Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Regime Change in Iran: Been There, Done That

By Philip Giraldi | American Free Press | May 27, 2019

The failed coup attempt in Caracas in early May brings to mind the techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and British intelligence in Iran in 1953 to overthrow the Mohammad Mossadeq government. It is quite astonishing how that regime-change long-ago operation parallels what is currently taking place in Venezuela and also with regards to Iran yet again.

Mossadeq was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran beginning in 1951, serving in a government in which the Shah with limited authority was the head of state presiding over a parliamentary system. Iran was nominally independent at the time, but it was heavily influenced by the neighboring Soviet Union, which retained control over several Iranian provinces after the Second World War ended, and Great Britain, which exploited the country’s oil resources through the mechanism of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was owned by the British government. When Mossadeq, frustrated by lack of progress in negotiations with the British over sharing of oil revenues, eventually declared that he would nationalize the AIOC, London and Washington conspired to remove him.

The new National Iranian Oil Company was immediately attacked by the British, who used the Royal Navy to block export of oil from Iran’s Abadan refinery. Ships carrying Iranian oil were stopped and boarded with their shipments confiscated as “stolen property” in light of the British government’s former ownership claim on the AIOC.

By mid-1952, Britain’s blockade of Iranian oil exports had badly hurt the Iranian economy, which eventually led to government bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the American CIA, which was initially ambivalent about what the proper role in the Anglo-Iranian conflict might be, joined British agents in supporting groups inside Iran that were hostile to Mossadeq. In the Majlis parliamentary election in the spring of 1952, Mossadeq faced serious opposition funded by the Anglo-Americans, and the election eventually was suspended. By early 1953, pro-communist and pro-Shah mobs supported and coordinated by the U.S. and Britain roamed the streets, sometimes fighting each other. Fearing a communist takeover and also under pressure from London, which was threatening to withdraw from the Korean War as a quid pro quo, President Dwight D. Eisenhower agreed to carry out a joint coup d’état.

Losing popular support due to a sinking economy, as early as August 1952 a struggling Mossadeq began ruling by emergency powers and started to jail opponents, which only aggravated the crisis. A rigged referendum to dissolve parliament and grant Mossadeq authority to govern by decree passed with 99.9% approval but led to accusations that the prime minister was seeking “total and dictatorial power.” The New York Times reported, “A plebiscite more fantastic and farcical than any ever held under Hitler or Stalin is now being staged in Iran by Premier Mossadeq in an effort to make himself unchallenged dictator of the country.” The move by Mossadeq also led to the first coup attempt, which was organized by the CIA.

On Aug. 15, 1953, Col. Nemathollah Nassiri, the commander of the Shah’s Imperial Guard, delivered to Mossadeq a decree from the Shah dismissing him. Mossadeq, who had been warned of the plot, had Nassiri arrested, and the Shah and his family fled into exile in Italy. The first coup thus ended with a whimper, but it was lessons learned for the second, better organized successful attempt which followed a few days later, Operation Ajax, coordinated by Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA.

Exploiting pro-Shah sentiment in the military, the CIA and the British turned to their stables of recruited army officers while also exploiting agents infiltrated into the communist party Tudeh, which rose to the occasion by launching mass demonstrations, to include looting and arson, which quickly alienated the public and also provided a pretext for Western support of the coup as it could be promoted as “anti-communist.” Efforts were also made to turn influential clerics against Mossadeq. The Iranian people blamed the government for all their woes and rioting soon led to the calling out of the army to restore order. The army did so and then had Mossadeq arrested. He was condemned to death, but his sentence was later commuted to three years in solitary confinement followed by house arrest. He died in 1967.

End of story, but not quite. All the elements currently being used against Venezuela and Iran were there back in 1953 to bring down Mossadeq and also appear in a detailed 2018 Pentagon plan describing how to bring about a coup in Caracas. Wrecking the countries’ economies through sanctions and exclusion from the global banking network creates a crisis where one need not have existed. Meanwhile, a sustained campaign of vilification by Western political leaders and the media establishes the narrative that the benevolent intention is to block extremism and restore democracy while also eliminating a threat to the United States. And, as a last resort, the threat or actual use of force to stop the export of commodities to further wreck the economy becomes a clearly stated policy option, currently also employing secondary sanctions for anyone who dares to trade with the designated victim. Recently, America’s unilaterally imposed global ban on the export and sale of Iranian oil began. Venezuela’s oil sales are also being blocked and even its electricity grid is being attacked in an attempt to starve the Venezuelan people into rebelling against their government.

But you also have to have spies, secret agents, to get the ball rolling, just as was true in 1953. One assumes that the CIA has been active in recruiting the agents of influence inside Venezuelan political opposition as well as military circles who will bring out increasingly larger mobs as the situation continues to deteriorate. How successful they have been is difficult to determine, but Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido failed the first time around, reportedly because the Venezuelan government was aware of what was happening and the contacts that the CIA was relying on to bring out the army were in fact double agents.

The suffering Iranian and Venezuelan people have yet to rise up in revolt. No matter. It took more than one try to bring down Mossadeq, and National Security Advisor John Bolton has recently warned Iran that its government won’t have any more anniversaries to celebrate if it continues with its “threats.” The Trump administration is also reported to be preparing military options for dealing with Venezuela.

