An Iranian nuclear espionage mystery
By Paul Woodward on July 14, 2010
The CIA has lost one of its most valued former spies.
Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri, who defected to the US, is now on his way back home to Tehran after a very messy and public re-defection. ABC News obtained exclusive photos of Amiri leaving Washington’s Dulles International Airport late Tuesday night on a commercial flight to Doha, Qatar, en route to Iran.
Amiri was escorted directly to the jetway entrance by a security officer. He was flanked by what appeared to be a U.S. official and a representative from the Pakistani Embassy in Washington. He boarded the Qatar Airways flight ahead of the other passengers, and spoke only to his companions. After more than a year in the US, Amiri claimed he had never really defected. In a series of videos released on the internet, he insisted that he had been kidnapped, drugged and tortured by the CIA. The US flatly denies that it ever held Amiri against his will.
The Washington Post columnist and unofficial spokesman for the CIA, David Ignatius, attributes Amiri’s departure to a change of heart.
The CIA has struggled for decades with how to handle defectors better so that they are happy in a strange new land. The agency periodically tries to improve its tradecraft in working with these skittish guests. But defectors are trouble. They are like small boats in a heavy sea, not sure which way is home.
But Ignatius concedes that it is hard to understand why the Iranian scientist would have defected while leaving his wife and child behind. That detail, along with the deaths of Ardeshire Hassanpour and Masoud Alimohammadi, might seem to reinforce the claim that Amiri was in fact abducted and that all three cases be seen in the context of a US-backed, Israeli-led covert war targeting Iran’s nuclear programme.
What seems more likely however, is that the Iranians took the CIA for a ride — that Amiri’s “defection” took place so that Iran could glean more about the extent of American knowledge about its nuclear program and that the information he gathered was more valuable than the information he gave away.
U.S. To Jordan: Change Your Nuclear Program or We’ll Cut Aid
By Bart Farrell | IMEMC | July 13, 2010
Reports from Arab media sources, on Monday, indicated that U.S. authorities are demanding that Jordan share its uranium enrichment with Israel.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon could lose its pecuniary aid from the United States should it continue to enhance its nuclear program without cooperation with Israel, Israeli news source Ynet reported.
Amman ignored Israeli requests to be involved in the extraction and enrichment of uranium which prompted the threat from Washington. The U.S. and Jordan discussed Jordan’s nuclear plan for six months, but the Jordanians were unable to obtain US approval.
The program began three years ago when over 65,000 tons of uranium ore, one of the largest deposits in the world, was discovered in the Jordanian desert.
All but five percent of Jordan’s energy is imported from other countries, primarily Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The enrichment program is a means by which The Hashemite Kingdom can shed some of its dependence on foreign sources of energy while gaining the ability to export power throughout the region.
Yet the Jordanian economy is hinged on American aid which limits its ability to hold its ground in talks with Washington. This year, the US transferred at least $665 million during the first half of the year, over half of which was for financial aid and the rest for military aid.
The aid Jordan receives from the US is to ameliorate Jordanian financial and social problems. Additionally the aid is sent to bolster national security as the US sees Jordan as a partner in the War on Terror.
King Abdullah condemned Israel for impeding his country’s efforts in its nuclear program last month. The king told the Wall Street Journal that France and South Korea were being persuaded by the Israeli government to not sell nuclear technologies to Jordan. He added that Israeli-Jordanian relations have sunk to a point they have not been since the two countries signed a peace agreement after being in a state of war for nearly half a century.
US gives ‘secret guarantee’ to Israel
Press TV – July 8, 2010
The United States has secretly given a “written guarantee” to Israel that obliges Washington to sell Israel nuclear fission materials, Israeli sources say.
The materials will be used to “produce electricity,” Israeli Army radio, which is an official Israeli news source, reported.
Washington has also vowed to “publicly announce” that Israel is a responsible entity and can “contain its capabilities.”
Former US President Jimmy Carter has said Israel has between 200 and 300 nuclear warheads. A former Israeli scientist at Israel’s Dimona nuclear site, Mordechai Vanunu, as well as aerial footage and decades of recurrent reporting have reaffirmed the possession.
