The last few days have left us with a spat of contradictory news on the conflict around Iran and its nuclear ambitions. First Brazil and Turkey managed to strike a deal that was tailored to US demands so far on this matter and which counted with the support of Russia, a key UN security council veto-holding power and a major nuclear power itself. The US reaction however has been very hostile, claiming that they had already reached an agreement with Russia and China on further sanctions, including intercepting ships sailing to/from Iran in search of nuclear fuel or components. They pretext that the agreement comes six months late and that Iran does not renounce to regular uranium enriching, which it is entitled to by the NPT, but the obvious reasons are that the USA wants to increase and not decrease the tension with Iran, in line with what their Zionist masters (the only nuclear power of the region) demand and, also, that it wants to trample the diplomatic movements of Brazil (already under US factual siege in Latin America), Turkey (becoming too independent for Washington's and Tel Aviv's likes) and Russia. This new block of sanctions proposed by the USA are all but an open declaration of war, because the bulk of the naval intervention would fall to US/NATO hands, who are the interested party and who have a whole fleet in the area. If Washington's position prevails (and so far it usually does), we should expect rapid escalation towards open war. While the USA is unlikely to occupy Iran right away (too costly and too likely to backfire), a terrible protracted unequal conflict, similar to the situation that Iraq was subjected to in the 1990s and early 2000s of total blockade, takeover of airspace and calculated bombings, is the most likely outcome. If the fundamentalist regime does not fall to that, then outright war is also within the possibilities but probably at a later moment, just like happened in Iraq under Bush Jr.At the moment the UN security council is made up mostly of US satellites (UK, France, Austria, Japan, Mexico, Gabon, Nigeria, Uganda, Bosnia-Herzegovina), what makes the possibility of defeating US proposals by regular vote something almost unthinkable. This leaves Russia and China, who have the right of veto, as the key players. China, maybe more concerned right now on what is happening at its own borders (Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Thailand, Korea), has not yet said a word. So Russia seems the most crucial player in this standoff. It's not a comfortable position considering how strong are Zionist interests in Russia too but, as of late, Russia has acted with determination and success against Zionist plans in Georgia, is gaining influence in West Asia (Syria, Turkey and of course cornered Iran). Clinton has said that they had already persuaded Russia and China to back up their new sanctions package but Russia has spoken with ambiguous words backing the Brazil-Turkey bartered deal. It's difficult to understand all clues in this complex multilateral situation but I'd say that Russia needs to back up Turkey specially, which is clearly sliding away from US influence, and does not want in any case yet another US engineered war in its West Asian backyard. Afghanistan, Iraq and Georgia are already more than enough. I imagine that, unless the USA offers a lot (something like Taiwan), the interest of China is also to back Russia, Iran, Turkey and Brazil in the UN. China, deeply concerned about its own access to West Asian oil resources, does not want more US military buildup in the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, US attitude is clearly set up for a remake of the Iraq blockade, eventually leading to an outright invasion. This is totally consistent with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the rallying of friendly Arab dictatorships into its military alliance system and the government change and potential disintegration of Pakistan. Ideally, for the Pentagon and the White House (and of course for AIPAC, J-street and all the Zionist International), all the area should become submissive to the USA (and Israel), furthering the grip not just in Arab/Muslim nationalist ambitions but also on the access to resources of rising star China and setting advanced positions closer to the soft belly of Russia: Central Asia. Of course, neutralizing the initiative of free-thinker powers such as Brazil and Turkey is also part of the plan. So, in the best case, expect the new deal to be boycotted by the USA and never gain the seal of approval of the UN Security Council, keeping the situation as it is: an active siege of Iran. References:· Thierry Meissan, Strategy Shift in the Middle East (Voltaire Net)· BBC: Iran hit by fresh UN nuclear sanctions threat· Al Jazeera: Brazil criticises USA over Iran
I had a heartbeat when I subscribed to An Arab Woman Blues and in the long run and it seems it's right in the end. After all she seems to be a bright Iraqi woman with a lot of desire to denounce the atrocities of these two decades of war against her people.In her last post Layla Anwar leaves aside the, understandable but rather unproductive, "I hate you all" that used to plague her blog and tells us a really atrocious story: the systematic assassination of Iraqi scientists and intellectuals since the US-UK-plus invasion of 2003.Prior to 2003, there were 45'000 scientists in Iraq. Today there are virtually none left, they were either killed or are in exile or have been recuperated by the americans.
