The continuing power of Walt & Mearsheimer
By Philip Weiss on May 20, 2010
Ezra Klein has an interesting note about Walt and Mearsheimer. He reports that Jon Chait of the New Republic started writing about Israel because of Walt and Mearsheimer, he was so angry about them; and Klein says he also was drawn into the topic by Walt and Mearsheimer, the Chait-ian reaction against them, which he regarded as “fearful tribalism.” Talk about the power of ideas.
I’m in Klein’s camp. I started writing this blog in March 2006 just before W&M published their incredible paper. I’d finally decided to write about Israel (after avoiding the topic all my life) because of a comment a relative made to me in 2003: “What do you think about this war [Iraq]? I demonstrated against the Vietnam War, but my Jewish newspaper says this war could be good for Israel.” I was shocked and disturbed by the comment. But it was Walt and Mearsheimer who gave me courage. Their bombshell paper echoed the political truth of my relative’s statement. Walt and Mearsheimer said that the neocons, the braintrust for George Bush’s disastrous war, were motivated by Zionism. I remember the day Scott McConnell emailed the paper to me, he had gotten it from Mike Desch that morning, in Texas. The shock of recognition went round the world.
The reaction was vicious. “In Dark Times Blame the Jews,” the Forward wrote at the time, a disgraceful headline. Yivo Institute held a panel to denounce the authors as anti-Semites.
Chait was defensive but Klein is not defensive. And Klein will win. Some day there will be an open conversation inside the Jewish community about the Jewish role in the Iraq war, specifically, ultra-Zionists’ role in selling a policy of permanent war in the Arab world as an American interest. Peter Beinart just further opened the door to this conversation by making it clear that his politics are fueled by Zionism, Beinart who pushed the Iraq war as “the good fight”–a book in whose index the words Israel and Palestine did not appear.
Agree with them or not, Walt and Mearsheimer’s book changed the discourse. They blew the bridge. They opened up a space where no one said you could go. Two realists, they spoke feelingly about the Nakba and the humiliations of the occupation–which all the liberals like Beinart and Ken Pollack and Lawrence Kaplan and Paul Berman had dismissed out of hand.
When their book came out in 2007, I compared it to Silent Spring and Unsafe at Any Speed, and Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. I think that was an understatement.
Pentagon Plan to Beef Up Afghan Base Near Iran May Rile Regime
By Tony Capaccio | Bloomberg | May 21, 2010
A U.S. plan to upgrade its airbase in southwestern Afghanistan just 20 miles from Iran’s border will likely rile the Islamic regime, bolstering suspicions the West is trying to pressure it with military might, analysts say.
The Defense Department is requesting $131 million in its fiscal year 2011 budget to upgrade Shindand Air Base so it can accommodate more commando helicopters, drone surveillance aircraft, fuel and munitions.
Plans to expand the base come as the U.S. works to strengthen the militaries and missile defenses of allies in the region and presses at the United Nations for a new round of sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to curb its nuclear program.
U.S. military officials say the base is only to support U.S. and Afghan military operations in Afghanistan. Iran will likely view the Shindand buildup as another step to squeeze it, said Kenneth Pollack, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
“Whatever U.S. intentions, the Iranian regime will see it as a threat — as another American effort to surround Iran with U.S. military forces,” Pollack said in an interview.
“The Iranians are almost certainly going to assume that a beefed-up intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance presence is really about spying on them,” he said.
Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, shares that view.
“The positioning of the base gives us the opportunity to monitor any efforts by Iran to serve as a sanctuary for anti- government Taliban and allied forces, and to support operations in Iran itself if that were to become necessary,” he said.
Sanctions
The Pentagon planning for Shindand comes as the U.S. is helping to strengthen missile defense systems in Israel and allied nations in the Persian Gulf.
The U.S. Navy is coordinating its ship-borne Aegis missile defense with Israel’s land-based systems, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other top U.S. military officials have encouraged Persian Gulf nations to strengthen and coordinate their individual defenses.
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also are upgrading their air, ground and naval forces, spurred by Iran’s military buildup.
The United Arab Emirates has spent $18 billion since 2008 on U.S.-supplied training, munitions and equipment such as the Patriot missile defense built by Lockheed Martin Corp.
Fighter Jets, Missiles
Saudi Arabia has bought 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets and is in negotiations to buy 24 more. The nation also has bought Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, laser-guided equipment to enhance the accuracy of its air-to-ground missiles, Black Hawk helicopters and U.S. kits to upgrade Apache helicopters and armored personnel carriers.
“We have worked hard in the region to build a network of shared early warning, of ballistic missile defense and of other security relationships,” General David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in the Middle East and Central Asia, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 16.
Strengthening Gulf partners is important because containing Iran “will be a challenge as long as Iran’s theocracy keeps building asymmetric forces, moving towards nuclear capability and using proxies and non-state actors in neighboring states,” Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said.
Asymmetric forces are used in an attempt to offset the capabilities of a more advanced military foe. Iran might deploy speedboats in a swarm to attack U.S. warships, military officials have said.
Containment Strategy
Iran will view the U.S. base expansion and acceleration of “missile defense and other systems in the Gulf states” as part of a containment strategy, said Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst with the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.
The U.S. should be prepared for what could be a vigorous reaction, he said. “‘Iran will almost certainly respond by stepping up weapons shipments to Taliban militants in Herat and Farah provinces, and Tehran might direct these militants to use the assistance to attempt attacks on the airfield,” he said.
Pollack gave a similar warning. “We need to go in with eyes wide open that we could be provoking them,” he said. “We should not be expanding our operations in this area unless we are ready to deal with the potential.”
Michael O’Hanlon, a military analyst for the Brookings Institution who is in Afghanistan, said he heard from U.S. military officials that Shindand is in line for “a limited tactical expansion for Afghan-specific purposes.”
“I think it would be a big mistake to provoke Iran with an airfield actually designed for possible operations there and potentially encourage Tehran to up its involvement in Afghanistan,” O’Hanlon said. “So I am hoping that we have no such designs and doubt that we do in fact.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio at acapaccio@bloomberg.net
When it comes to war with Iran, says Perle, Netanyahu outranks American generals
By Scott McConnell on May 19, 2010
What’s the smoothest path to get the United States into a war with Iran— the nightmare scenario for most people in the military and foreign policy establishment? Iraq war impresario Richard Perle gave an answer while on a panel at the Nixon Center early this week.
Perle was debating Flynt Leverett, and devoting most of his effort to debunk Leverett’s argument that a productive deal could be worked out with the current Teheran government, as useful and strategically necessary as Nixon’s opening to China. But Perle’s main focus is “regime change”—doing to Teheran what we did to Baghdad.
Perle talked much about sanctions. But honestly, it’s hard to conceive that “biting sanctions” backed by no other powers in the world besides Israel and the United States Congress would have much chance of fomenting “regime change” in Tehran. So the real option is military. Perle can’t count on a single American general to talk this up as a desirable idea. But here’s the trick: Israel can get the ball in motion. A former ambassador asked Perle what the United States could do if we became convinced that Israel was about to launch an attack on Iran.
His answer is revealing: “I would hope that if we became persuaded that the Israelis were about to act, whatever we thought of the wisdom of that action, we would consider that the worst of all possible outcomes would be a failed Israeli action. And we would therefore do what we could to see that it didn’t fail. You can change policy very quickly. . . you did not want it to happen, but now it’s gonna happen and suddenly you recalibrate. At least I hope you recalibrate and in the event we might reconsider whether our opposition, carried forward, is helpful or harmful.”
You have to respect Perle for making this all sound wonkish and practical. But it really is kind of breathtaking. The United States should abrogate its own powers of decision-making in an area with tremendous implications for its own physical and economic security and cede them to the current government of Israel—a far right government which includes fascist ministers in key posts. Failure to do so— behaving like Eisenhower for example and telling the Israelis to get the hell out of Suez or their allowance would be cut off– would be “the worst of all possible outcomes.”
Perle is more or less mouthing the lines of Professor Groeteschele in the movie Fail-Safe: “our morals would never have permitted us to launch a first strike, but now that one is in motion, we must take advantage and launch a full scale attack.” But in this case, Bibi Netanhayu gets to play the role of the electronic malfunction that gave the mistaken first strike orders to a bomber command and decide for himself whether to plunge the United States into war. Why? Well of course because “the worst of all outcomes” would be an Israeli attack which doesn’t achieve its goals!
U.S. Says Only Reason for Talks with Iran Is Enrichment Halt
By Gareth Porter* | IPS | May 19, 2010
WASHINGTON – The agreement on draft Security Council resolution sanctions against Iran has grabbed the headlines on the Barack Obama administration’s response to Iran’s nuclear swap proposal brokered by Turkey and Brazil. But the more consequential response is the acknowledgement by the U.S. State Department Monday that the administration is not willing to hold talks with Iran unless it agrees to a complete halt in uranium enrichment.
That announcement was accompanied by the revelation that the objective of the original swap proposal last autumn was to get Iran to agree to eventually to suspend its enrichment programme.
The Obama administration had not previously declared publicly that it was demanding an end to all enrichment by Iran, and had suggested directly and indirectly that it wanted a broader diplomatic engagement with Iran covering issues of concern to both states.
The new hard line ruling out broader diplomatic engagement with Iran and the new light on the strategy behind last year’s swap proposal confirms what has long been suspected – that the debate within the Obama administration last year over whether to abandon the demand for an end to Iranian uranium enrichment as unrealistic had been won by proponents of the zero enrichment demand by late summer 2009.
U.S. State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Monday the United States would not negotiate with Iran on its proposal to send 1,200 kilogrammes of low enriched uranium to Turkey to be replaced with 120 kilogrammes of fuel rods for its Tehran Research Reactor, unless the Iranians agree to take up the broader subject of their nuclear programme – and specifically an end to their uranium enrichment programme.
Responding to a question about the U.S. willingness to meet with Iran on the new proposal, Crowley said, “[I]f it’s willing to engage the P5+1, “then it has to commit that it’s willing to engage the P5+1 on its nuclear programme.”
The P5+1 groups the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany.
Crowley noted that Iran had offered to have discussions with “the international community” but not about its nuclear programme. “[I]n our view, the only reason to have that discussion,” Crowley said, “first and foremost, would be to address our core concerns in the – with regard to Iran’s nuclear programme.”
Crowley revealed for the first time that the original proposal for Iran to swap 1,200 kilogrammes of low enriched uranium for 120 kilogrammes of uranium enriched to nearly 20 percent roughly a year later “was meant as a means to a larger end, which was to get Iran to fundamentally address its – concerns the international community has”.
He went on to explain that “the fact that Iran…continues to enrich uranium and has failed to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, as has been called for in the U.N. Security Council resolutions: that’s our core concern.”
Crowley was clearly suggesting that the talks which were supposed to follow Iran’s acceptance of the deal would be focused on ending its nuclear enrichment programme rather than on addressing the sources of conflict between the United States and Iran.
Last October, the swap proposal was presented as a “confidence building measure” that would gain enough time for a broader diplomatic dialogue between Iran and the United States to take place. It would allow the Obama administration to argue with Israel that Iran had temporarily given up its “breakout capability” by transferring most of its low enriched uranium abroad.
Mohammed ElBaradei, the lame duck director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), declared on Oct. 21 that the swap agreement “could pave the way for a complete normalisation of relations between Iran and the international community”.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly argued, moreover, that the swap proposal implicitly accepted Iran’s right to enrich uranium, although nothing in the proposal addressed that issue.
The history of the swap proposal shows, however, that its origins were intertwined with the objective of halting Iranian uranium enrichment.
Gary Samore, Obama’s chief adviser on nuclear proliferation, devised the swap deal. He had published a paper in December 2008 with co-author Bruce Reidel of the Brookings Institution proposing that the new administration demand that Iran’s LEU be exported to Russia to be converted into fuel rods for the Bushehr reactor in order take away Iran’s nuclear “break-out capability”.
Ironically, it was Ahmadinejad’s public suggestion of interest in a straight commercial deal under which Iran would send LEU to any country that would enrich it to 20 percent for the Tehran Research Reactor that led to the formulation of the swap proposal.
Samore simply shifted the focus of that proposal from Bushehr to the Tehran Research Reactor, and it quickly became a P5+1 initiative to temporarily strip Iran of nearly 80 percent of its low enriched uranium.
Samore was known to be a strong proponent of demanding that Iran end its uranium enrichment programme, who privately expressed certainty that Iran intends to manufacture nuclear weapons. He had publicly expressed pessimism that Iran would accept any proposal demanding an end to enrichment without a credible military threat, whether by the United States or Israel.
Before entering the administration Samore had advocated offering a lifting of economic sanctions, assurances against regime change and even normalisation of relations as inducements to accept that demand.
No Iranian regime could have accepted a complete end to enrichment as part of a deal with the United States, however, because of popular support for the nuclear programme as a symbol of Iran’s technological advancement.
Proponents of the zero enrichment option were confident enough to leak to the press the fact that the aim of broader talks with Iran would be to end enrichment entirely. The Washington Post reported Oct. 22, 2009 that U.S. officials commenting on the proposed uranium swap “stressed that the deal would be only the first step in a difficult process to persuade Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities and that suspension remains the primary goal”.
Now the administration has given up whatever flexibility it had previously retained to adjust its position in the face of a firm Iranian rejection of the zero enrichment demand. That position portends a continuation of high and possibly rising tensions between the United States and Iran for the remainder of Obama’s administration.
*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 2006.
Deal made on Iran sanctions: Clinton
Press TV – May 18, 2010

The US claims to have made an agreement with all veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council on a draft sanctions resolution against Iran.
“We have reached agreement on a strong draft with the cooperation of Russia and China,” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, referring to talks with permanent members of the UN Security Council Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States plus Germany.
Clinton told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the draft would be presented to all 15 members of the Security Council on Tuesday –one day after Iran announced a nuclear declaration following trilateral pro-diplomacy talks with non-permanent UNSC members Brazil and Turkey.
Russia and China have long resisted the US campaign for sanctions and urged other powers to seek a diplomatic solution to the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. Both countries welcomed the nuclear declaration issued by Iran, Turkey and Brazil.
“We attach importance to and support this agreement,” Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said on Tuesday.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev also welcomed the declaration as “the politics of a diplomatic solution.” Moscow has stressed that it would never support sanctions meant to “strangle Iran” or harm the Iranian people.
Iran’s partners in the trilateral talks are both non-permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) opposed to the US-led campaign for slapping tougher UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Despite the declaration that paves the way for the realization of a nuclear fuel swap proposal, the US has rebuffed the Iranian announcement, saying that it will continue efforts to impose a fourth round of sanctions on the Islamic Republic, which it accuses of pursuing a covert military nuclear program.
Tehran rejects the Washington-led accusations, arguing that as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) it has the right to a civilian nuclear program.
Iraq, China, Turkey ink oilfield deal
Press TV – May 17, 2010
Iraq’s oil minister says that his country has signed a deal with China’s CNOOC and Turkey’s TPAO firms to develop a major southern oilfield complex.
“Today is a very important day in the history of Iraqi oil production, with the development of very important fields in Maysan province,” Hussein al-Shahristani was quoted as saying by AFP on Monday.
The two companies agreed to be paid $2.30 per barrel of oil extracted from the Maysan fields, which has proven reserves of 2.6 billion barrels of oil, the report said.
Under the deal, output is projected to be ramped up to 450,000 barrels per day (bpd), compared to current production of around 100,000 bpd.
Iraq will have a 25-percent stake in the overall project. The remaining 75 percent will be shared in a 85 to 15 percent ration between the Chinese firm and TPAO respectively.
Since last year, Iraq has signed a total of eleven agreements with international oil companies to develop its vast oil reserves.
Once competed, the projects will allow Iraq to have crude production capacity of 12 million barrels per day in six to seven years.
Iran’s declaration on nuclear swap deal
Iran, Turkey agree on nuclear swap deal
Press TV – May 17, 2010
Tehran has agreed to a draft proposal whereby Iran will ship its domestic low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for 20 percent enriched uranium in return.
After several hours of intense negotiations on Monday, the trilateral meeting between Iran, Brazil and Turkey ends with Tehran agreeing to send some 1,200 kilograms of its 3.5 percent enriched uranium over to Turkey in exchange for a total of 120 kilogram of 20 percent enriched uranium, Press TV reported.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki read the ten-point detailed deceleration on the nuclear swap deal at a press conference held in the Iranian capital Tehran.
1. We reaffirm our commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and in accordance with the related articles of the NPT, recall the right of all state parties, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy (as well as nuclear fuel cycle including enrichment activities) for peaceful purposes without discrimination.
2. We express our strong conviction that we have the opportunity now to begin a forward looking process that will create a positive, constructive, non-confrontational atmosphere leading to an era of interaction and cooperation.
3. We believe that the nuclear fuel exchange is instrumental in initiating cooperation in different areas, especially with regard to peaceful nuclear cooperation including nuclear power plant and research reactors construction.
4. Based on this point, the nuclear fuel exchange is a starting point to begin cooperation and a positive constructive move forward among nations. Such a move should lead to positive interaction and cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities replacing and avoiding all kinds of confrontation through refraining from measures, actions and rhetorical statements that would jeopardize Iran’s rights and obligations under the NPT.
5. Based on the above, in order to facilitate the nuclear cooperation mentioned above, the Islamic Republic of Iran agrees to deposit 1200 kilograms LEU in Turkey. While in Turkey this LEU will continue to be the property of Iran. Iran and the IAEA may station observers to monitor the safekeeping of the LEU in Turkey.
6. Iran will notify the IAEA in writing through official channels of its agreement with the above within seven days following the date of this declaration. Upon the positive response of the Vienna Group (US, Russia, France and the IAEA) further details of the exchange will be elaborated through a written agreement and proper arrangement between Iran and the Vienna Group that specifically committed themselves to deliver 120 kilograms of fuel needed for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR).
7. When the Vienna Group declares its commitment to this provision, then both parties would commit themselves to the implementation of the agreement mentioned in item 6. The Islamic Republic of Iran expressed its readiness to deposit its LEU (1200 kilograms) within one month. On the basis of the same agreement the Vienna Group should deliver 120 kilograms fuel required for TRR in no later than one year.
8. In case the provisions of this Declaration are not respected, Turkey, upon the request of Iran, will return swiftly and unconditionally Iran’s LEU to Iran.
9. We welcome the decision of the Islamic Republic of Iran to continue as in the past their talks with the 5+1 countries in Turkey on the common concerns based on collective commitments according to the common points of their proposals.
10. Turkey and Brazil appreciated Iran’s commitment to the NPT and its constructive role in pursuing the realization of nuclear rights of its member states. The Islamic Republic of Iran likewise appreciated the constructive efforts of the friendly countries Turkey and Brazil in creating the conducive environment for realization of Iran’s nuclear rights.
###
Turkey sees “no need” for further UN sanctions against Iran after this deal, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu told reporters. “This agreement should be regarded positively and there is no need for sanctions now that we (Turkey and Brazil) have made guarantees and the low enriched uranium will remain in Turkey,” he said.
Lies and Forgeries on Iran´s Nuclear Program

by Toles

By Yusuf Fernandez | Al-Manar TV* | May 14, 2010
Nowadays, everyone knows that the US invaded and occupied Iraq through lies, which were echoed by US mass media. These media projected lies as corroborated facts. A large part of this information, including the discredited claim that Iraq wanted to acquire uranium from Niger, came from Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, two pro-Israeli neocons. With the White House’s support, they created the so-called Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon in 2001 in order to collect and spread disinformation and lies that could be used to “justify” the invasion of Iraq. After the invasion, the Office was disbanded. Admitted spy for Israel Larry Franlkin worked at the OSP.
Now, history is repeating. The US has accused Iran, without any evidence, of deviating from peaceful goals in its nuclear program. Any progress in Tehran´s program is denounced as a new effort in this sense. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not found any proof of a nuclear military program in Iran.
The US authorities have not refrained from using fake documents in its anti-Iran campaign. They were accused of presenting fabricated papers to French courts in order to support their demand for extradition of Majid Kakavand, an Iranian engineer who was detained in France in March 2009 at the request of the US authorities, which demanded his extradition for allegedly breaching the US embargo against Iran.
Recently, he was acquitted of all charges brought against him in France and vowed to take legal action against US authorities. “Given that I have spent fourteen months in jail on false charges, it is my legal right to sue US authorities as soon as possible,” said Kakavand, who arrived in Tehran, IRNA reported. Kakavand´s advocate Diane Francois said that some of the documents included e-mail copies with attachments that did not have corresponding dates concluding that the documents were falsified, reported Expatica.com on March 31.
Iran, for its part, had demanded Kakavand´s immediate release. On March 16, Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said: “The innocence of (Majid) Kakavand is evident and we urge France not to be trapped in American propaganda and release him.”
US propaganda has also spread rumors about an alleged Iranian plan to build ballistic missiles capable of striking the United States in five years. However, Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi has rejected the reports. The intention behind these allegations is clear: to persuade the US public that the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has never attacked another country – except when it was invaded by Saddam Hussein´s army in the 1980-88 war, is a “threat” to the US.
While the US and Western countries have reacted with suspicion to Iran’s development of new deterrent missiles, Tehran has made it clear that its missile capabilities only serve defensive purposes against a possible attack. Actually, the US stance is completely hypocritical. It threatens Iran with a military attack and at the same time it considers any Iranian military development as a “threat”.
Washington and its allies are trying to boost their campaign for sanctions in the international media. In this framework, the British daily ‘Times’ published on December 14, 2009 a story that claimed that Iranian scientists had conducted experiments into neutron sources aimed at producing the trigger for a nuclear bomb. The report was based on an undated two-page document in Farsi (Persian) that according to unnamed “foreign intelligence agencies” would have been written in early 2007. The Times did not mention the source of the document, but it quoted “an Asian intelligence source” – a term some media outlets use for Israeli intelligence officials.
The document was intended to be used as a possible pretext for war. International Institute for Strategic Studies analyst Mark Fitzpatrick told The Times: “The most shattering conclusion is that, if this was an effort that began in 2007, it could be a casus belli. If Iran is working on weapons, it means there is no diplomatic solution.” The story of the alleged Iranian document provoked a new round of expressions of US and European support for tougher sanctions against Iran.
The article had all the signs of a fabricated story designed to generate public concern about Iran´s nuclear program. It also sought to undermine a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) issued by US intelligence agencies in late 2007 that concluded that Iran had put an end to any military nuclear program in 2007. The 2007 NIE was harshly criticized in the US and Israel by those promoting tougher measures, including military attacks, against Iran.
Tehran dismissed the claims as “baseless”. Like other reports provided to the IAEA by Western intelligence services that supposedly revealed Iran’s weapons documents, there were lots of doubts about the authenticity of this one. It is noteworthy to point out that that key documents used by the Bush government to justify its invasion of Iraq in March 2003 -involving Baghdad´s alleged acquisition of uranium in Niger- were proven to be forgeries.
Soon, the hallmarks of a forgery could be seen. Analyst Gareth Porter exposed three of them in an article published by IPS and other outlets with the title of “New Revelations Tear Holes in Nuclear Trigger Story”:
First of all, a columnist for the Times acknowledged that the document published by the newspaper was not a photocopy of the original document but an expurgated and retyped version of the original. A translation of a second document also published by the Times contradicted the claim by the newspaper itself that the “nuclear trigger” document had been written within an organization run by an Iranian military scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.
Secondly, George Maschke, whose specialty is Near Eastern languages and culture, pointed out: “This allegedly Iranian document was composed on a computer that evidently lacked Persian (Farsi)- the Iranian national language- resources. It is readily apparent that the document was composed using Arabic and not Persian letters. For example the Arabic letter corresponding to the English “y” is ي
In Persian, however, the dots are always omitted when the letter appears at the end of the word.”
Thirdly, the subject of the document would be highly classified under any state’s security system. Yet there is no confidentiality marking on the document, as can be seen from the photograph of the original published by the Times.
Iran insisted that Fakhrizadeh had procured the technologies in question for nonmilitary uses by various components of the Imam Hussein University, where he was a lecturer.
IPS also quoted [former] Central Intelligence Agency official Philip Giraldi, who said that US intelligence judges the “nuclear trigger” document to be a forgery. The IPS story also pointed out that the document lacked both security markings and identification of either the issuing organization or the recipient. Giraldi, who was a CIA counterterrorism official from 1976 to 1992, told Gareth Porter that intelligence sources had pointed out that the United States had nothing to do with forging the document, and that Israel is the primary suspect. The sources did not rule out a British role in the fabrication either.
Porter indicated that The Times “is part of a Murdoch publishing empire that includes the Sunday Times, Fox News and the New York Post. All Murdoch-owned news media report on Iran with an aggressively pro-Israeli slant.” “The Rupert Murdoch chain has been used extensively to publish false intelligence from the Israelis and occasionally from the British government,” Giraldi said.
Porter concludes his report claiming that “after reviewing documentation submitted by Iran and verifying some of its assertions by inspection on the spot, the IAEA concluded in its February 22, 2008, report that Iran’s explanation for Fakhrizadeh´s role in obtaining the items had been truthful after all.”
Another stage of the anti-Iranian campaign started last year after Tehran announced the existence of the Qom enrichment plant, situated within a mountain, which would assure continuation of enrichment if the Natanz Enrichment Plant were attacked. Washington immediately claimed that Iran had been working in the plant for several years and it was an evidence of a covert military nuclear program. Obama called the second enrichment facility “a direct challenge to the basic foundation of the non-proliferation regime”, saying Iran had broken “rules that all nations must follow”.
In November and after IAEA inspectors had visited the Qom site, former Director General Mohamed ElBaradei commented that they had found “nothing to be worried about” and that the facility was indeed a backup to the Natanz plant as Iran had maintained. “It is a hole in a mountain,” ElBaradei said.
Some Western media have also reproduced the fabricated story about an alleged Iraqi attempt to acquire uranium in Niger -which was used before the invasion of Iraq by then US Vice President Dick Cheney to justify the war- but changing this time some of the players: Iran instead of Iraq and Zimbabwe instead of Niger. On April 25, a report published in the British daily Daily Telegraph claimed that a deal had been reached between Iran and Zimbabwe. According to the agreement, Zimbabwe would allow Iran to mine Zimbabwean uranium reserves in exchange of the African country´s access to Iranian oil.
The report said that the agreement was sealed secretly last month during a visit to Tehran by a close aide to Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe. Britain and other Western powers have passed sanctions against Zimbabwe and have showed their support for a regime change in this country.
Industry and Commerce Minister Welshman Ncube rejected the report, saying there was no evidence suggesting that Zimbabwe had such deposits. “It is not true. No such agreement was signed,” said Ncube.
The story was published some days after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad paid an official visit to Zimbabwe last week. During his visit, he met his counterpart Robert Mugabe, attended the official opening of Zimbabwe’s International Trade Fair and signed a number of trade and cooperation agreements in the areas of banking, finance and insurance. The Iranian president told reporters before his departure that the visit came as part of his government´s plan to consolidate ties with African countries.
*Additional editing by Aletho News
America Held Hostage: Year 62
By Sina Alavi | Payvand News | 05.14.10
“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” -Thomas Jefferson
We are approaching another ominous anniversary in American History without anyone acknowledging it- not even a peep from the mainstream media. When Iranian students took hostages in Tehran and kept them for 444 days, for those of us who remember those terrible days know that the Media reported for hours about that ordeal on daily basis- and there was no Fox News and CNN. But, this ominous anniversary has nothing to do with Iran. To learn about this ongoing ordeal, we need to go back in time- more than 60 years.
It’s been over 65 years since President Franklin Roosevelt, on his way back home from the Big Three Conference at Yalta, met with King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia onboard US warship in Suez Canal. It was aboard Warship USS Quincy where FDR promised King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia that there will be no Israel. Little did he know, after his death- which came about in a few weeks after this meeting- this promise would be interpreted as a personal promise not as a heads of the state promise and in a short few years of his death Israel would be established. King Abdul Aziz even rejected creation of Israel in Libya and felt it would be unfair to North African Muslims. Of course, all this changed once FDR died in the arms of his long time lover Lucy Mercer.
For Truman it took 20 minutes to recognize the state of Israel when it declared independence in 1948. He did so in the face of opposition from the top U.S. diplomats and military officials that guided its foreign policy in 1947 and were opposed to the idea of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine and pressed then-President Harry Truman not to recognize the new state, arguing that such a move would harm the U.S. position in the Arab Middle East. But, this was a welcoming opportunity for a Christian Zionist to endorse the postwar partition of Palestine and recognize the new Jewish state there. And of course, let’s not forget his whistle-stop train campaign that was greased by hundreds of thousands of dollars from Zionists.
Even though, Truman referred to New York City as “Kike town” and at one point he made the remark: “The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as displaced persons as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog.” For Truman, it was a religious obligation as a christian Zionist- he saw himself as an instrument to fulfill the covenant. This uneducated President who was handpicked to become senator in 1934 by the corrupt Missouri Democrat Mobs, controlled by Tom Pendergast, had no idea that he was making the gravest mistake of his life and began a captivity of the US Government with no end in sight.
This was Truman’s second big mistake after dropping the bombs on Japan. This loony religious zealot threatened countries around the world by dropping the big one. This product of corrupt Democratic Party recognoized an enclave of violent Jewish extremists soon after they ethnically cleansed 400-plus Palestinian villages. There is no question dropping the bombs on Japan was the most horrifying action in history of mankind, but recognizing the Zionist regime was basically turning America over to the Zionist regime. It is almost like walking in the captivity cell with your own feet and locking yourself up and handing over the keys to the captors. No one will ever forget the horror of the bombs, but it is an event that took place and is recorded in history books. Recognizing Israel is not a one-time event, it is not like recognizing Liberia or Mali as a nation, this was the beginning of horror to come. Not a day goes by that we are not reminded of this ongoing torture- be it Madoff on Wall Street or Rahm Emanual, whose father was a terrorist in ethnic cleansing, on Pennsylvania Avenue.
This was a great achievement for Israel to be recognized by the U.S., Zionists had used England in the first half of the 20th century as a stepping stone to get to this point. With England serving its purpose in helping to establish Israel- having been a great host for close to three centuries and the fact Churchill handily destroyed British Empire; it was time to move on to the next host.
Truman left the office disgraced and with the least popularity numbers as a President, only George Bush Jr may come close to that. This unpopularity had nothing to do with Israel. The numbers would have been worse if Americans knew what Truman had done to their country. But, it was 1953 and Ike was the President. Everyone was giddy about Korean War being wrapped up- as soon as negotiators could decide on the shape of the negotiating table- oval or rectangle- America is about to roll into nifty fifties.
It was during the Ike years that Israelis were able to define their policies towards the U.S.. One of the defining moments came in 1956, when France, England, and Israel invaded Egypt- what’s known as Tripartite Invasion- the intent of the invasion was to gain back control of Suez Canal. It did not take long for Eisenhower to issue an ultimatum to these countries to back off. Reluctantly, they retreated from Suez Canal, but it is well known Israelis implemented a scorched earth policy as they retreated to their enclave.
It was after this war that England decided to follow and support U.S. policies no matter what- hence, lapdog policy. France decided to oppose U.S. policies where they can. And, Israel decided they need to take control of U.S. Foreign policy. During the Suez crisis Eisenhower refused to meet American Jewish leaders who were trying to influence U.S. foreign policy.
This crisis also was the turning point for America to take control of the old English and French colonies and make them satellite states to the U.S. Government. A step that turned the U.S. from a republic to an empire building power.
During these years Israel was trying to plant the seeds of control inside and outside of the U.S.. This meant resorting to any means to establish themselves in American Society. From Miami Beach, New York Jewish Mob- whom to this date are operating and use Israel as base of their operation- to infiltrating into the Government, Financial Institutions, and Schools.
David Ben-Gurion also ordered bombing of American and British offices in Egypt using sleeper cells, local Jews, to cause friction between Egypt and the Western powers. This operation is known as Lavon Affair. Israel honored these terrorists as heroes. To this day, Israel employs any means to keep their influence over the U.S.. Jews had never forgotten that during the Second World War, the U.S. government would not take any action that might have impeded the slaughter of European Jews.
Hearing anti-Semitic speeches of public officials such as Representative John Rankin of Mississippi on the floor of Congress in the 50’s, made Israelis more resolved to take over the Congress.
As with any nation resisting external forces and foreign values, Americans were trying to fend off these advances. Elite universities including Harvard, Yale, and Princeton maintained quotas limiting Jewish enrollments seeing a backlash to the take over by Jews of the school system. It is similar to the resistance seen in old England. In Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, he introduces a character named Shylock who is a Jewish usurer who lends money to his Christian rival, Antonio, setting the bond at a pound of Antonio’s flesh. Looking at the Financial institution and their interest rate, Antonio probably got a good deal.
One of the major tools used to keep America hostage in the hands of Zionist started in the 50’s. With the help of France, Israel started working on the Nuclear Bomb. This also gave France a chance to take a shot at U.S. standing in the world. This work was done in secret and the U.S. was not aware of this fact until years later.
Eisenhower, the war hero, did not think of the Israeli threat much and he managed them like any other foreign country and he was more preoccupied with the Communist threat. This gave Israel and its supporters time to lay the ground for later stages.
Israel and its supporters had a hard time in Kennedy’s era. One of the plausable theories on JFK’s assassination is that Jacob Rubenstein, known as Jack Ruby, who killed JFK’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, wanted to silence Oswald and Ruby took the fall for the Israeli Jewish Mob. He basically eliminated the President who was not very friendly to Israel.
As a second act, Robert Kennedy was assassinated by a “Palestinian” named Sirhan Sirhan who claimed that he was angry at Robert Kennedy for his support of Israel. The ironic part of the story is that a few years earlier Robert Kennedy had ordered to list an organization named the American Zionist Council (AZC) as an Israeli foreign agent since the Department of Justice discovered the AZC had secretly received millions of Dollars in Israeli funds to build a domestic lobby and conduct public relations in the United States for arms, aid, and preferential diplomatic treatment. At the end, the AZC managed to file a partial activity declaration covering only three months as opposed to many years of lobbying for Israel. They also managed to assure that the names of all the recipients receiving payment from Israel be kept secret. Soon after that AZC changed its name to AIPAC. This is how the AIPAC as we know it came to existence with members in every walk of life from Wolf Blitzer to Rahm Emanuel. It is the same AIPAC that everyone in the Government must answer to. As recently as March, 2010, when Hillary Clinton was summoned to explain U.S. comments on the new East Jerusalem Jewish settlements.
In short, the Kennedys were eliminated by Israel because of the trouble they caused them. Meanwhile, Israel and France had completed the development of Nuclear Bombs. Eisenhower and Kennedy tried to question and stop Israeli on Nuke development but they were ignored and outmaneuvered by Zionists. America was about to be put on the Shackle for unforeseeable future. Having Nuclear Bombs meant the last nail was driven in the coffin of America’s independence and freedom. From that point on the U.S. was taken hostage as a full fledge chained nation and not a single decision would be made before evaluating the benefits for Zionists.
In the era of LBJ, this imprisonment was tested. It was during the Six-Day war on June 8, 1967 when Israeli jet fighters attacked the USS Liberty and killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and a civilian). The interesting fact is that this ship was a Navy technical research ship. But, it did present a perfect case for Israeli’s to demonstrate that the U.S. cannot do anything about it- retaliation was out of the question. The message was sent to Washington. Washington was in bondage. This incident was the harbinger of the domination of Israeli’s over America. The capitulation was complete.
Starting with the Nixon administration, more and more Zionists infiltrated the political systems in America and directed the policies of current administration. Almost every President after Nixon, including Nixon, made their disgust known about the Zionists except Clinton and Obama, but that’s all they could do, just show their true feelings through words not actions. Nixon once said, “The Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards.”
It was in Lyndon Johnson and Nixon’s time that with the help of Kissinger Mossad agents stole 200 pounds of highly enriched uranium from a nuclear fuel processing plant in Pennsylvania enough material to make ten nuclear bombs. It was also during the Nixon Administration that the U.S. Government agreed to shield the Israelis from nuclear scrutiny, without asking for anything in return. Lyndon Johnson was described by Prime Minister Golda Meir as “the best friend Israel ever had,” and Nixon agreed in 1969 to endorse “constructive ambiguity” as a means for Tel Aviv to obscure its nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile the Zionists used the threat of the Nukes to seize the land they sought for expansion.
Up to then Zionists had only succeeded in bringing the U.S. Government to its knees, the bigger and more important task was at hand- that was to bring American people under their control and place the yoke of control around their necks without them knowing- Americans are proud people, they would never allow anybody to do that to them- they would rather die before they would take any of this- just take a look at New Hampshire motto- “Live Free or Die”. But, Submission of the US Government to Israel paved the way for the Zionists to have their way with American people. To bring the mass population into compliance, the effort had to be multi-pronged and comprehensive, it had to cover all aspects of American life- social, political, education, entertainment, spiritual, Financial, industrial, and whatever Americans cared for.
And that’s when the wheels of infiltration started turning. The two most important segments that Zionist focused on in the decade of 70’s were politics and religion. They already had great success in social, education, and various industries including entertainment. The Zionist mob since the 1930’s had invested in Hollywood and other entertainment venues from TV networks to Movie studios, even to this day they are the biggest owner of gambling and Porn in America. And, in the 60’s, they modified the norms of society to a more pregnable form for decades to come. The same with the education system, by the 1960s, Jews already constituted 20% of the faculty of elite universities and 40% of the professors of elite law schools; today, these percentages are much higher and this has nothing to do with smarts but it has to do with every un-American practice and value one can imagine.
Still the toughest nuts to crack were politics and religion. Gradually, in Nixon’s Administration the Zionists started to take over. One the best positions in any administration was to be in the team of speechwriters. It is almost like putting words in the mouth of the President. The best example was when George Bush Junior uttered the words, Axis of evil, which was written by a Canadian Zionist David Frum. Poor Bush had no idea what he was saying- or even more recently when Obama, a Black President, used a racist reference to call Israel, “the jewish state of Israel, a reference that even Truman a Christian Zionist President refrained to use.
One of the most despicable speechwriters of all time started with Nixon’s administration. William Safire was so opinionated that when Carter refused to bomb Iran, he considered it the biggest defeat of his life. Safire did not stop there, he wanted to bomb El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iraq, and any entity which had the remotest dislike towards Israel.
One of the major components of the Zionist arsenal was created during the Nixon era but in the Democratic Party. At this juncture Republicans were hawkish enough for Zionists and Zionists were influencing the Republican agenda with ease. The real challenge was to transform the Democratic Party into a hawkish Party. The game plan for the Zionists was to have both parties under control so it would not matter which Party is running the Government. A revealing example was the 2008 Senate election for Minnesota whe candidate Norm Coleman, the Republican incumbent was running against carpet bagger Al Franken. This is in a state in which only Fifty thousand Jews live. The Minnesotans were taken for a ride of their life watching a circus election which brought them no respect.
After the defeat of McGovern, who was representing a milder and more humane face of Democratic Party in 1972, which was influenced by 60’s so-called social justice movement- which is another ploy in the Zionist game plan- the Zionist elements decided to redefine the Democratic Party to send the McGovern era into oblivion. The conduit to create a more hawkish Democratic Party was a pro-Israeli senator named Henry (Scoop) Jackson. Among the Zionist agents who surrounded Scoop Jackson were Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Irving Kristol, Norman Podoretz, Frank Gaffney. This was the start of neo-conservatism which emerged in the Clinton and Bush era with full force. This group of people later split from the Democratic Party claiming that Democrats are still not hawkish enough and infiltrated the Republican Party. The 2003 invasion of Iraq and the lies leading to this invasion were the work of Richard Perle, Prince of darkness, and rest of the neo-con gang of the Republican Party. The ones that remained in the Democratic Party took control of the Party a few years later in the Clinton era. The neo-cons showed that they have no party loyalty and they go where the power is.
Interesting note on these neo-cons is that most of them were Trotskyite Socialist.
The short-lived Ford Administration following the disgraceful exit of Nixon did not make any significant changes to the presence of Zionists in his Administration. Somewhat meaningful change came in Carter Administration where Carter excluded the neo-libs from his Administration but did employ ardent Zionists in his Administration. Carter gave enough reason for most neo-cons to move towards Republican Party.
The seventies was the decade that Christian Zionism was reaching new heights with the help of Israelis who lived in America and sounded and acted like Americans. Benjamin Netanyahu who practically grew up in the US was very active in making Christian Zionsim a mainstream political force in America. Leaders such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and many others were instrumental, with the help of Israel, to have a strong say in political arena. The best example of this influence was the re-election of Bush in 2004. America has come from being a ‘Christian country’ to a political label of ‘ Judeo-Christian country’. This was done with tremendous efforts by Zionists inside and outside of the U.S.. With this accomplishment, it was quite manageable to bring the mass population into compliance. Engraining Judeo-Christian in the religious psyche of Americans would have a lasting effect to manipulate the American way of thinking.
It was in the Reagan era that the Zionists found the opportune time to propagate through the American industries and at the same time continue with their machinations in the foreign affairs. While they took credit for the success of Reagan in the Cold War period, they were more active on the home front as America was busy paying attention to the Iran-Contra affair, Mr.’s Reagan-Gorbachev Romance, and Russia in Afghanistan. Even though one of their neo-con cohort, Elliott Abrams, was caught in Iran-Contra affair, they did not slow down. As with Mr. Abrams, he was granted a Presidential pardon by George H.W. Bush, and he continues with his evil acts to this day.
Along with penetration into the main stream American industries and high business growth in Israel which was financed by American Tax payers, the American Zionists were able to pass a law in 1985, Israel Free Trade Implementation Act, to open a wide trade door to Israeli companies to give them a preferential treatment even over their American counterpart. This was a huge success for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and AIPAC which worked on this legislation for two years. Even though, the FBI became involved in investigating the role of AIPAC in this legislation but as always nothing favorable came out of this for American people.
This gave small Israeli companies a tremendous exposure to the Huge US market. With the help of the a sellout Congress, these Israeli companies were allowed to even get into the government contracts. This of course was another step in the destruction of the manufacturing base in US and weakening the US in the consumer market and pushing them even further towards more military industries and further away from what a true America stood for. But, Israelis knew too well that only an economy based on military expansion and low moral values can guarantee the security of Israel.
With the start of the Bush 41 presidency, everything looked favorable for Zionists. With collapse of Soviet Union, they had focused on shaping this President’s term as a neo-con launch pad- they had even worked the phrase “New World Order” in the President’s speech. It was high time for neo-cons when the elder Bush went after Saddam to “free” Kuwait in 1991, but soon after that things got sour for the neo-cons when Bush Senior tried to put America’s weight behind settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, many neo-cons decided to give the Democratic Party a second chance. Interesting enough Bush Senior became a one term President. He would be the last President from pre baby boomer generation. It was time for neo-cons to focus on a new breed of Presidents- the baby boomer generation.
In comes the slick willie, with neo-cons honing in on a charming southerner, they signed on as advisers to Bill Clinton to help him out in his bid for the White House. Clinton was able to even bring on more neo-con and Zionists into his circle when he met Rahm Emanuel- the same king whisperer for Obama, who introduced Bill Clinton to all the influential Zionists in the East Coast and the West Coast. Bill Clinton’s Presidency was the high point for the Zionists in the American Political system. The entry gained by the Zionist would permanently open the doors to foreign forces with no regard to American interests. Bill Clinton’s price for America was very cheap. He sold America to Israelis for only personal gains. From his sex scandals to all his shady financial dealings the Zionists were right in the middle of it. When George Soros was designing the disintegration of Yugoslavia, Bill Clinton was very open to Balkan Massacre as long as he would benefit from it. His Administration was infested with corrupt Zionists. His became the Administration which had the most Zionists in key positions- only to be topped by Obama’s administration. He had basically turned over the responsibility of running America to Zionist and Israelis. It was in his Presidency that the Trio of Greenspan, Summers, and Rubin set the stage for the collapse of the Commodity and the Housing markets in later years. Then again, Clinton simply did not care- it was more important for him to personally benefit from his presidency. His Secretary of Treasury Rubin alone made Clinton close to $500 million. Of Course, Mr. Rubin himself did very nice while he was destroying CitiBank and destroying America’s livelihoods.
Zionist failure to place one of their own, Joe Lieberman, along with a clueless Gore in the White House meant they needed to change strategy and gain ground with incompetent George Bush’s administration. Even though it was harder for the older socialist neo-cons who thrived under the Democratic administration, they managed to infiltrate into Bush’s administration through external thinkthanks and position themselves as advisors. Younger neo-cons were more open to change and be part of the administration such as Wolfowitz and Perle and operate within the Administration.
What neo-cons had in the cards for George Bush was anticipated years ago- around when Israel was created. In 1948, a Joint Chiefs paper titled “Force Requirements for Palestine” predicted that the “Zionist strategy will seek to involve the US in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.”
The 911 event was the catalyst to involve the U.S. in an unending adventurism which would only benefit Israel at the expense of American lives and liberty. The deconstruction phase of America by Zionists which had begun with the Clinton administration was now in full swing. Election of Obama only solidified the position of the Zionists in the Government- with Obama having the most members in his cabinet who hold Israeli Passports. These people consider the Constitution a ‘piece of paper’ which has no bearing on what America stands for. As Rahm Emanuel said once- Constitution is way overrated. What we are witnessing is the zenith of the deconstruction of America. America may have a lot of problems, but it does not deserve this. For the past sixty plus years America has been misled and hijacked and held hostage with this foreign entity wishing only the worst for America. The Deconstruction phase of this tragedy will be examined in detail to help us understand current affairs in America.
‘US attack on Iran highly unlikely’
Press TV – May 15, 2010
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the potential of a military confrontation between the Islamic Republic and the US as highly unlikely.
In an exclusive interview conducted by the Al Jazeera network on Friday, Ahmadinejad stated that no country has the power to confront Iran, and added that Tehran advocates diplomacy as the ideal way to deal with international issues, the Fars news agency reported.
Ahmadinejad said Iran does not even take Israel into account and noted that Tel Aviv is not able to wage a war against the Islamic Republic.
He went on to say that Western countries occupied Iraq and Afghanistan in an effort to protect the “Zionist regime” and asked how a regime that itself needs protection could wage a war on Iran.
On the deteriorating relations between Tehran and the West, Ahmadinejad said Western countries don’t have problems only with Iran but actually have problems with every country.
The Iranian president also asked if any government or people is at peace with them.
Not only are the Islamic and Middle Eastern countries dissatisfied with Western governments but even the people of Europe are dissatisfied with them, he added.
The Iranian president noted that the same is true in the US and the main reason is the West’s greed.
Governments and peoples around the globe no longer tolerate discrimination and hegemonistic policies, he stated.
“Relations must be based on mutual respect. This is not just the word of Iran but the word of all nations,” he stated.
Obama wants US taxpayers to pay for an Israeli ‘defense’ scam
By Paul Woodward on May 14, 2010

Israel’s newly developed “Iron Dome” missile defense shield will supposedly provide vital protection from rocket attacks from Gaza or Lebanon.
The system’s manufacturer, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, says:
The Iron dome is a cost effective system that can handle multiple threats simultaneously and efficiently [and] has been selected by the Israeli Defense Ministry as the best system offering the most comprehensive defense solution against a wide range of threats in a relatively short development cycle and at low cost.
Israel receives $3 billion annually in military aid from US taxpayers, so you’d imagine that the Israeli government would allocate some of that generous aid to pay for Iron Dome. No, instead President Obama just agreed that we should chip in an extra $205 million because Iron Dome “addresses an immediately existing threat to each Israeli citizen,” a senior administration official said.
But while Israel isn’t willing to cover the cost of deploying this system, it is already looking at opportunities to sell it to NATO.
As for the “low cost” the manufacturers tout, perhaps what they mean is that it will be a low cost for Israelis so long as its paid for by Americans. Whether the system would have any real value — that’s a completely different question.
Some of the harshest criticism of the system comes from inside Israel where Tel Aviv University professor and noted military analyst Reuven Pedatzur charged that despite the well-known ineffectiveness of Iron Dome and other missile defense systems, “for the aeronautics and defense industries, it’s a matter of money; and for politicians, supporting such projects allows them to tell the public that they’re doing something, they’re trying to find answers to the threats we face.”
“The Iron Dome is all a scam,” he said. “The flight-time of a Kassam rocket to Sderot is 14 seconds, while the time the Iron Dome needs to identify a target and fire is something like 15 seconds. This means it can’t defend against anything fired from fewer than five kilometers; but it probably couldn’t defend against anything fired from 15 km., either.”
Added Pedatzur: “Considering the fact that each Iron Dome missile costs about $100,000 and each Kassam $5, all the Palestinians would need to do is build and launch a ton of rockets and hit our pocketbook.
The David’s Sling is even worse, he said. “Each one of its missiles costs $1 million, and Hizbullah has well over 40,000 rockets. This issue has no logic to it whatsoever.”
Obama Seeks $205 Million ‘special assistance’ for Israel Iron Dome System
The money comes on top of annual US assistance to Israel
Al-Manar TV – 14/05/2010
The budgetary difficulty that has been delaying Israel’s armament with the anti-missile defense system Iron Dome has apparently been resolved. The Pentagon has issued a message to Israel’s Defense Ministry that U.S. President Barack Obama has approved the transfer of special assistance totaling $205 million for the purchase of more than ten Iron Dome batteries.
The Iron Dome missile defense system aced a test run in January, an event that convinced senior defense officials that the defense system was on its way to becoming operational and that it will be able to effectively protect against short-range missiles, such as Katyushas and Qassams, which often hit Israeli settlements.
Produced by Israeli state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., Iron Dome uses small radar-guided missiles to blow up rockets with ranges of between 5 kilometers and 70 kilometer, as well as mortar bombs, in mid-air.
However, the plan was not allotted an adequate budget. The Israel Defense Forces ducked away from funding the project with its budget, explaining that offensive readiness was a higher priority, and the Defense Ministry has been looking for other budgetary avenues. Among other things, Israel has struck a deal with an unnamed eastern Asian country (Singapore, according to a recent report in a French magazine) to participate in the funding of future phases in the project.
Israel has recently raised the possibility that the U.S. assist in funding the project by transferring a sum of money beyond the U.S. annual defense assistance. The request was reviewed closely during Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s last visit to Washington earlier this month, and during talks between Barak and Obama and other senior American defense officials.
Its development was spurred by the 2006 Lebanon war and the Gaza Strip war a year ago. In both cases, Israeli towns within reach of short-range rockets were in some respects defenseless.
“The president recognizes the threat missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah pose to Israelis, and has therefore decided to seek funding from Congress to support the production of Israel’s short range rocket defense system called Iron Dome,” White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said.
Two Iron Dome batteries are under construction, an Israeli defense official said in February. Designed to be towed by vehicle, they will be available for any Israeli front at a few hours’ notice.
Bryan Whitman, Pentagon spokesman, said it was the first direct US investment in the Iron Dome system. “This funding will expand what they can produce and deploy, and how quickly they’re able to do it,” he said. The decision was made to pour funds into the system after US officials observed tests last fall, officials said.
The money comes on top of annual US assistance to Israel.
According to the State Department, US military aid to Israel in 2009 totaled $2.55 billion. This will increase to $3 billion in 2012, and will total $3.15 billion a year from 2013 to 2018.