The US has always supported Israel’s policy of “nuclear ambiguity,” in line with which Tel Aviv would neither confirm nor deny having the firepower.
Israel sensed a breach in the partnership two months ago when Washington supported an Egyptian proposal to hold a regional conference in 2012 on a nuclear-free Middle East.
The White House, however, said on Wednesday that US President Barack Obama had vowed to shield Israel from being “singled out” at neither the Egyptian-proposed meeting nor a September gathering of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), where the issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons is expected to be top on the agenda, Reuters reported.
“We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it’s in, and the threats that are leveled against us — against it, that Israel has unique security requirements,” Obama as well noted.
The war Israel can’t win
By Paul Woodward on July 6, 2010
At The Daily Beast, historian Thaddeus Russell writes:
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the White House Tuesday, President Obama will have the chance to be the first American president since the founding of Israel to ask The Question.
The Question is never addressed by Israel’s supporters and rarely raised by Israel’s detractors. But for those of us who are taxpayers in a nation that has been the state of Israel’s chief benefactor for 42 years — or those of us with Jewish ancestry — it is becoming the only question to ask. It is simple, self-interested, and fundamental: Does the existence of Israel make Americans and Jews safer?
And here is the paradox: Though support for Israel among Americans, and especially Jewish Americans, remains high according to recent Gallup polls, historical evidence says the answer to The Question is “no.”
The history of Israel and its relationship with the U.S. is infinitely complex, but there’s one damning fact that’s ignored as often as The Question: There was not a single act of Arab terrorism against Americans before 1968, when the U.S. became the chief supplier of military equipment and economic aid to Israel. In light of this fact, it’s difficult to credibly sustain the argument that Arab terrorism is spawned by Islam’s alleged promotion of violence and antipathy toward American culture or by a “natural” Arab anti-Semitism. It also suggests that no matter what policies Israel enacts to protect itself — even a withdrawal from the occupied territories or a two-state “solution” — it must be a perpetual wartime state.
Very few Americans today are aware that the question of American and Jewish self-interest was first raised at the time of Israel’s founding by officials in the highest levels of the U.S. government. In 1948, several members of Harry Truman’s Cabinet predicted that the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East would spur Arab violence against Jews and Americans, advising the president to shun Israel.
These included Secretary of State George Marshall, Defense Secretary James Forrestal, and George Kennan, then the leading policy strategist in the State Department. They argued that if the United States helped to set up an independent Jewish nation it would provoke terrorist attacks on Americans and inaugurate an endless war between Arabs and Jews. “There are 30 million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other,” Forrestal told those in the administration who favored recognizing Israel. “Why don’t you face up to the realities?”
Israel apologists will plead that Thaddeus Russell’s commentary is one more instance among international efforts — rapidly gaining steam — to delegitimize Israel.
Strangely, in response to what is perceived as a campaign of degitimization, there is, as far as I’ve seen, no Israel legitimization campaign. Those mounting a defense, do nothing more than attack their critics — and usually do so with an unbridled viscousness.
For instance, Robin Shepherd, writing in the Jerusalem Post about a decision last week by the Methodist Church of Britain to launch a boycott against goods emanating from settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, says:
Overall, a church that behaves in the manner of the Methodists has buried its credibility under a gigantic dunghill of intransigence, pedantry, lies and distortions.
But let us not allow this matter to rest with a mere recognition of whom and what they have chosen to become.
If the Methodist Church is to launch a boycott of Israel, let Israel respond in kind: Ban their officials from entering; deport their missionaries; block their funds; close down their offices; and tax their churches.
If it’s war, it’s war. The aggressor must pay a price.
While it’s often said that attack is the best form of defense, that principle does not hold in the art of persuasion (and rarely for that matter in national security). The ranks cheering an attack such as Shepherd’s are small and shrinking. Indeed, the more venomous Israel and its supporters become, the less sympathy the Jewish state will evoke and the closer we will move to a critical juncture: where the world has given up on Israel and Israel has given up on the world. At that point, Israel’s isolation becomes the world’s nuclear peril.
US sanctions on Iran a threat to India’s energy security: Rao
By Iftikhar Gilani | Daily Times | July 6, 2010
NEW DELHI: India on Monday reached out to Iran to seek help in Afghanistan, and even expressed its concerns over the fresh US-led sanctions.
Addressing experts at the India-Iran strategic dialogue, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said the deepening Afghan conundrum could have a deleterious impact on both countries, fearing the return of the forces of extremism and obscurantism.
“Our cooperation and information sharing on counter-terrorism must be the subject of more intensive focus and attention in the future,” she added. Rao also expressed the need for a structured, systematic and regular consultation with Iran on the situation in Afghanistan.
The Indian foreign secretary further expressed concern at the unilateral sanctions imposed by ‘’individual’’ nations on investment by third countries in Iran’s energy sector.
‘’We are justifiably concerned that the extra-territorial nature of certain unilateral sanctions recently imposed by individual countries, with their restrictions on investment by third countries in Iran’s energy sector, could have a direct and adverse impact on Indian companies and more importantly, on our energy security and our attempts to meet the development needs of our people,’’ Rao said.
Calling for a flexible approach for a comprehensive solution to all issues, the foreign secretary said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continued to provide the best framework for addressing technical issues related to the Iranian nuclear programme.
No UK ban on refueling Iran planes
Press TV – July 6, 2010
No ban has been imposed on refueling Iranian planes in British airports, an informed source in Iran Air’s Britain and Ireland office says.
“No limitation has been placed on the refueling of Iranian passenger planes in Britain so far. The Iranian flights to London are being conducted regularly and on a daily basis and Iran National Airlines Company conducts three direct flights to Tehran and one direct flight to Shiraz (from London) each week,” the informed source told IRNA on Monday.
“No unusual behavior by the companies providing fuel for Iranian planes has been observed so far. Iran Air Lines Company, however, is fully ready to encounter any likely limitations in this regard,” the source added.
The remarks came in reaction to some media reports indicating that the airports in the Untied Arab Emirates (UAE), Germany and Britain have refused to refuel Iranian planes following the ratification of unilateral US sanctions against Iran.
The Emirati and German airport officials, however, dismissed the reports on Monday, saying they continue refueling Iranian planes with no limitations.
“The countries, which are keen to counter the Islamic Republic, have spared no efforts over the past 30 years to impede Iran’s air transportation. Following the Islamic Revolution, we have been constantly entangled by limitations and setbacks, but fortunately these hampering efforts have been to no avail as the enemies had expected,” the source continued.
According to some media reports, the United States has violated international laws by exerting pressure on some companies in Germany, Kuwait and the UAE so that they would not provide Iranian passenger planes with fuel.
Israel’s ‘periphery doctrine’ of non-Arab friends is in tatters
By boulos on June 30, 2010
After reading Glenn Greenwald’s scathing rebuke several days ago, Jeffrey Goldberg composed himself enough to respond by inviting Greenwald to visit Iraqi Kurdistan, and let the rest of us know who is in his rolodex:
“As it happens, I was e-mailing yesterday with the prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan, Barham Salih, and I mentioned Greenwald’s critique.”
Goldberg’s contact with Barham Salih represents what is now one of the few tattered survivals of Israel’s ‘Periphery Doctrine,’ in which the Jewish state sought to offset the rejection it experienced from neighboring Arab regimes through alliances with the non-Arab states ringing the Arab world–Turkey, Ethiopia, Iran–and with minorities inside the Arab world like the Kurds and the Maronites. This policy hasn’t had a very good run. It was only a few days ago at Foreign Policy that Leon Hadar actually wrote its obituary.Israel has systematically lost its friends at the periphery–Iran, Ethiopia and now Turkey. Its adventures and attempts at kingmaking in Lebanon ended with tens of thousands of civilians killed, the Maronites politically emasculated, a decades-long occupation and war which traumatized its army, the politicization and militarization of the Lebanese Shi’ite community and the emergence of Hizbullah. Very recent history has shown Israel’s supporters in the US reacting against Turkey with the hurt and anger of a scorned lover: Goldberg himself stated with perverse glee
“I hope to be blogging more about Turkey’s disgraceful treatment of its Kurdish citizens!”
Mark Arax, among others, has documented the shameful, transparently expedient, volte face that the Israel Lobby took on the issue of the Armenian Genocide post-Flotilla.
One wonders how long this Kurdish-Zionist connection will last. When it does collapse, will Goldberg suddenly look forward to blogging about the treatment of Christian minorities by Kurds in Turkey (which is not good)? Or will other Zionist apologists suddenly discover that it was Kurds who did much of the actual killing on the ground in the Armenian Genocide and not Turks?
One wonders.
Russia may lose billions for breaching missile contract with Iran
RIA NOVOSTI | June 30, 2010
Russia’s refusal to deliver S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to Iran means Tehran could turn to China as its main arms supplier, depriving Moscow of a serious source of revenue, a Russian daily suggested on Wednesday.
Moscow said in mid-June it would freeze the delivery of S-300 air-defense systems following a new round of UN sanctions imposed on Tehran on June 9. Security Council Resolution 1929 imposed a fourth set of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, including tougher financial controls and an expanded arms embargo.
According to Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Russia’s losses will amount to the value of the contract plus penalties for breach of contract.
The S-300 contract is worth some $800 million, while Russian experts estimate the penalty for breach of contract at $400 million.
Furthermore, Iran could refuse to buy any more military products from Russia, leading to an estimated loss of $300 million to $500 million a year.
In another indication of a trend that should be worrying to Moscow, experts pointed to Iran’s decision to effectively end cooperation with Russia in the civil aviation sector.
Earlier in June, Iran banned its airlines from using Russian-built Tu-154 airliners on domestic and international routes. In addition, there have been reports of the imminent deportation of Russian pilots because the Islamic Republic already has “enough qualified flight personnel.”
Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi warned on June 22 that Russia would be responsible for the consequences of its failure to deliver S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to Iran.
Russia initially said the delivery of S-300 systems to Iran would not be affected by the new UN sanctions since they are not included in the UN Register of Conventional Arms, but experts from the Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation concluded the missiles did come under the new set of sanctions.
A Kremlin source echoed that opinion on June 11, while Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said it was up to the president to make the final decision.
Moscow signed a contract on supplying Iran with at least five S-300 systems in December 2005, but nothing has been delivered. The United States and Israel have urged Russia not to fulfill the contract.
The advanced version of the S-300 missile system, called S-300PMU1, has a range of over 150 kilometers (over 100 miles) and can intercept ballistic missiles and aircraft at low and high altitudes, making it effective in warding off airstrikes.
World tired of us: Israeli minister
Press TV – July 1, 2010

Israeli Minister of Trade, Industry and Labor, Binyamin Ben-Elezier
Israeli Minister of Trade, Industry and Labor, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, says the world is tired of Israel and that Israel, rather than the Gaza Strip, is actually blockaded.
“We’re not the ones maintaining a blockade. We’re blockaded, utterly isolated. We’re in a situation where the world is tired of us,” the Jewish Daily quoted Ben-Elezier as saying in an interview in the Yediot Ahronot Friday supplement.
“They’re tired of hearing our explanations, of showing empathy for our troubles, even if they’re real troubles. (The world is) Tired of understanding us. This business just isn’t working anymore. After 43 years, nobody wants to hear any more explanations about why this occupation is continuing and how we have nobody to talk to.” Elezier continued.
Born in 1936 in Basra in southern Iraq, Binyamin “Fuad” Ben-Eliezer is the senior leader of the Labor Party’s hawkish wing, a tough-as-nails ex-general and currently the party’s grand old man.
Pressure on Iran ‘over Palestinian issue’
Press TV – June 30, 2010
Iran’s Parliament speaker says the existing Western pressure on the country has its roots in the stance adopted by the Tehran government on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Speaking in a meeting with Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal late Tuesday, Iranian Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani dismissed the ongoing pressure on the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program as politically motivated.
He went on to explain that based on information disclosed by a foreign minister from a country which is a permanent UN Security Council member, if Iran makes a compromise with the West over the Palestinian issue, all pressure will be eliminated.
“Our main problem with you is not over your nuclear dossier. Even if Iran builds a nuclear bomb, we won’t have any problem with it,” Larijani quoted the unnamed foreign minister as saying.
“Our problem with Iran is over the Palestinian-Israeli issue and should we reach an agreement on that we will have no problem with Tehran,” he added.
The Iranian Majlis speaker went on to say that the US has always been exerting pressure on Iran, explaining further that such measures will be to no avail as the Islamic Republic would continue with its nuclear activities.
Larijani made the remarks in reaction to recent US unilateral sanctions on Iran’s energy and banking sectors which came in the wake of the fourth round of Security Council sanctions against Iran’s nuclear activities.
The United States along with its Western allies have been accusing Iran of pursuing military objectives in its nuclear program. Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, rejects the allegation, arguing that its nuclear activities are under the full supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Speaking in another meeting with Secretary General of the Islamic Jihad Movement Ramadan Abdullah Shalah on Tuesday, Larijani said efforts to break the three-year siege of Gaza are the most essential matter in the campaign for supporting the impoverished people of the Palestinian territory.
“Today, the human rights advocates are facing a major test and that is to show how genuine their support for the Palestinian people is,” Larijani said.
Guess Who Wants to Kill the Internet?
It would be hard to think of anyone who has done more to undermine American freedoms than Joseph Lieberman. Since 9/11, the Independent senator from Connecticut has introduced a raft of legislation in the name of the “global war on terror” which has steadily eroded constitutional rights. If the United States looks increasingly like a police state, Senator Lieberman has to take much of the credit for it.
On October 11, 2001, exactly one month after 9/11, Lieberman introduced S. 1534, a bill to establish a Department of Homeland Security. Since then, he has been the main mover behind such draconian legislation as the Protect America Act of 2007, the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, and the proposed Terrorist Expatriation Act, which would revoke the citizenship of Americans suspected of terrorism. And now the senator from Connecticut wants to kill the Internet.
According to the bill he recently proposed in the Senate, the entire global internet is to be claimed as a “national asset” of the United States. If Congress passes the bill, the US President would be given the power to “kill” the internet in the event of a “national cyber-emergency.” Supporters of the legislation say this is necessary to prevent a “cyber 9/11” – yet another myth from the fearmongers who brought us tales of “Iraqi WMD” and “Iranian nukes.”
Lieberman’s concerns about the internet are not new. The United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which Lieberman chairs, released a report in 2008 titled “Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.” The report claimed that groups like al-Qaeda use the internet to indoctrinate and recruit members, and to communicate with each other.
Immediately after the report was published, Lieberman asked Google, the parent company of You Tube, to “immediately remove content produced by Islamist terrorist organizations.” That might sound like a reasonable request. However, as far as Lieberman is concerned, Hamas, Hezbollah and even the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are terrorist organizations.
It’s hardly surprising that Lieberman’s views on what constitute terrorism parallel those of Tel Aviv. As Mark Vogel, chairman of the largest pro-Israel Political Action Committee (PAC) in the United States, once said: “Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions … is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress. There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman.”
Lieberman has been well-rewarded for his patriotism – to another country. In the past six years, he has been the Senate’s top recipient of political contributions from pro-Israel PACs with a staggering $1,226,956.
But what is it that bothers Lieberman so much about the internet? Could it be that it allows ordinary Americans access to facts which reveal exactly what kind of “friend” Israel has been to its overgenerous benefactor? Facts which they have been denied by the pro-Israel mainstream media.
How much faith would American voters have in the likes of Lieberman, who claims that the Jewish state is their greatest ally, if they knew that Israeli agents planted firebombs in American installations in Egypt in 1954 in an attempt to undermine relations between Nasser and the United States; that Israel murdered 34 American servicemen in a deliberate attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967; that Israeli espionage, most notably Jonathan Pollard’s spying, has done tremendous damage to American interests; that five Mossad agents were filming and celebrating as the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, 2001; that Tel Aviv and its accomplices in Washington were the source of the false pre-war intelligence on Iraq; and about countless other examples of treachery?
In his latest attempt to censor the internet, does Lieberman really want to protect the American people from imaginary cyber-terrorists? Or is he just trying to protect his treasonous cronies from the American people?