A partial source can be found at Uruknet but it only lists academics, not scientists working in the industry nor the army for instance. She claims that more than 3000 have been probably assassinated. She denounces that in 2002 an implicit ultimatum was given to Iraqi scientists by the USA: join us or die. She argues that Israel and the CIA had as goal to eliminate all Iraqi scientists and that the farce of the search for the non-existent WMD in Iraq prior to the anyhow pre-determined invasion served the purpose of gathering detailed information on the scientific class in Iraq. The worst wave of murders seems to have happened in 2005 under the Al-Jaafari government, whose secret services stormed the scientists' homes, kidnapped, tortured and killed them. The chief of these operations was Solagh Jaber, now known as Al Zubaidi, whom, along with all the other Shia rulers she accuses of working for Iran. She also denounces what was obvious for a few like me: that Al Qaeda in Iraq (and elsewhere, I'd add) is funded, trained and armed by the USA and Iran (I'm not so sure about Iran but I'm certainly pretty sure about the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia). One can wonder about the reality and complexity of the US-Israel-Iran ties but we cannot forget the Iran-Contra affair, already in the 1980s and the very fact that the US invasion has left Iraq totally in the hands of Iran. But even more intriguing is why this declared obsession to destroy Iraq totally. After all it is just a middle sized country that had played as ally of the US-Israel-Saudia-NATO bloc for decades.J. Baker did warn Tariq Aziz that Iraq will be taken to a pre-industrial age. Bremmer did say that bringing the population of Iraq to 5 to 6 millions was more than sufficient and IT IS HAPPENING. Madeleine Albright did say that killing 1Million Iraqi children was well worth it...but still, that question gnaws at me day and night...WHY ?
(...)
But still, why would anyone want to ERASE Iraq -- even after regime change and even after securing its riches. What is so special about Iraq ?
This is an obstinate question that refuses to leave me...I believe Saddam Hussein knew the answer and that is why he was murdered as well...
I'd say that there are three reasons: One is obviously control of oil resources, which is a key piece in any imperial policy of the industrial era. Iraq not only controls a good deal of global oil resources but also the two wars against this country provided pretexts for the establishment of a chain of military basis and the de facto annexation of most of Arabia to the American Empire. Another is destroying secularism and illustrated progress in the Arab World. This is a goal that can perfectly unite such fanatic countries as the USA, Israel, Saudia and Iran.And finally, and tightly related to the previous one, it is the goal of destroying pan-Arabism, which was and probably still is the only and main adversary of Israel, as well as of Iran, Turkey, US neocolonial hegemony and even most Arab regimes, very specially Saudi Arabia, which are not interested in such kind of nationalism. Of course all or most Islamists are against Arab nationalism and Islamism has been used as spearhead to divide and destroy it. Iraq was once believed to be the "Prussia of Arabia". Maybe it was just the "Savoy" but in any case it was a state that could potentially agglutinate the Arabs in a national project that would have challenged the imperial status quo. In fact the trap created by the USA by subtly offering territorial gains in Kuwait to Iraq in 1990, in apparent payment for their services in punishing Iran, actually evidenced that Iraq could agglutinate the Arab people and potentially go on a spree of blitzkriegs and alliances with support of most of the population to the very shores of the Jordan river in propitious conditions. But Washington and the Zionists obviously outsmarted them and eventually got set to totally destroy this potential threat. Their goal is clear: they do not want anything that could threaten with the unification of Arab lands again, potentially destroying the US most beloved allies in the region: the racist neocrusader state of Israel and the fascist theocracy of Saudia. In the end it's nothing but a continuation of the British imperial policy in the region and also of the old Roman adage "divide et vince": a pan-Arab state must be avoided at all costs. Why? Because it would destroy Israel and Saudia, because it would control huge geostrategical resources, not just oil but also strategic routes like the Suez Canal-Red Sea gateway, and also because it might be a potential threat all through the Mediterranean Sea. So keeping the Arab World divided, weak, ignorant and fanatic is a key part of the Imperial plan designed by the Anglo-Saxon and Zionist entente, with the agreement of essentially all European powers, nowadays mere vassals of Washington, and of course nearly all Arab dictatorships, from Saudia to Morocco passing by Egypt and Algeria, even more submissive if that's possible. That's the why.
After Albania, of course. That is the impression I had in the past, as it is easy for me to compare the Iran of the ayatolahs with Franco's Spain. The totalitarian military-religious regime of Franco led to a Spain that massively deserted from religion and the army too. The reputation of such institutions has not recovered in 35 years. Discussing with Iranians online, when this was still possible (they might be dead or imprisoned now for that, I have no way of telling), I also got that impression clearly: that Islam was not anymore a real force in Iran and that the young generation was uninterested or rather disdainful of religion. Some flirted with Zoroastrism (specially exiles in the very religious context of North America) but I don't really think it is any alternative. But what has really confirmed me in that belief is reading to Eastern Kurdish activist Rahim Kaderi today at Gara with occasion of his visit to our little and similarly oppressed country:... consider please that 70% of Iranians are now younger than 35 years. We knew from long ago that this was a time bomb for the regime but it is now when it is exploding. Imams have been complaining from some time now that the young ones do not go to the mosques. From being the "generation of the Revolution" that the theocracy hoped for, they have become in something radically opposed to the official religious and militaristic ideology. I understand that this is one of the main reasons behind the revolts and not the so much denounced "Western interference", which Teheran clings to stubbornly.
I don't think that it is an spontaneous revolt either because I see it as a very well organized movement, though I could not say who is behind. The West is only concerned about the Persian nuclear race, not human rights in Iran.
He is also hopeful that the political way will produce changes in Turkey. Not because it is what Turkey wishes for but because it will be reality which imposes itself: the reality of the existence of the Kurdish People.
That is what Joe Biden, the US vice-president, declared in a TV interview:Israel has a sovereign right to decide how to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions whether the United States agrees or not.
I always find interesting, albeit scary, these kind of declarations in support of the Apartheid regime in Palestine, an illegitimate nuclear power itself, even if that means attacking another state and causing an international crisis of unknown dimensions.In contrast of those who have raised hopes that the Obama administration could put pressure on Israel to finally solve the regional conflicts, what I see is that behind Obama's smile there is a truly ultra-Zionist apparatus that will support the Zionist regime no matter what, even if maybe trying to show a more amicable face to the World.It seems that the Zionist racist and nuclear regime has sovereign right, while others like the Palestinian Authority lead by Hamas or Iran, or say North Korea or whatever, do not have any sort of sovereign right whatsoever. If the USA would be fair, all these totalitarian regimes should be treated equally and not give a red carpet to the Zionist regime trying to isolate and boycott the rest..
A couple of spy stories today at the news. One is placed at Balochistan (and affects Iran and Pakistan) and the other at Lebanon (but has Israel as main affected).Balochistan.Let's first see what happens in Balochistan. This country is divided between Iran and Pakistan. The Balochis are a distinct people speaking a distinct language but was not lucky in historical destiny and ended up split between the British and Persian empires. It is recognized as stateless by the UNPO (an popular parallel of the UN founded on ethnicities, not states). 
Map (from Wikipedia) showing the main nations of Pakistan. Balochis are in pink.
The news is, as you may know, that two successive attacks have taken place in Western Balochistan (Balochistan-Sistan province of Iran): a mass-murdering bomb against a Shia temple, attributed to US agents by the Iranians, followed by a suicidal attack with automatic guns against an electoral office of Iran's President, M. Ahmadinejad. Both took place at Zahedan, a Balochi city which is capital of the province, placed just near the Pakistani and Afghan border. It is interesting maybe the claim by Iran that US spies have been behind these attacks, even if they sound to the usual propaganda on first sight. This is because of the analysis that Pepe Escobar have been making at Asia Times Online on the US interests in this country. According to him, the USA may well be demolishing Pakistan and wants an independent Balochistan to become its main regional hub, notably for the gasoduct leading, via Afghanistan into Central Asian riches. If so, the USA might well be targeting not only Eastern "Pakistani" Balochistan but also Western "Iranian" one, adding this nation to the several that are being used (add Kurds and Iranian Arabs) to weaken, and maybe break to pieces, literally, the troublesome fundamentalist Iran. Lebanon smashes Zionist spy network.In an apparently distinct development, the Lebanese armed forces have been these days arresting more than 40 alleged spies of Israel, which would belong to at least a dozen different networks. These do not belong to any specific faction or faith, and Israel has not denied its implication, so it does seem it is for real and not just a political campaign. The operation is still ongoing and it seems that it could include top political figures as well. This may well have destroyed all or most of the Zionist ability to spy and interfere in Lebanon: it is a huge blow to Israel. This kind of large network needs many years, maybe decades, to be built and its annihilation certainly makes Israel significatively less powerful. Lebanese authorities claim that the operation was possible because of a "technological breakthrough". Or in other words: they or someone else has probably broken into the Zionist headquarters' computers and accessed top secret data - not just a piece but all or nearly so (and probably not just limited to Lebanon operations - we will surely read more on Mossad networks elsewhere soon, I guess). The question is: who has managed to do such a feat? Probably not Lebanon itself, not Hizbollah either. Nor it's likely an achievement of Syria or Iran, much less besieged Hamas. Who then? Two main candidates seem more obvious: Russia and China. Both have advanced technology and both could have interest in undermining US influence in the area (and hence Israel's). Russia is probably still angered at Israel messing in Georgia, while China has wide and growing interests in the Middle East, that clash with those of the USA and Israel. But Russia is as dominated by a pro-Zionist oligarchy as it is the USA and China has in the past benefited from the manipulative games of Israel, which sold Patriot anti-missile technology to Beijing not so long ago. This does not exclude them totally but certainly opens the array of options. I have at least two other candidates and they are surprising ones: the USA and France. Sounds unlikely but the USA might have taken seriously the "two states solution" and may be upset at Netanyahu's and other Zionists' maneouvers, including the current rejection to stop expansion of settlements in the West Bank or the "treacherous" genocidal campaign against Gaza in the presidential interlude some months ago, which may have irked even people within the Zionist mafia itself (as have only caused increased opposition and awareness against Israel). France is even more unlikely, notably with Sarkozy (of Jewish ancestors himself) taking such an outstanding pro-Zionist stand as of late. But things are not always what they appear and France has recently shown increased interest in West Asia (where Lebanon and Syria are their "natural" allies). There are even more potential candidates: Latin American nations like Venezuela or Bolivia (who are tired of fascist-zionist attacks on their soil), Turkey (whose regional policy has been once and again undermined by the Wahsington-Tel Aviv tandem), Pakistan (why not? reasons they do have), North Korea, Saudi Arabia (most unlikely, IMO) and even Qatar (main "pro-democracy" player in the Arab League). It is a most intriguing story and I guess we will soon know, at least by rumor, who is most likely behind this attack against Israel as regional power - and maybe even why. .
In absence of Osama (who I believe is dead or retired in some exotic place long ago), the "second in command" of the most feared international terrorist network, Ayman Al Zawahiri (actually the boss right now) has accused Iran of spreading the rumor that Israel (sic) was behind the 9/11 attacks against New York and the Pentagon.
More specifically, he blames Hizbullah, the Lebanese Shia Islamist party, militia and state-within-the-state, for being the first one to spread such rumors, "obviously" intended to discredit Sunni Islamist "heroism".
Problem, Mr. Al Zawahiri, is that the people like me that began to have serious doubts in the very aftermath of the massacre, as quickly supressed news of the supposed Al Qaeda cells being actually anti-Taliban (who do you believe: the CIA or the most professional German BND?) and of M. Atta being alive (a story his father apparently still sustains), were broadcasted. We also know who was the boss of Osama for so many years: the CIA, and we know that Al Qaeda took months to assimilate the issue and claim authorship.
In brief: there have been many doubts since 9/12. Maybe Hizbullah was among the first ones casting doubt in the Middle East, but certainly the subject was very controversial here in the West much earlier.
Mr. Al Zawahiri, you forget something important: the World is not just the Muslim world. Allah, may be great, but Reality is much greater.
Posts