Bolton has even warned the Russians, who are assisting Venezuela’s government: “This is our hemisphere. It’s not where the Russians ought to be interfering. This is a mistake on their part.”  He is seemingly unaware of the irony, that the Russians might make the same claim about Eurasia and the Iranians regarding the Persian Gulf, where Bolton and his neocon friends in Washington have been the source of nearly continuous conflict.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

June 2, 2019 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

We Offered Dialogue but MBS Threatened to Take Battle into Iran: Zarif

Al-Manar | June 1, 2019

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that the Islamic Republic offered Gulf states dialogue after clinching the nuclear deal in 2015, revealing that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman’s reply was by threatening to take the battle into Iran.

In an interview with Al-Alam TV channel, Zarif said that shortly after the nuclear deal was clinched in 2015, and as Gulf states were concerned over the rapprochement between the US and Iran, “we refused talks with Washington over the region, stressing that such dialogue should be between the region neighbors only.”

“At time we clearly announced readiness for dialogue between Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, but unfortunately Mr. Mohammed Bin Salman frankly said that there is no dialogue with Tehran threatening to take the battle into Iran,” Zarif was quoted as saying in the interview.

The top Iranian diplomat said meanwhile, that the Islamic Republic’s power is a source of concern to the US, warning that any confrontation with Iran now will have negative impacts on states which are pushing towards such a step.

“We have huge defensive power and we can repel any threat.”

Zarif also stressed that the US should stop its “economic terrorism and policy of bullying.”

“The US through launching an economic war against Iranian people is waging an all-out war.”

June 1, 2019 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

How Yesterday Resembles Today: Iran Confronted The US in The Strait Of Hormuz in The 1980s

By Elijah J. Magnier | American Herald Tribune | May 29, 2019

“We are going to intercept and stop all oil exports from the (Middle East) region if we are prevented from exporting our oil. We shall take every measure possible to close the Strait of Hormuz. If the US aims – by sending jets, carriers – to reinforce its positions and status among the international community, it doesn’t concern us. But if the US is seriously aiming to threaten us, it should know that not one drop of oil will leave the region and we shall destroy all US interests in the Middle East”. This is what the President Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei said in 1983, in response to the US President Ronald Regan’s decision to send jet carriers to the Middle East during the Iran-Iraq war. It seems like only yesterday.

Today, in 2019, the experienced and veteran leader of the revolution, Sayyed Khamenei – who played a role in the very similar critical situation in the 80s – is facing President Donald Trump and an administration who seem not to have learned much from history and the previous US-Iran confrontation. Looking at past foreign policy with a critical eye seems not to be part of the current US administration’s practice. A small reminder may give many answers to what Trump can expect in a wider confrontation with Iran.

In the 80s, Iran’s “Islamic Revolution” was facing serious problems on many levels. Its armed forces were disorganised and dispersed; there were serious differences between decision-makers and politicians over how to run the country following the fall of the Shah; domestic security was lacking; there were ethnic and national struggles; no country was ready to sell weapons to Iran; the US, Europe and the Gulf states supported Saddam Hussein’s aggression against Iran; and the country was going through serious economic difficulties.

It was a perfect scenario for Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, which he did in September 1980 by bombing Mehrabad international airport and occupied later Khorramshahr, calling for an uprising of ethnic Arabs “in al-Muhammara”. This same objective, and concomitant regime-change is what the US administration has been aiming at since 1979- and it apparently retains the same fixation in 2019.

Many may not remember that Imam Khomeini did not hesitate to encourage the Iranian leadership, led by the current Rahbar (Spiritual Leader) Sayyed Ali Khamenei (1987), who was the President of Iran then, to confront and open fire against US forces or indeed any hostile country sailing in the Gulf. “If I were you (addressing his speech to the political leadership), I would order the armed forces to target the first vessel protecting an oil carrier trying to cross the Strait of Hormuz. You decide what you think best (as a course of action), whatever it takes”, said Imam Khomeini.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (and Sheikh Hashemi Rafsanjani) gave immediate orders to the armed forces to act accordingly. All armed forces were fully coordinated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Forces (IRGC – Pasdaran). Iran launched Chinese-made Silkworm missiles on Kuwait port al-Ahmadi. Another attack was registered on a Kuwaiti oil tanker that had been registered to fly the American flag and was sailing under US Navy protection- it hit an Iranian mine in the Gulf. Moreover, Iran shot down a US helicopter using US-made Stinger missiles delivered by the Afghan Mujahedeen to Iran. It was ready to take the confrontation further in the Persian Gulf, careless of the US “almighty” military power. Iran also attacked a Soviet vessel, the freighter Ivan Korotoyev, sailing in the Gulf and providing naval escorts for its ships.

It was rare to see the two superpowers, the US and Russia, united against Iran in one Middle Eastern conflict, in support of Saddam Hussein. Of course, Iran’s diplomacy skills were not yet sharpened. It was helping the Afghans against the Soviets and was committed to fighting US hegemony in the Middle East.

Sayyed Ali Khamenei went to New York, and at the UN Security Council told the world that “the US will receive a response to its hideous action” in the Gulf (following a US attack against an Iranian commercial ship called Iran Ajr). Indeed, a US owned giant oil tanker carrying the name of Sungari was attacked and set ablaze by the IRGC. Iran was not willing to stand down, but instead showed itself ready to confront two superpower countries at a time when Tehran was in its worst condition.

Today, Iran is well equipped with all kinds of missiles, and is a more powerful, highly productive country with strong and efficient allies who can hurt its enemies much more than in 1987. The Islamic Revolution principles and values are still the same, led by more or less the same people. The IRGC is stronger than ever and is an integrated part of the armed forces.

Sayyed Ali Khamenei was fully devoted to Imam Khomeini. He served as a faithful guardian of the “Islamic Revolution”, supervised the IRGC, represented Imam Khomeini at the Security Council and played an effective role in arming and merging the IRGC into all levels of the country’s armed forces. He will not hesitate to take further steps against any weakness any leader in the country today might show in trying to soften the relationship with the US. Today, the leader of the Revolution is neither afraid of war, nor of peace. He will not negotiate with Trump and will not help him be re-elected in 2020. Those who think Iran is desperate or cornered or failing due to the US sanctions may need to read more carefully the history and behaviour of the “Islamic Revolution” since 1979.

Elijah J. Magnier is a veteran war correspondent and Senior Political Risk Analyst with over 35 years’ experience covering Europe, Africa & the Middle East.

May 31, 2019 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Iran: Regional Peace Rests on Restoration of Palestinians’ Rights

Al-Manar | May 30, 2019

In a statement on the occasion of the International Quds Day, Iran’s Foreign Ministry emphasized that sustainable peace in the region will materialize only with restoration of Palestinians’ rights, which entails repatriation of displaced Palestinians and holding a referendum.

In the statement, released on Thursday, the Foreign Ministry described the issue of Palestine as the Islamic world’s pivotal subject, stressing the need to counter the Zionist regime’s policy of occupation.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran… believes that establishment of sustainable peace and calm in the region would not come true unless with the full restoration of rights of the oppressed Palestinian nation through the return of displaced Palestinians and holding a referendum in Palestine’s occupied territories with the participation of all main inhabitants of that land,” the statement said.

Stressing the need for Muslim unity and solidarity in the face of Israel, it said the usurping Zionist regime’s existence over the past 70 years has brought about nothing but displacement of millions of people, imprisonment and torture of thousands of innocent people, making thousands of Palestinian children orphans, and causing insecurity and instability in the region.

“The litany of the Zionist regime’s crimes and anti-human rights measures throughout the past 7 decades includes organized occupation of Palestine, systematic efforts to fully Judaize al-Quds, destroying the historical and civilizational identity of noble al-Quds, expansion of settler homes in the West Bank, forced relocation of al-Quds’ non-Jewish residents, depriving Palestinians of access to holy sites of al-Quds, illegal confiscation of their estate and demolishing their lands, and finally imposing inhumane redoubled pressures on people of Gaza and denying their access to basic foodstuff and pharmaceutical and medical commodities,” the statement deplored.

The Foreign Ministry called on the Muslim nations to stand against Israel’s divisive plots aimed at consigning the issue of Palestine to oblivion in order to prevent the implementation of the so-called deal of century and defy an upcoming “conference of deception and ruse” in Bahrain.

While the Muslim world is geared up to mark the International Quds Day on coming Friday, Bahrain is going to host a conference in June to encourage investment in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of US President Donald Trump’s Israel-Palestinian peace plan.

The so-called “Peace to Prosperity” economic workshop, to be held on June 25-26 in cooperation with Washington, has already been rebuffed by Palestinian officials and business leaders.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Hamas have called for an Arab boycott of the meeting.

However, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have announced they will participate in the conference.

May 30, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Negotiation with US ‘total loss’: Ayatollah Khamenei

Press TV – May 29, 2019

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has ruled out the possibility of talks between Tehran and Washington, saying such negotiations will be “fruitless”, “harmful”, and “a total loss”.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran will absolutely not sit for talks with America … because first, it bears no fruit and second, it is harmful,” the Leader said in a meeting with a number of university professors, elites and researchers in Tehran on Wednesday.

The Leader referred to negotiation as a tactic used by Americans to complement their strategy of pressure. “This is actually not negotiation; it’s rather a means for picking the fruits of pressure.”

The only way to counter this trick, he said, is to utilize the means of pressure available for use against Americans. “If they are used properly, the Americans will either stop or decrease pressures.”

However, the Leader warned against being deceived by the US plot, saying that the Islamic Republic must use the leverage at its disposal to counter the US’ pressures; otherwise, being deceived into negotiation would be a “total loss”.

The Leader said Iran’s leverage is not military unlike what the anti-Iran propaganda says, even though that option is not off the table in case of necessity.

He referred to the recent decision by the Supreme National Security Council to reduce some of Iran’s commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal with the world, and described it as one of the means that Iran can use against the US’ pressures.

“The leverage Iran has used for now is the recent SNSC decision, but we won’t remain at this level forever, and in the next phase, if necessary, we’ll use other means of pressure,” the Leader warned.

Back on May 8, 2019, on the anniversary of the US’ withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran said that it will halt implementing some terms of the nuclear deal until parties to the deal other than US take action to mitigate the negative impacts of US decision in May 2018 to withdraw from the agreement.

The Islamic Republic says other parties to the JCPOA, particularly the E3 – France, Britain, and Germany – have failed so far to compensate for the US withdrawal and help Iran reap the economic dividends of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has set a two-month deadline for the parties to either do the necessary actions to save the JCPOA or face Iran resuming a nuclear enrichment program which had been suspended as part of the deal in return for lifting of international sanctions on Tehran.

Ayatollah Khamenei also noted that the Islamic Republic has no problem with holding negotiation with the Europeans and others, but it won’t sit for talks on “core” issues of the 1979 Revolution, including its defensive capabilities.

‘US will fail to impose deal of century on Palestinians’

Elsewhere in his remarks, Ayatollah Khamenei referred to US President Donald Trump’s so-called peace plan for the Middle East, saying that the US and its cronies will fail to impose the so-called “deal of the century” on Palestinians.

US President Donald Trump has set forth his so-called “deal of the century” to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The plan is to be revealed at an undetermined date sometime after the Israeli parliamentary elections.

Since Trump took office a trio composed of his son-in-law Jared Kushner, Jason Greenblatt, long-time confidant and chief legal officer to Trump’s business empire, and US Ambassador to Israel David Fried­man have been working on such a plan.

In his Wednesday comments, the Leader said that defending Palestinians was both a humanitarian and a religious duty and thus participation in this year’s International Quds Day rallies was more important than before given the ongoing sensitive developments in the region.

The International Quds Day is an annual event held on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan.

It was initiated by the late founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini to express support for the Palestinians and oppose the Zionist regime.

May 29, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Iran dismisses Bolton’s ‘ridiculous’ claims on UAE attacks

Press TV – May 29, 2019

Iran has rejected “ridiculous” claims by US National Security Adviser John Bolton blaming Tehran for the recent mysterious attacks on commercial vessels off the coast of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi responded to Bolton’s allegations that the May 12 attacks on four oil tankers — an Emirati, a Norwegian and two Saudi vessels — had been caused by Iranian naval mines.

Mousavi said it was not surprising that such “ridiculous” comments were made at Bolton’s meeting with another member of the so-called B-Team, namely Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

The designation comes from earlier remarks by Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif who said that the “B-Team” — comprising Bolton, bin Zayed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — were dragging US President Donald Trump into war with Iran.

“But, Mr. Bolton and other warmongers need to know that the strategic patience, high vigilance and full defense readiness of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which emanates from the strong resolve of its great nation, will not let them fulfill their ominous schemes to create chaos in the region,” Mousavi noted.

Speaking at a press conference in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday, Bolton alleged that the May 12 incident had been caused by Iranian naval mines, without providing any evidence to substantiate his claim.

“I think it is clear these (tanker attacks) were naval mines almost certainly from Iran,” he claimed.

Initially after reports of the Fujairah explosions, the UAE denied there had been any incident, but later confirmed that four commercial vessels had been targeted by “sabotage operations,” without elaborating.

Bolton’s claims come while an investigation is still underway into the incident, with UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash saying days after the incident that Abu Dhabi would not speculate about who was behind the sabotage before the end of the probe.

Iran has slammed the attacks as “lamentable” and “worrying.”

Foreign Minister Zarif noted that he had already warned of such suspicious “accidents” because of Washington’s renewed warmongering policies promoted by Bolton and other US hawks.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Bolton said that the Fujairah incident was connected to retaliatory Yemeni drone strikes targeting pumping stations on Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline as well as a rocket attack on Baghdad’s Green Zone, which occurred within days in mid-May.

Yemen’s Houthi Ansarullah movement — which has been defending Yemen against a Saudi-led war — has already said the drone raids were an act of self defense and had nothing to do with Iran.

Bolton also referred to “an unsuccessful attack” on Saudi Arabia’s port city of Yanbu’, a few days before the Fujairah incident.

He further claimed that the US was trying to be “prudent and responsible” in its approach toward the region and had sent additional forces there as a “deterrent.”

“These attacks were unfortunately consistent with the very serious threat information that we had been obtaining. It is one reason we increased our deterrent capability in the region,” he said.

The Trump administration has imposed illegal sanctions on Iran and beefed up its military presence in the Persian Gulf, citing alleged and unspecified threats posed by the Islamic Republic to American troops and interests.

Tehran has said it will not be the initiator of any war, but reserves the right to self defense and will give a crushing response to any act of aggression.

May 29, 2019 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , | Leave a comment

Peace with Iran is a Good Thing

By Renee Parsons | OffGuardian | May 28, 2019

After weeks of drama perpetuating assorted Iranian ‘threats’ and after having conducted classified briefings with Congress on Tuesday, acting Pentagon chief Patrick Shanahan, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by his side, informed a press briefing that:

there will be no war with Iran”

And the US had,

deterred an Iranian attack based on our reposturing of assets, deterred attacks against American forces”

And that now:

[The] focus is to prevent an Iranian miscalculation. We do not want the situation to escalate. This is about deterrence; not about war. We’re not about going to war.”

Shanahan’s words could not have been more clear and definitive and yet, they have been met with silence by the Democrats and the MSM as if peace is less desirable, less profitable commodity than war. At the same press briefing Sen. Lindsay Graham, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added his own pirouette as if there had been verifiable evidence of an Iranian threat:

We are ready to respond if we have to. The best thing would be for everyone to calm down and Iran to back off. I am hoping that this show of force will result in de-escalating.”

In other words, the US was selling the notion to anyone who would buy that the Iranians would have launched an attack if not for an increased US military build up that forced the Iranians to backpedal. It makes little difference who or what takes credit in the final analysis since peace is of the essence.

Donald Trump very likely won the 2016 election with pronouncement such as:

Obviously the war in Iraq was a big fat mistake.”

“We should have never been in Iraq.”

“We have destabilized the middle east.”

“We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about.”

In view of the recent escalation of threats to Venezuela and collapse of the summit with North Korea, it has been unclear exactly who is administering US foreign policy given the President’s consistently inconsistent views and with the B Team filling a prominent role in what appears to be a presidential vacuum.

As unconfirmed, undefined “Iranian threats” first surfaced and the President’s closest national security advisors fanned the flames, he told White House reporters

It’s going to be a bad problem for Iran if something happens, I can tell you that. They’re not going to be happy.”

And later tweeting:

If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!”

Declaring “heightened tensions” as if Iran was out-of-their-minds crazy enough to imminently launch an attack on a US facility, the Trump Administration evacuated non essential US Embassy personnel from Baghdad after two Saudi oil tankers were ‘attacked’ off the UAE coast, a low grade rocket exploded near the Embassy, three mortar shells landed within Baghdad’s Green Zone and a Yemeni drone ‘attacked’ a Saudi pipeline.

Combining an alarming sense of panic with an overly zealous response, all of that confluence of confusion was sufficient for the US to react with its usual belligerence dispatching a B52 bomber task force, an aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln aimed for the Strait of Hormuz (where one third of all oil passes through) and the release of a Pentagon “just in case” contingency for 120,000 troops in preparation for Armageddon.

History has its irony as it was the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln where President GW Bush grandstanded with his Mission Accomplished strut in May, 2003 announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq, six weeks after the US invasion.

With no moderating voice on the President’s national security team, National Security Advisor John Bolton, also known as the “devil incarnate,” has been aided and abetted by ‘bull in a china shop’ Pompeo to create a neocon foreign policy strategy that was not what Trump campaigned on.

While the combative trio is equally obsessive regarding Iran, Bolton and Pompeo organized the recent military buildup in the Persian Gulf in anticipation of a rapid response deployment when the next Iranian ‘threat’ occurred. While Bolton holds dual citizenship with Israel and the US, both Israel and Saudi Arabia have long targeted Iran for a direct military confrontation and would relish the opportunity.

Not surprisingly, there was push back from some of the usual coalition allies with British deputy commander Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika daring to suggest “There’s been no increased threat from Iranian backed forces in Iraq and Syria,” and Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas that he made it clear to Pompeo that a unilateral strategy of increasing pressure against Iran was ‘ill-advised.’

Pompeo’s hastily arranged ‘drop in’ on a European foreign ministers meeting in Brussels did little to instill confidence in sloppy US intel or the administration’s Iran agenda as Pompeo related the details.

The Pentagon helpfully pointed out that 120,000 troops would be insufficient if a ground mission was ordered which led Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to remark that war in Iran would make the Iraq war look like a “cake walk” referring to the fact that Iran is a cohesive country, four times larger than Iraq and has more than double the population of Iraq.

In other words, a recipe for an environmental, humanitarian and military disaster of epic proportions – in addition it should be expected that Russia and China would not be content to sit on the sidelines.

Many will recall the 2003 prediction that the Iraqi people would welcome American troops as liberators, strewing roses in their path, just prior to the war descending into unthinkable carnage.

As a result of all the uncertainty, Trump gave up the trash-talk and told Shanahan during a military briefing last week that he does not want to go to war with Iran letting his hawkish aides know that he did not want the “intensifying American pressure campaign against the Iranians to explode into open conflict.” It is worth knowing whether the President directly ordered Bolton and Pompeo to back off.

Trump’s assertion that “I make the final decision” is as if to reassure himself that he is in charge belies a reputation for vacillating and a weak-will that continues to plague his Administration especially on foreign policy.

While Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei has refused to negotiate with the US, explaining that “negotiating with the current US Government is toxic,” the Iranians have no interest in bargaining away their ballistic missiles which could reach Tel Aviv or putting limits on their operational range. As with North Korea, Iran is well aware of Libya’s Mummar Quaddafi fate as he laid down his weapons only to have HRC organize a revolt and order his untimely demise.

A recent FoxNews interview added some clarity and further confusion as Trump totally buys the neocon view that:

Iran has been a problem for so many years, look at all the conflicts they have caused.” Further explaining “I want to invade if I have to economically” to provide jobs. While Trump agreed that “there is a Military Industrial Complex” and “they do like war” and yet complaining that “I wipe out 100% of the caliphate and people here in DC, they never want to leave.”

When asked about his campaign pledges in 2016, Trump responded “I’m not somebody that wants to go into war” offering the assurance that “I have not changed” and yet the belligerent talk comes too easily as if Bolton was the last person he spoke with.

As he has expressed little public reaction to the administration’s ineptitude with North Korea at the Vietnam summit or the fiasco in Venezuela, Trump allows himself to be played like a fiddle, complicit with the neocon’s latest nefarious schemes that reveal him as a second-rate player; deteriorating before the public with a history of clumsy international gaffes. There is no question that neither Bolton nor Pompeo are to be trusted and that Bolton’s over reach of authority is the key driver pushing for confrontation and divisiveness while Pompeo is a more personally shrewd team player and somewhat less of a loose cannon.

Thanks to the high level of public awareness that nailed down the faulty details of this latest kerfuffle and its excessive harangues, Trump needs to relieve Bolton of his keys to the office before the next ‘threats’ take the US to the brink and find someone who better reflects his 2016 campaign promises.

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31

May 28, 2019 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Iran Ready for Talks with Regional States, No Such Prospect for US

Al-Manar | May 28, 2019

Noting Iran’s proposal for signing a non-aggression pact with regional countries, FM spokesman Mousavi said there is currently no prospect for talks with US.

“The Persian Gulf littoral states are among the most important neighboring countries for Iran; therefore, what foreign minister Zarif has put forward- i.e. the non-aggression pact- is not a new topic,” Sayyed Abbas Mousavi said in a news conference on Tuesday.

“Iran does not want to be in an insecure and stressful region,” he underlined.

Iran, in the past years, has always reiterated its readiness to sign a non-aggression pact with regional countries in a bid to build trust and confidence, and help eliminate concerns originating from other countries’ fear-inducing tactics. Most recently, Foreign Minister Zarif in a meeting with Iraqi President Barham Salih in Baghdad on Saturday repeated the suggestion to Persian Gulf states to sign a non-aggression pact. The move was praised by Russian FM Sergey Lavrov as the first step to reduce regional tensions.

Addressing Trump’s recent claims that the US is “not looking for regime change” in Iran, rather all pressures are aimed at preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weapons, Mousavi said that “Iran is not interested in empty rhetoric and pays more attention to behaviors and will decide and act upon them.”

“We do not have any talks with the US, and our basis is on respecting international pacts to which the US can return,” Mousavi said.

The US’ illegitimate withdrawal [from the nuclear deal] and some of its illusions have ruined any chance for negotiations, he said, adding that currently there is no prospect for talks with Washington. “We should wait for new developments,” he added.

Elsewhere, he noted Zarif’s recent regional tour to India, Turkmenistan, Syria, Japan, Pakistan and Iraq, saying the visits have been in line with clarifying Iran’s stance. He also voiced hope that a new round of talks would commence with Iran’s northern neighbors at the ministerial and even head of state levels.

Mousavi then criticized European’s flimsy commitment to implementing JCPOA, saying that Iran always gives diplomacy a chance, but that does not mean pinning its hope on Europe.

He added that Iran expects Europeans to act within the set 60-day deadline by Iran and if they do not do so Iran will take the next step regarding its reduction of commitments to the JCPOA.

Addressing the latest situation of EU’s trade mechanism INSTEX, Mousavi said that the first transaction between Iran and Europe has been done. Some Iranian INSTEX-experts have traveled to Europe and have conducted some negotiations. A group of European INSTEX managers will travel to Iran in future to continue talks, he added.

About other countries proposing to mediate between Iran and US amid heightened tensions, Mousavi said that “we are not at that level yet, since having other countries to mediate needs some requirements. It is vital to pay attention to the roots of Iran-US tensions, which are in the reinforcement of sanctions on Iran, US’ illegal withdrawal form JCPOA and its economic terrorism.”

He also noted that Zarif’s meetings with US senators cannot be translated as holding talks with the US since Congress members are not considered as US government officials.

May 28, 2019 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran proposes ‘non-aggression pact’ to Gulf neighbors as regional tensions soar

RT | May 26, 2019

Iran has proposed signing a non-aggression pact to its neighbors, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said. At the same time, the country is ready to defend itself from any attack, be it “an economic war or a military one.”

“Tehran has offered to sign a non-aggression pact with its neighbors in the Gulf,” Zarif said on Sunday during a joint press conference in Baghdad with his Iraqi counterpart Mohamed al-Hakim.

Iran’s top diplomat did not name an exact list of the countries eyed in the document, yet stressed that Tehran seeks to “build balanced relations” with all Gulf states. At the same time, Zarif cautioned that the country is ready to defend itself if attacked, by any means necessary.

We will defend against any war efforts against Iran, whether it be an economic war or a military one, and we will face these efforts with strength.

Tensions have been high in the region over the past weeks, as the ongoing standoff between the US and Iran got even more heated. Washington has ramped up its warlike rhetoric against Tehran, accusing it – but providing no hard evidence – of plotting attacks on US citizens in neighboring countries.

Apart from that, several Saudi tankers were damaged under shady circumstances at a UAE port – and the blame was squarely put on Iran. Tehran maintained it was not involved in inflicting the minor damage on the vessels, blaming the incident on some sort of “Israeli mischief” instead.

Following the incident with the tankers and a drone attack on a Saudi pipeline, attributed to Yemen’s Houthi rebels, Riyadh accused Iran of seeking to destabilize the whole region and vowed to confront it with “all strength and determination” if attacked.

Tehran, on its part, has repeatedly stated that it’s not plotting to attack anyone, yet is more than capable of retaliating and even “defeating” the US and its allies in the Middle East.

May 26, 2019 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Iran slams as politically-motivated France’s extradition of Iranian engineer to US

Press TV – May 25, 2019

Iran has denounced as politically-motivated a French court’s verdict to extradite an Iranian engineer to the United States over accusations of importing American technology for military purposes.

The condemnation came on Saturday after the court in Aix-en-Provence, southern France, approved the extradition of Jalal Rouhollahnejad to the US to face charges of “attempting to illegally import US technology for military purposes on behalf of an Iranian company.”

The Iranian non-governmental Center for Civilian Drones along with a number of knowledge-based firms working in the field of aerospace said in a joint statement that the French court’s verdict was politically-motivated and against the principles of the Iran nuclear deal as well as other international rules.

Rouhollahnejad was detained on February 2 at Nice airport as he got off a plane coming from Tehran. The US judicial officials claimed that the Iranian engineer might have been seeking to import high-power industrial microwave systems from the US to be later used for military purposes in Iran.

The Iranian aerospace firms said in the statement that high-power industrial microwave systems are modern non-military technologies used for detecting Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) flying in sensitive sites like airports.

“So the technologies have no military use. They are also not under the US sanctions,” the statement said, adding that it is among the basic rights of any country to use such technologies within the regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to protect its airspace and provide security for sensitive sites like civilian airports.

“Such a move will have serious repercussions for the French tradesmen and specialists working in Iran,” the statement warned.

Rouhollahnejad’s lawyer also said the US arrest warrant was politically-motivated and stressed that he would continue to refuse extradition from France.

US judges claim that the 41-year-old engineer acted on behalf of a company linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), which was blacklisted by the US President Donald Trump’s administration last month.

A decree by the French prime minister is still necessary for the extradition to go ahead.

May 25, 2019 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran resets its foreign policy calculus

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | May 25, 2019

The unannounced overnight visit by Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to Pakistan on Thursday can be seen at the very minimum as forming part of a diplomatic campaign in the backdrop of the war clouds building up in the Persian Gulf. This regional tour has already taken Zarif to Russia, China, Turkmenistan, India and Japan.

For Iran, Pakistan is an important neighbour and the two countries have a history of troubled relations. (See my recent blogs Pakistan-Iran ties set for makeover – Part I and Part II.) In the prevailing regional setting, Pakistan’s importance for the Iranian geo-strategies has become crucial.

In immediate terms, King Salman has sent out invitations to two summits he’ll be hosting in Mecca on May 30 — back-to-back summits of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the Arab League — where the leitmotif is the rising tensions with Iran. Neither GCC nor Arab League carries credibility, but Saudi Arabia is hoping that the Muslim Middle East will stand up and be counted in the vanguard of the US-led ‘Iran project’.

Enter Pakistan. Pakistan already has stated it will not take sides in the looming confrontation. Pakistan has described the crisis in the Persian Gulf region as “disturbing” and said that Washington’s decision to deploy an aircraft carrier and bombers has fuelled tensions and exacerbated “the existing precarious security situation” in the Middle East.

Just before Zarif’s arrival in Islamabad, Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman said, “We expect all sides to show restraint, as any miscalculated move can transmute into a large-scale conflict. Pakistan always supports dialogue and desires that all issues should be settled peacefully and through engagement by all sides.”

Pakistan’s stance of ‘positive neutrality’ works in favour of Tehran. Importantly, it is in stark contrast with the deafening silence of New Delhi, which has caved in to US diktat and summarily terminated all imports of Iranian oil. Suffice to say, Pakistan has moved to neutral ground at a juncture while India is bonding with the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE — the ‘Quad’ group that pioneers the project to force a ‘regime change’ in Iran.

Delhi gave a pro forma reception to Zarif ten days ago when he came on an unannounced visit and Indian government sources went out of the way to prompt the media to see the event as entirely at Iran’s insistance. In comparison, Pakistan graciously received Zarif, who met the Pakistani Prime Minister and Foreign Minister as well as the army chief and the speaker of the national assembly.

Without doubt, the shift in India’s Middle East policies will have registered in the Iranian political establishment at the highest level. Simply put, Delhi has turned its back on Tehran and a  sense of betrayal is only natural in Tehran, which strained every nerve to befriend India. And the fact remains that unlike with Iran’s ties with Pakistan, there are no contradictions in Iran’s bilateral ties with India.

In view of the above, significantly, Zarif made a stopover in Chabahar Port en route to Islamabad on Thursday. No doubt, this development is heavy with symbolism, because Chabahar symbolises not only the unfulfilled Iranian expectations from partnership with India but stands out today as a relic of India’s betrayal. (See my blog India’s Betrayal of Iran Is Only the Beginning.) 

(Iran’s FM Zarif at Chabahar en route to Islamabad on May 23, 2019)

In his first remarks after arrival in Islamabad, Zarif disclosed that he intended to put forward a “proposal” for connecting Pakistan’s Gwadar port to its “complementary” port Chabahar (located just 72 kms away in southeastern Iran.) To quote Zarif,

“We believe that Chabahar and Gwadar can complement each other. We can connect Chabahar and Gwadar, and then through that, connect Gwadar to our entire railroad system, from Iran to the North Corridor, through Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, and also through Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkey.”

Make no mistake that this is a wholesome proposal. An experienced career diplomat like Zarif is not in the business of kite-flying on such a sensitive issue that holds the potential to realign the geopolitics of the region.

Equally, it stands to reason that Tehran has consulted Beijing beforehand. Gwadar is synonymous with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and, of course, CPEC is the flagship of China’s Belt and Road (BRI) Initiative.

In fact, during what appeared to have been a highly successful visit to Beijing by Zarif a week ago, Iran-China cooperation within the framework of BRI figured prominently in his talks with Chinese State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. The Xinhua report on the meeting underscored Wang’s remark that ‘China welcomes Iran to actively take part in the joint building of the Belt and Road and hopes to strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation.’

Equally, it must be factored in that the week before Zarif met Wang, he had travelled to Moscow and had talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov where they discussed key issues in the international arena, as well as bilateral cooperation. The Russia-Iran consultations in Moscow stand out as a defining moment in regional security, as apparent from the remarks to the media, below, by the two foreign ministers:

(Joint press conference by Russian FM Sergey Lavrov (R) and Iran’s FM Javad Zarif at Moscow on May 8, 2019)

The big question is whether all this signifies a fundamental rethink in Iran’s foreign policy options in an emergent scenario where it must confront the geopolitical reality that a normalisation of relations with the US is to be ruled out for a very long time to come and some fundamental adjustments have become necessary.

Indeed, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently made an unprecedented open criticism of Iran’s foreign policy.

In sum, it is possible to estimate that the proposal that Zarif made to the Pakistani leadership signifies a reorientation of Iran’s foreign policy in the direction of greater integration with the two major Eurasian powers Russia and China.

In an ideal world, Iran would have preferred to pursue independent foreign policies, but life is real and a regional axis with Russia, China, Pakistan and Turkey becomes an imperative need today. Conceivably, this profound shift in Iran’s foreign policy calculus carries the imprimatur of Ayatollah Khamenei.

Read the IRNA report, here, on Zarif’s Pakistan visit.

May 25, 2019 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Israel’s influence on US foreign policy leads to increased tensions with Iran

By Sarah Abed | InfoRos | May 22, 2019

In order to understand the role that Israel plays in the increased tensions between Washington and Tehran, I reached out to Press TV Correspondent, Ali Musawi.

Sarah Abed: What role, if any, does Israel play in the increased tensions between the United States and Iran?

Ali Musawi: We don’t need to go far to see Israeli fingerprints over a US war in the region. Leading up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, Israel and more specifically its current Prime Minister Netanyahu led the choir about Iraq’s WMD and threat to peace and security.

Now, if we look at Netanyahu’s antics concerning Iran, we will see a similar pattern, whether  it was the bomb sketch at the UN General Assembly, his almost regular videos about the Iranian threat and the push by Netanyahu to end the “bad deal” between P5+1 and Iran over its nuclear program. Israel doesn’t play a role; Israel clearly orchestrates US war policies.

Sarah: To your knowledge has Israeli intelligence provided any information to the United States that supports the idea of an increased “Iranian threat”?

Ali: As of this moment, no one knows what this sudden “threat” posed by Iran is. We can speculate about anything, from increased Iranian war drills in the Persian Gulf to its military commanders’ typical aggressive tone when addressing the US and allies’ behavior towards the Islamic Republic. And I think before we even try to address any kind of “Iranian threat” we should acknowledge the boy who cried wolf. Is the US administration being truthful? We need evidence, where is Washington’s proof? We should always remember the non-existent WMD used to rally the world against Iraq.

Sarah: Is Israel advocating for a military response by the United States against Iran?

Ali: It is in Israel’s best interest that the US engages in a direct war with Iran. Israel has been threatening attacks against Iran for years simply because Tehran’s support for resistance movements in Palestine and elsewhere threatens the Zionists’ plan to control the region. Israel with all their access to weapons and blank cheques provided by the US and allies, is simply not a match to Iran. By using the US and the excessively armed Gulf countries, Israel is hoping that, at best, a war will weaken Iran, or at worst, a buffer of countries who will sever Iranian support for the resistance movements.

Sarah: What impact would a war between United States and Iran have on Israel?

Ali: Such a war will impact, not only the countries in the region, but the rest of the world. But from a military prospective, if there is a war between the US and Iran, those resistance movements, from Iraq to Palestine, through Yemen and Syria will respond. They will either attack US and allies’ bases in the region or directly attack Israel. We can say that having such resistance movements has been the real deterrent against what can only be a hugely destructive conflict, probably the worst in our lives.

Sarah: Is a full-fledged military confrontation between Israel and Iran likely?

Ali: This is a definite no. While Israel still plays the role of a superpower in the region, it has not been so in over a decade. The 2006 defeat against Hezbollah in Lebanon and the bravery we see from the Palestinians in Gaza, whenever Israel launches wars on the besieged strip, have destroyed its invincibility myth and shown that Israel and its supposed advanced weaponry are only so on paper.

Sarah: How would that scenario play out and what do you suppose would be the outcome?

Ali: Only if the US is directly involved against Iran, will there be a war.

Sarah: What impact could a war between Israel and Iran have on the neighboring countries, primarily Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq?

Ali: If the US is involved of course. All these three countries have been directly impacted by US/Israeli wars over the past few decades. So, the people as well as politicians are aware of the devastation of such conflicts. This is why they will back Iran and even fight alongside Iran simply because the majority of people in these countries oppose US hegemony. The Middle East is divided. There are countries who are controlled by the US/Israel and there are those who are not. No one will sit idly by if a war breaks out. Everyone has something to lose and gain. Such wars don’t usually have winners and will be very expensive to all sides. This is why we are seeing the US backtracking on some of its threats and will continue to do so because the US has become a bully who is afraid of being hurt.

Sarah: Ali, makes some great points that should put the wheels in motion in everyone’s mind, and in particular those who live in the United States. I will pose one more question to our readers, are we willing to go to war with Iran to benefit Israel?

May 22, 2019 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »