and forge ahead with that which does, or has a better chance of modest success (multilateralism).

But vital components of this strategy are missing, including political and national unity and democratic inclusion of civil society. The decades-long resistance of the PLO/PA to embracing grassroots democracy is a predictable outcome of believing the US can deliver. The leadership, concerned with its privileges and power and its prerogative to undertake and dabble in any political or diplomatic initiative it deems justified, cannot easily extricate itself from its Washington dependency and grip, accept that the Palestinian strategy has been a monumental failure and resort to the undiluted democratic will of its people.

The options of going to the General Assembly for collective recognition of a Palestinian state to add to the current 114 or to “upgrade” Palestinian observer status will have to wait, except that the Palestinian strategy includes piecemeal upgrade, as the recently successful application for full membership in UNESCO (and presumably other UN agencies), which has Washington going ballistic, attests. The Palestinians are apparently not about to let multilateralism based on international law and UN resolutions quietly die to accommodate American-Israeli designs whose implicit or unspoken assumption is that the Palestinians do not and should not enjoy the right to legally and diplomatically advance their cause or defend themselves against military occupation.

The argument that a hopelessly Israel Lobby-captive US will move aside for others to make Palestine-Israel peace is not very realistic, at least at this period; emerging nations, unless sporting a unified, coordinated position and overcoming divergent interests, do not have the power and influence to implement a UN based peace settlement. Nor is the EU, a key, though not very unified player, willing to subordinate or imperil its inter-Atlantic strategic partnership with the US, the EU’s conundrum a barometer of how strongly and to what lengths the US will defend and shield Israel. The obstacle to advancing a fair settlement requiring Israeli adherence to international law by emerging nations and the EU—i.e., influential states in the international community—is and has always been this: the awesome asymmetry of military power between Israel and the Palestinians, and less so between it and its neighbors, underwritten by the open-ended guarantee of US military power.

What explains this Israel right or wrong lunacy, this congenitally dysfunctional advocacy in behalf of a foreign state? To make the rationally contingent argument that the US would not continue along this path if it did not think that its decades-long Israel-first policy is a success for itself and its partner, is a partial explanation that neglects a larger, more complex context. That context is not only the presumed alignment of US and Israeli hegemonic goals, but also lies in the domestic front.

US behavior flows from American historical, ideological, cultural, and economic foundations.  However, this is confused by the fact that the US and Israel have become politically and strategically indistinguishable. American support for Israel is multi-causal including imperial folly and great power hubris, but unconditional support is a product of domestic influences. It’s clear that the “special relationship”—the depth, effectiveness, and pervasiveness of Israel’s influence in American politics, the reflexivity of US support from president to Congress, governor to state legislature—is obvious and puzzling, even bizarre.

This reality is due not only to the vaunted Israel Lobby, but also to the American media that serves as Israel’s uninhibited supporter and promoter. There is no deviation of opinion, across the entire spectrum of American media, local to national, including films and television, from the sustain-Israel-first-at-all-costs consensus.

If the American elite and policymaking establishment indeed “thinks” or presumes that its policies have been a success, it is certainly not because of objective reality. In addition to the imperial thrust, it is because of an enormously dominant pro-Israel ideology and narrative, and a false perception perpetuated by a powerful, organized Lobby and its pervasive support by the mass media and cultural image-makers. Israel’s influential intellectual supporters, conservative and liberal, developed the ideological rationales for the “special relationship” propagated through their dominance of research institutes, think tanks and in the media, and through their common presence as officeholders, appointees, and advisers. Most of the American intellectual class has been intimidated into blather on the topic of Israel and Zionism.

Israel and its interests became effectively institutionalized in the American socio-political system after decades of this Israel-influence build up in American politics, society, media, and culture.

In a rational world, US interests require, as they did since 1967, a viable, not a sham, Palestinian state that satisfies the Palestinians, dramatically reduces tensions through the normalization of Arab-Israeli relations, rolls back religious-political extremism, and generally works as a stabilizing factor in the Middle East. To settle Palestine-Israel justly and fairly is absolutely vital to maintaining any semblance of US influence in the Middle East. In a rational world, the Palestinians’ eminently reasonable UN bid is the best that could happen to and for the US.

Such a balanced approach is something the American people, despite the mighty efforts to control the official discourse, intrinsically understand. Support for Israel is neither a fixed determinism nor a deep cultural phenomenon regardless of evangelical and neo-conservative fervor, or the support of mainly white Republicans who internalize Israel’s mythos as their own. Support for Israel is the fruit of unrelenting organization and pressure. Majorities of Americans, in poll after poll, reject taking sides in the Palestine-Israel conflict, oppose Israel’s settlement building, and support the idea of fairly resolving the conflict. A majority even rejects going to war for Israel’s sake should it and Iran engage in open conflict, while half would not use US troops to help Israel even if attacked by a neighbor.

This is encouraging. Even while confounded by the Israel narrative beaming through their radios and television screens and printed in their newspapers, Americans simply desire neutrality. Even in the context of a pro-Israel media and politicians, these typical survey results belie the claim of monolithic cultural or religious foundations in support of Israel, or of an exceptional or special relationship or great public commitment, love, or bond. This suggests that, were an American president to “draw a line in the sand” in dealing with Israel, the American public would back him or her by a solid majority, albeit opposition hypocrisy and pandering to the Lobby remains a problem for any fair-minded government or politician.

The false fusion and institutionalization of American and Israeli interests may well lead to a disaster for the Israelis and Palestinians as well as the region. At the same time, the assumed categorical permanency of support for Israel may erode faster than anyone believes as the US inevitably confronts its own great crises in the cause of American, not foreign, interests.

– Issa Khalaf has a Ph.D. in political science and Middle East Studies from Oxford University.

November 1, 2011 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Was Liam Fox a Mossad Agent, a ‘Useful Idiot’ or Just another CFI member?

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon, October 31, 2011

Once again, it is a Jewish media outlet that provides us with the ‘news’ the British press insists to hide. When it comes to Israel and its lobby, the British press is extremely ‘careful’ (on the verge of dishonest). But the truth seems to come out anyway. I guess that Liam Fox was ‘kicked’ out because he was advocating an action against Iran. Someone out there was clever enough to grasp that Britain better stay out of the next Israeli blunder.

Resignation of Defense Secretary Linked to Shadowy Pal’s Trips

The Jewish Daily Forward | October 28, 2011

… Werritty’s travels included forays to Iran, where he reportedly met with opposition activists, and to Israel, where he is said to have met with Israeli intelligence agents, including the director of the Mossad. …

… In fact, his travel was funded by a nongovernmental organization he established in which three of the six principal donors are linked to pro-Israel organizations. …

… Last February, Werritty arranged a dinner attended by Fox, Matthew Gould, who is Britain’s ambassador to Israel, and senior Israeli political figures at a security conference in Herzliya, Israel. Sanctions against Iran were reportedly discussed at the dinner. Crucially, it is understood that Israeli intelligence agents, including then-Mossad chief Meir Dagan, also attended the meeting.

Murkier still, Britain’s intelligence service, MI6, apparently warned Werritty that his multiple visits to Iran’s capital, Tehran, and contacts with Iranian dissident groups could be misconstrued, given his close ties to Fox, as suggesting official British support for an Iranian regime change. Foreign Secretary William Hague has taken pains to describe the notion that Werritty was running a parallel foreign policy as “fanciful.” … Read full article

October 31, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

U.S. Defense Dept. paid Israel lobby’s think tank director $77,883 for one-day conference on Iran

By Maidhc Ó Cathail | The Passionate Attachment | October 31, 2011

In his Truth in Testimony disclosure form submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee before giving testimony to its “Iranian Terror Operations on American Soil” hearing, Dr. Matthew Levitt reveals that he had received a

Contract from U.S. Central Command and the U.S. Army Directed Studies Office for $77,883 to conduct a day long conference on Iran in January, 2010.

Levitt is the director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism & Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank created by AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, to “do AIPAC’s work but appear independent.”

Not only can Israel get the Pentagon to swallow its anti-Iranian propaganda — it gets them to pay through the nose for it too.

October 31, 2011 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

‘Progressive’ advocate for notorious Israeli spy urges U.S. to use fake ‘Iran terror’ plot to strengthen sanctions

By Maidhc Ó Cathail | The Passionate Attachment | October 31, 2011

In his testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence and Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management hearing on “Iranian Terror Operations on American Soil,” Lawrence J. Korb counselled against military action, recommending instead that

The Obama administration should use the Iranian plot to convince our allies to recommit themselves to enforcing the current sanctions on Iran. This plot provides evidence of continued hostile Iranian behavior, evidence that should be used to bolster the international coalition against Iran.

Moreover, the United States should strengthen its own sanctions regime and press for stronger international sanctions that can garner the support of our allies in this coalition. The sanctions on Iran draw legitimacy from the fact that they have been approved by the United Nations and even involve some of Iran’s former allies, such as Russia and China. Maintaining the support of this robust coalition should be one of the primary goals of the U.S. response.

Simultaneously, the United States should continue its efforts to engage with the Iranian government. As Adm. Michael Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted last month, “even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran, so we don’t understand each other.” Talking to Iran promotes stability in the U.S.-Iranian relationship and, to the greatest extent possible, denies the Iranian government the ability to use the specter of “evil America” as a means of unifying the Iranian people.

Concluding by saying that “Iranian aggression toward the United States cannot be tolerated,” the Center for American Progress senior fellow advised the Congressional hearing that “it is important that the U.S. response to the Iranian plot furthers our long-term goals: deterring Iranian aggression and protecting U.S. national security.”

Korb’s stated concerns for American national security, however, have to be weighed against the two decades the former assistant secretary of defense in Ronald Reagan’s administration has devoted to working for the release of Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli spy who “did more damage to the United States than any spy in history.” In a January 12 Foreign Policy op-ed, Korb revealed his role in Israel’s latest attempt to free Pollard:

On Jan. 4, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood in front of the Knesset to read a letter that he had sent to the president of the United States, calling for the release of Jonathan Pollard. The Israeli leader admitted that Pollard, a former U.S. naval intelligence analyst serving a life sentence for espionage, “was acting as an agent of the Israeli government.” He nevertheless contended that Pollard’s 25 years in prison represented a sufficient punishment for his crimes and pointed to the support of a number of former U.S. officials and congressmen for clemency.

Netanyahu’s request did not come as a surprise to me. On Dec. 20, 2010, after speaking to the Knesset, I met with the prime minister and urged him to go public with his request. Unless he did so, I argued, the issue would not gain the traction it needed. I also pointed out to him that he needed to publicly apologize and pledge to never again recruit Americans to spy against their country, which would allow supporters of Pollard’s release to respond effectively to the argument that the Pollard case was business as usual for Israel.

Dismissing the concerns of U.S intelligence professionals and prosecutors, Korb cited Netanyahu’s letter, which noted that the United States is “based on fairness, justice, and mercy,” and urged Obama to commute Pollard’s sentence. “It is the right thing to do,” he said.

The Center for American Progress, where Korb is a senior fellow, is funded by major individual donors such as George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing, and Herb and Marion Sandler. In a February 18 interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Soros confidently asserted, “I would like to bet that the Iranian regime will not be there in a year’s time.”

October 31, 2011 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Romney: U.S. ‘Should Not Play The Role Of Leader’ In Mid-East Peace, ‘Follow’ Israel Instead

By Ben Armbruster | Think Progress |  October 28, 2011

If Mitt Romney becomes president, there are a lot of important foreign policy decisions that he’d leave up to others. Most notably, Romney often says that whatever the generals decide, that’s the course he’ll take in Afghanistan (although he backtracked on that stance when pressed recently).

Now it seems that a President Romney will allow the Israeli government to decide American policy toward that country. The free daily newspaper Israel Hayom — a media outlet closely associated with right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — asked Romney if, as president, he would ever consider moving the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In his answer, Romney made some astonishing claims. First, that his policy toward Israel will be guided by Israeli leaders; second, on the Jerusalem issue, he’d do whatever Israel tells him to do; and third, he does not think the United States should take a leadership role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

ROMNEY: The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don’t seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel’s leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I’ll be inclined to do. But again, that’s a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.

The policy that the American Embassy reside in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem pre-dates the current administration. In fact, as Lara Friedman notes at Americans for Peace Now, the U.S. “does not recognize the sovereignty of any party in any part of Jerusalem (East or West)” and it’s “a policy that dates back to pre-1948, and has been followed by every U.S. Administration since, regardless of the President or party in the White House.”

In 1995, Congress passed a law allowing funding for the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, but the law includes an executive waiver allowing the president to invoke national security interests to block such a move. Every U.S. president since the law passed, Clinton, Obama and Bush, has invoked that waiver.

In an email to ThinkProgress, Jerusalem expert Daniel Seidemann laid out the consequences should Romney follow through on his pledge:

Were an American President be actually so irresponsible as to move the US embassy to Jerusalem outside of the context of a comprehensive permanent status agreement, such a President would contribute nothing to legitimizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Instead he would be following Israel into abject isolation, and the United States into an weakened and marginal regional and global role.

Mitt Romney the candidate falls short of making that irresponsible undertaking, and one would hope that if elected President he would find less devastating ways of protecting the US interest and aiding Israel to arrive at a conflict-ending agreement.

But it might also come as a surprise to some that Romney not only wants Israel to dictate U.S. policy, but that he does not want the United States to lead the peace process. Out on the campaign trail, Romney regularly says Obama “has thrown Israel under the bus.” But perhaps now we know who Romney thinks should be driving it.

October 29, 2011 Posted by | Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »