NOVANEWS

NOVANEWS

By Nile Bowie

Global Research

nilebowie.blogspot.com

Between the chaos and artillery fire unfolding in Homs and Damascus, the current siege against the Ba’athist State of Bashar al-Assad parallels events of nearly a century ago. In efforts to maintain its protectorate, the French government employed the use of foreign soldiers to smother those seeking to abolish the French mandated, Fédération Syrienne. While former Prime Minister Faris al-Khoury argued the case for Syrian independence before UN in 1945, French planes bombed Damascus into submission. Today, the same government – in addition to the United States and its client regimes in Libya and Tunisia – enthusiastically recognize the Syrian National Council as the legitimate leadership of Syria. Although recent polls funded by the Qatar Foundation claim 55% of Syrians support the Assad regime, the former colonial powers have made a mockery of the very democratic principles they tout.

Irrespective to the views of the Syrian people, their fate has long been decided by forces operating beyond their borders. In a speech given to the Commonwealth Club of California in 2007 retired US Military General Wesley Clark speaks of a policy coup initiated by members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Clark cites a confidential document handed down from the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2001 stipulating the entire restructuring of the Middle East and North Africa. Portentously, the document allegedly revealed campaigns to systematically destabilize the governments of Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Iran.Under the familiar scenario of an authoritarian regime systematically suppressing peaceful dissent and purging large swaths of its population, the mechanisms of geopolitical stratagem have freely taken course.

Syria is but a chess piece being used as a platform by larger powers. Regime change is the unwavering interest of the US-led NATO block in collaboration with the feudal Persian Gulf Monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). This is being accomplished by using Qatar-owned media outlets such as Al-Jazeera to project their version of the narrative to the world and by arming radical factions of the regions Sunni-majority population against the minority Alawi-Shia leadership of Assad. Since 2005, the Bush administration began funding Syrian opposition groups that lean toward the Muslim Brotherhood and their aspirations to build a Sunni-Islamic State. The Muslim Brotherhood has long condemned the Alawi-Shia as heretics and historically attempted multiple uprising in the 1960’s. By arming radical Sunni factions and importing Iraqi Salafi-jihadists and Libyan mercenaries, the NATOGCC plans to topple Assad and install an illegitimate exiled opposition leader such as Burhan Ghaliun (leader of the Syrian National Council) to be the face of the new regime.

The recent example of implementing foreign policy by arming Al-Qaeda fighters in Libya has proved disastrous – as the rule of law passes from the NATO-backed Libyan Transitional Council to hundreds of warring guerilla militias. At a meeting between Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Hillary Clinton, Davutoglu pledged to find ways outside the United Nations Security Council to pressure Assad. In addition to bolstering longstanding sectarian divides in Syria, the US is smuggling arms into Syria from Incirlik military base in Turkey and providing financial support for Syrian rebels.Syrian opposition forces led by defected Syrian colonel Riad al-Assad have been trained on Turkish soil since May 2011. Exclusive military and intelligence sources have reported to Israel’s DEBKAfile that British and Qatari special operations units are assisting rebel forces in Homs by providing body armor, laptops, satellite phones and managing rebel communications lines that request logistical aid, arms and mercenaries from outside suppliers.

Although the UK has vehemently denied these reports, Qatar’s leader Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani recently suggested sending troops into Syria to battle Assad’s forces. Military bases situated near Turkey’s southeastern border with northern Syria have become a crucial hub used for the delivery of outside supplies. Unmarked NATO warplanes near Iskenderum have received fighters from Libya’s Transitional National Council wielding weapons formerly belonging to Gaddafi’s arsenal. Abdel Hakim Belhaj, (former leader of the extremist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group turned NTC military governor at the directive of NATO) is leading the infiltration of Libyans into Syria in person with the help of the Turkish government. It has also been reported that Mahdi al-Harati, resigned from his functions as deputy chief of the Military Council in Tripoli to oversee the Free Syrian Army.

Syrian press has also reported that armed terrorist groups brandishing up-to-date American and Israeli weapons have roamed the countryside of Damascus committing blind acts of terror by setting off explosive devices and kidnapping civilians. As the NATOGCC continue to insist that Assad is committing acts of genocide against unarmed civilians, one must draw correlations between events reported by the Syrian state media and recent statements released by the leadership of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, praising the arrival of Iraqi fighters in Syria and advising rebels to use roadside bombs. Paradoxically, Al-Qaeda front man Ayman al-Zawahri has called on Muslims from across the Arab World to mobilize and support the Free Syrian Armyafter the disappointing Russian and Chinese veto at the UNSC. Few things are more absurd than the notion of Al-Qaeda terrorists – unanimously portrayed as ostensible “savages” by virtually all-Western media sources – entrust the apparatus of the United Nations and their capacity to resolve the Syrian conflict. The true purpose of Al-Qaeda and its role in influencing foreign policy has never been more evident.

Surely, Assad accusing foreign-sponsored terrorist groups of fomenting violence in Syria is simply evidence of his illegitimacy – as Western and Gulf allies assert. Even as Syrian state TV broadcasts reports showing seized weapons stockpiles and confessions by terrorists describing how they obtained arms from foreign sources, the NATOGCC continues to draft legislation in an effort pressure the Assad regime into dissolution. In the face of an outright campaign of foreign-funded sabotage, Syrian hackers have targeted Al-Jazeera’s “Syria Live Blog”, which provides ongoing coverage of the unrest. The hacker-ring boldly denounced Al Jazeera for broadcasting”false and fabricated news to ignite sedition among the people of Syria to achieve the goals of Washington and Tel Aviv.”

Through the fiery rhetoric of Susan Rice and her relentless condemnation of Assad – like Gaddafi before him – the United States is again attempting to invoke the Right to Protect (R2P) doctrine to take direct action against the Assad regime. In another parallel to the Libyan conflict, the UN’s astounding official death toll in Syria is taken solely from human rights groups, backed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Criminal Court and the Syrian National Council. The official numbers rely exclusively on an obscure organization known as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights(SOHR) – based in London, not Damascus – whose evidence is largely reliant on hearsay, pixelated YouTube videos and activist Twitter feeds. SOHR’s disputed reports present evidence that would not hold up in any court of law, much less should it be the basis of United Nations resolutions. The Observatory’s director Rami Abdelrahman collaborates directly with British Foreign Minister William Hague and derives legitimacy solely from connections with corporate/foundation-funded civil society networks. Claims that Assad’s security forces indiscriminately kill scores of newborn babies are palpably a product of Britain’s foreign office.

As a further indication of the on-going media war in Syria, none is more telling than the report produced by the Arab League’s observer mission into Syria. The contents of the report were completely ignored by the corporate-media after Qatar disputed its findings, the only nation to do so in the Arab League’s Ministerial Committee. The report unalterably concluded that the Syrian government was in no way lethally repressing peaceful protestors. Furthermore, the report credits armed gangs with the bombing of civilian buses, trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and the bombing of bridges and pipelines. During an interview with Arab League observer Ahmed Manaï, he praises the Sino-Russian veto at the UNSC and encouraged the Syrian leadership to implement reforms. Manaï states, “The Arab League is entirely discredited by burying the report of its own observers’ mission and its appeal to the Security Council. It missed the opportunity to participate in the settlement of the Syrian affair. All it can offer in the future will be worthless.”

While the initial observer report is predictably absent from mainstream media coverage and cited as inept (presumably for contradicting the official line of the allied Western-Gulf powers), Arab League mission leader Mohammed al-Dabi officially resigned, stating, “I won’t work one more time in the framework of the Arab League, I performed my job with full integrity and transparency but I won’t work here again as the situation is skewed.” The United Nations and the Arab League are now considering what was originally a joint observer mission – now referred to as a peacekeeping mission. The Arab League, in tandem with Saudi Arabia is preparing a nearly identical resolution calling for an armed peacekeeping council to present to the UN. Much like the indistinguishable saber rattling seen before Libyan intervention, the new resolution condemns Assad for lethal repression and calls for a transitional shift to democracy. The resolution is expected to create similar Sino-Russian divisions over its implementation, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Gennady Gatilov, previously scorned the document as “the same unbalanced draft resolution text.”

The conflict in Syria has brought light to longstanding Cold War divisions between world powers. The Sino-Russian veto of the UNSC resolution calling for intervention has blocked the opportunity for Western powers to exert overt aggression, as demonstrated by NATO in Libya. Instead, it appears that the Assad regime will be destabilized through covert mercenary groups bent on committing blind acts of terrorism by means of sniper assassinations and roadside bombs. Learning from the Libyan experience, Russia and China perceive the UN Human Rights Report authored by Karen Koning AbuZayd, a director of the Washington-based corporate-funded think-tank, Middle East Policy Council – to be explicitly comprised; victims among the civilian population are a result of armed paramilitaries doing battle with the Syrian military in residential areas. In an interview with former Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov pledges that Russia will protect Iran, Syria, and the world from American fascism. In a show of support for the Syrian government, Russia has sent a large naval force into the region and China has further warned against a strike on Syria.

It is truly a paradox that the countries least fit to dictate principles of human rights, do so largely unhindered on the world stage. Without hesitation Hillary Clinton proclaimed, “What happened yesterday at the United Nations was a travesty” referring to the Sino-Russian veto. She then called for the formation of an international alliance between the war-profiteering elite of the West and absolutist Wahhabi Persian Gulf monarchies – amusingly titled, the Friends of Syria. International calls to abstain from violence have done little to influence the Gulf Cooperation Council and their brutal crackdown against Shiites in Bahrain. Incredibly, Saudi Arabia has entered the dialogue on human rights and democracy promotion – perhaps the world’s most defining feudalistic theocracy, a nation that prohibits political parties and national elections and executes those who apostatize Islam.

Iran’s Press TV news network has reportedly leaked intelligence exposing the American agenda in Syria. The report calls for the recognition of the Syrian National Council as the legitimate government and their positioning in Turkey to work against the Assad regime. Washington would then task Turkey with sending troops into Syria to arm the opposition forces, followed by Wahhabi fighters and Libyan mercenaries. Ominously, the intelligence stipulates that Israel will enter the fray to carry out military operations against Syria. If the regime fails to dissolve, Syrian state television channels will be taken down and Assad will be assassinated. Considering how other enemies of the West have faired in recent times, the sequence of events reported by Press TV would be largely unsurprising. The Wahhabis of the Persian Gulf are playing junior to American aggression in an effort to dominate the Shia-Alawi religious faction presently upheld by the leadership of Syria and Iran, but also to secure their places as regional powers.

Domestic affairs in Syria are of little consequence to the powers trying to topple the nation; the real priority is to further isolate Iran by eliminating its Shia-Alawi ally in Damascus. Israel reaps enormous benefit from toppling the Assad regime, as the Syrian Nation Council pledges to cut ties with Iran and discontinue arms shipments to Hezbollah and Hamas. If Syria falls and Iran is directly threatened, the potential for a regional conflict of the utmost seriousness exists, assuming China and Russia move in to defend Iran.

Such a conflict would create detrimental implications for the global economy, potentially triggering a hyper-inflationary financial crisis. William Hague and billionaire financiers behind the civil society groups bestowing legitimacy to violent opposition actors are not the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. Although the reforms have been slow, the Assad government is in the midst of drafting a new constitution. Syria’s sovereignty has come under direct fire from powers claiming to be defending Syria’s people. An attempt on the life of Bashar al-Assad may have similar consequences to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. As the Syrian National Council familiarly calls for the implementation of a no-fly zone over, those members of the International Community with any integrity left must work diligently to diffuse conflict in the region.

NOVANEWS

Israeli Officials Blame Iran for Recent Bombings, Despite Lack of Evidence

NOVANEWS

NOVANEWS 

by Stephen Lendman

Last October, Iran was falsely charged with a fake terror plot that didn’t pass the smell test. At best, it resembled a bad film script too implausible to believe.

Tehran was bogusly blamed for plotting to kill Saudi Arabia’s US ambassador. According to spurious accusations, an Iranian/American used car salesman and Mexican drug cartel hired assassin were involved.

You can’t make this stuff up, but major media scoundrels headlined it for days. They regurgitated a scheme too implausible to believe.

Official lies substituted for proof. They’re repeated to incite fear and justify retaliatory measures with public support. They include belligerence if ordered.

Unasked always is cui bono. Clearly, Iran’s only harmed by alleged terrorist attacks against America, NATO partners, Israel, or their allies. In contrast, Washington and Tel Aviv benefit greatly. As a result, new charges follow old ones.

On February 13, The New York Times headlined, “Israel Blames Iran for Attacks in India and Georgia,” saying:

On Monday, “(b)ombers targeted Israel embassy workers in” both countries’ capitals. New Delhi witnesses said a motorcyclist attached a bomb to an Israeli diplomat’s car, injuring his wife.”

An alleged Georgia plot was foiled. Conveniently, an Israeli Tbilisi embassy employee spotted a “strange object” in full view attached to its envoy’s car. If something real was planned, it would have been placed underneath out of sight. Even an amateur knows that.

Notorious pro-Israeli flack/Times writer Ethan Bronner headlined, “Israel Says Iran Is Behind Bombs,” saying:

“If actually carried out by Iran (implying they were), the attacks would be another indication that the leadership in Tehran was willing to reach beyond its borders against its enemies and expand its attacks to civilians.”

Bronner repeated the canard about Iran plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, adding:

“….Israel has said that Iran has planned to attack its citizens in various countries, but that those plots were stopped.”

Major media scoundrels are so used to suppressing truth and full disclosure, they wouldn’t recognize it if it jumped up and bit them in the nose.

For years, Israel manufactured bogus threats against its overseas based officials and other citizens. America does the same thing. Duplicitously pointing fingers the wrong way conceals their own crimes. They’re numerous, frequent, and horrific.

In contrast, Iran threatens no other country and hasn’t attacked one in over 200 years. Israeli/Washington terrorist charges are spurious. They’re made to stoke fear and justify retaliatory measures.

Iran painstakingly avoids provocations. Despite clear evidence of Mossad’s involvement in killing its nuclear scientists and other destabilizing actions, Tehran refrained from retaliating.

Blaming Iran for the New Delhi and Tbilisi incidents is entirely spurious. Yet major media scoundrels headline it. So did Netanyahu calling Iran and Hezbollah “the world’s greatest exporter(s) of terror.”

“In the last few months, we have witnessed several attempts to target Israeli citizens and Jews in a series of countries, such as Azerbaijan and Thailand. In all of these cases were able to thwart these attacks in cooperation with local forces.”

Of course, doing so suggests Israeli involvement. Conveniently, alleged terror plots were foiled in the nick of time. Be suspicious. Be very suspicious.

At issue, of course, is blaming Iran, Syria, and other Israeli targets. It’s an old stunt used often by Israel and America. Both countries specialize in false flag attacks. They’re also behind alleged foiled terror plots.

Netanyahu added:

“The Israeli government and its security services will continue, with local security, to act against the international terror which Iran produces.”

In fact, Israel and Washington are the world’s leading state terror exponents. Incidents are conveniently blamed on others. It doesn’t wash.

Though evidence so far can’t prove it, Mossad, not Iran, was likely responsible for the latest ones. The tactic chosen replicated one of its favorites. It was classic Israeli state terrorism.

Mossad and Shin Bet (Israel’s Security Agency) have long, odious terrorist histories.

Blaming victims, lawlessness, violence, crimes of war and against humanity, collective punishment, intimidation, attacking unarmed civilians, and overall brutality are Israeli specialties.

Combined, they define a rogue state, defiant of international law principles. It pursues its own interests ruthlessly and extrajudicially, anywhere in the world.

Israel began honing its skills during the Mandatory Palestine period. At the time, Jewish terrorist groups targeted Jews, Brits and Arabs. Involved were paramilitary Hagana members, Irgun headed by future prime minister Menachem Begin, and Lehi (also called the Stern Gang) led by another future prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir. They were rogue killers before entering politics.

Today the tradition continues under new management. Little wonder Israel’s history is so bloodstained. It involves individual and mass killings. Alleged Arab terrorists are blamed. Current favorites include Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Palestinian resistance groups.

Mossad specializes in various type car bombs. Assassinating former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri was classic Israeli state terror.

On February 14, 2005, compelling visual and audio evidence revealed real time intercepted Israeli aerial surveillance footage of routes Hariri used on the day he was killed. Israel was clearly involved.

Syria initially was blamed. Assad denied responsibility. Hezbollah was later falsely named and indicted. It was typical Mossad targeting though no one at the time knew for sure. The powerful car bomb ripped a 30 foot crater in the street, injuring over 100 besides those killed.

No evidence proved Hezbollah’s involvement. Moreover, it had nothing to gain but plenty to lose. Israel and its paymaster/partner Washington greatly benefitted. Mossad’s dirty hands were responsible like for many dozens of other incidents. Most likely it committed the New Delhi/Tbilisi ones, but don’t expect major media scoundrels to explain.

Israel perfected the art of killing. It’s also skilled at manufacturing incidents avoiding them. Neither the India or Georgia incident caused deaths. That alone’s suspicious. If Israel or other professional assassins want someone dead, bet on it. If targets escape unscathed or with minor wounds, smell a rat. The odor from New Delhi and Tbilisi is telling.

India Responds

India’s Foreign Minister SM Krishna announced an investigation. Protection for Israeli embassy staff was added. India’s Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said the attack was committed by a “very well-trained person.”

Tali Yehoshua-Koren, wife of Israel’s defense attache was slightly wounded. After hospital treatment to remove shrapnel, she was released. Her husband said she’s recovering nicely.

The incident occurred one day after the fourth anniversary of Hezbollah leader Imad Mughniyah’s assassination. He was falsely linked to terror attacks on American and Israeli targets.

In 2008, a Damascus car bomb claimed him. Israel was blamed at the time. It was typical Mossad terror. Israel, of course, denied it. In the 1970s, Mughniyah was a student brigade organizer. He aided Arafat and other senior PLO officials in Lebanon. He was falsely accused of masterminding the 1983 US Embassy Beirut attack, as well as truck bombing French and US marine barracks in Lebanon.

Without evidence, he and Hezbollah’s rap sheet include the 1983 US Lebanon embassy and marine barracks bombings, highjackings, hostage taking, rocket attacks against Israel, suicide bombings, and more. He and Hezbollah denied them, saying they only respond defensively when attacked against militants, not civilians.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah accuses America and Israel of making false terrorist charges for political, not legitimate, reasons. At issue is its resistance to imperial aggression.

Argentinean officials also bogusly charged Mughniyeh in connection with the 1992 Israeli Buenos Aires embassy bombing. It killed 29 and wounded another 242 civilians.

In 1999, its authorities issued an arrest warrant for this attack and the 1994 AMIA (Argentine Israelite Mutual Association) Buenos Aires bombing. It killed 85 and injured hundreds. Argentina has Latin America’s largest Jewish population. It numbers around 200,000.

Once named, it’s easy to pile on more accusations. Mughniyeh faced many, including the 1996 Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers bombing and a 2006 border incident Israel used to wage aggressive war on Lebanon.

A Final Comment

When it rains, it pours. On February 14, Haaretz headlined, “Suspected Iranian national maimed by own bomb in Bangkok,” saying:

“A man thought to be Iranian was seriously wounded in Bangkok on Tuesday when a bomb he was (allegedly) carrying exploded and blew one of his legs off, police and a government spokeswoman said.”

Be suspicious. If a professional assassin wanted someone dead, he or she would wouldn’t be wounded in the process.

The report added that “Shortly before, there had been an explosion in a house the man was renting” in central Bangkok. Both incidents smell, especially by pointing fingers at Iran with no corroborating evidence. Yet Haaretz headlined it without questioning charges that appear baseless.

Israel and Washington are spoiling for a fight. What better way to justify one than by state-sponsored false flags blamed on intended targets.

It’s the oldest trick in the book with a long sordid history. Be suspicious whenever headlines feature incidents without evidence. It suggests none exists and those blamed are innocent. Believe it!

NVANEWS

by Stephen Lendman

February 11 marked the 33rd anniversary of Iran’s 1979 revolution. It ended a generation of repressive rule under Washington’s installed Reza Shah Pahlavi.

In late 1947, Iran demanded more revenue from its own oil. Britain’s Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AOIC) refused.

In 1951, one month before Mohammad Mosaddegh became prime minister, parliament nationalized AOIC. Fair compensation was paid. Iran tried but couldn’t resolve its revenue sharing dispute equitably.

Economic sanctions and an oil embargo followed. British banks froze Iranian assets. Major Anglo-American oil interests supported London. Today’s anti-Iranian repression replicates what occurred then.

In 1953, CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt’s grandson and Franklin’s cousin, engineered the Agency’s first coup. Democratically elected Mossadeq was ousted.

At the time, The New York Times called him “the most popular politician in the country.” Nonetheless, a military showdown followed against pro-Mossadegh officers with each side staking their careers on the outcome.

He was deposed. Reza Shah Pahlavi replaced him. Sanctions were lifted, and America and Britain regained an Iranian client state until February 1979 when the same Anglo-American interests turned on the Shah and removed him.

As late as 1977, Jimmy Carter declared Iran an “oasis of stability.” He ignored years of brutal regime repression. In 1978, a White House Iran task force recommended replacing the Shah with Ayatollah Khomeini. He was then living in France.

It was part of a larger scheme to balkanize the region along tribal and religious lines. It also sought to create an “arc of crisis” through Central Asia to Soviet Russia.

Accomplishing it in 1978 became urgent. The Shah was negotiating a 25-year oil deal with British Petroleum (BP), but talks broke down in October. BP demanded exclusive rights to future output but refused to guarantee oil purchases.

The Shah balked and sought new buyers in Europe and elsewhere. He also hoped to create a modern energy infrastructure built around nuclear power. He wanted to transform Iranian and regional power needs.

He envisioned 20 new reactors by 1995 to diversify away from Iran’s dependence on oil. He also wanted Washington’s pressure to recycle petrodollars weakened, as well as increased foreign investments.

Alarmed, Washington tried blocking his plan but failed. As a result, its usual tactics followed. They included cutting Iranian oil purchases, other economic pressures, and fueled instability through oil strikes, religious rivalries, and other disruptive practices to incite anti-Shah sentiment.

Major media scoundrels regurgitated government propaganda. Khomeini got a public stage to speak. The Shah was prevented from responding. In January 1979, things came to a head. He fled the country. Khomeini returned, and proclaimed the Islamic Republic with overwhelming public support.

In May, he cancelled Iran’s nuclear plans. American officials thought they could control him and Iranian oil, but miscalculated. Free from Western dominance, Iran didn’t look back.

As a result, tensions built. Three-three years later they’re boiling. Tehran’s again targeted for regime change.

On February 10, American Free Press contributor Pete Papaherakles suggested one reason why, besides America’s intolerance of independent regimes, its quest for regional dominance, and determination to control its rich oil and gas reserves.

“Could gaining control” of Iran’s central bank (CBI) be key? Few countries have independent ones. Pre-9/11, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan were among them. No longer.

Islamic central banking prohibits usury. Western banks thrive on it through predatory loan practices. Money control is key to make more of it at the public’s expense. Ousting Gaddafi perhaps was as much about banking as oil.

The privatized Central Bank of Benghazi replaced the state-owned Central Bank of Libya. It created its own money interest free for economic growth, not profits or bonuses for predatory bankers.

They want dominant money control. Achieving it in Iran is one of several reasons for wanting regime change.

Iranians want none of it. On February 11, they rallied across the country in solidarity against it.

Whatever their pro or con government views, they deplore Western imperialism. They remember hellish Shah repression or were taught by their parents who endured it. As a result, they reject going back and know how countries are torn apart and destroyed when America intervenes.

Press TV provided extended coverage of an extraordinary commemoration day. Millions turned out in over 1,000 Iranian cities and 5,000 villages across the country.

In Tehran, hundreds of thousands gathered in Azadi (Freedom) square. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed them, saying:

“The huge awakening is underway. The storm of global awakening is underway. (It’s) uproot(ing capitalist) tyranny and oppression.”

He stressed need for a new world order, guaranteeing justice, righteousness, prosperity, security, and dignity for everyone. He said governance should transcend racist stigmas and respect humanity.

He blamed US imperialism and Israel for supporting world despots and causing global turmoil. He said Iran stands resolute against them.

Iran v. America

Annually, Iran commemorates its revolution. This year’s turnout appears the largest ever. Over 300 foreign and 1,500 Iranian correspondents covered it. Images of huge supportive masses were impressive.

America never experienced anything like it. Why isn’t hard to understand. When people have nothing to celebrate, they don’t. Years of protest were needed for meager social gains. Racism and class divisions define America from inception to today.

Constitutional law legitimized slavery. Blacks were commodities, not people. Only adult white male property owners could vote. Women were considered childbearing, homemaking appendages of their husbands.

Until 1810, religious prerequisites existed. All adult white males couldn’t vote until property and tax requirements ended in 1850. States elected senators until the 1913 17th amendment enfranchised citizens.

Native Americans had no rights until the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act. It partially returned what no one had the right to take away in the first place. Today native people are treated more like serfs than citizens. Women’s suffrage wasn’t achieved until the 1920 19th Amendment after nearly a century of struggle.

The 1865 13th Amendment freed Black slaves. The 1870 15th Amendment gave them what wasn’t achieved until passage of the landmark mid-1960s Civil and Voting Rights Acts. They abolished longstanding Southern Jim Crow laws, now reemerged in new forms.

Today, virtually all hard won gains are lost. Blacks have no reason to celebrate. Neither do Latinos and all working Americans exploited by corporate predators complicit with political Washington.

Early America was repressive and unfair. Today it’s much worse beneath the veneer of illusory democracy, out-of-control imperialism, and Washington’s war on humanity.

Freedom’s a fading right. So is survival unless America’s rogue agenda ends. Decades of destructive policies made more enemies than friends.

As a result, America’s world influence is waning. Nations are more assertive saying no and getting away with it. Expect others to follow.

Putting a brave face on raw imperialism no longer works. Eventually perhaps only Israel, Britain, the worst of global despots, and a couple of small Pacific islands will stay supportive.

What can’t go on forever, won’t. Nations living by the sword, die by it. For growing millions, it can’t happen a moment too soon.

NOVANEWS

By Ralph Lopez

It may have been the one and only thing which prevented an attack on Iran during the Bush years. Chairman of the Judiciary Committee John Conyers spent years fending off nationwide calls to impeach George W. Bush over the invasion of Iraq, the shredding of the Constitution after 9/11, and other high crimes and misdemeanors culminating in a summer of 2008 “non-impeachment impeachment hearings,” in which witnesses such as Rep. Brad Miller, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Rep. Walter Jones, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, constitutional scholarBruce Fein, former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, Vincent Bugliosi and many others came together to implore the committee to bring articles of impeachment.

At one point Conyers closed to the committee room to any further audience members, prompting calls of “shame! shame! shame!” from the packed halls of the Rayburn Building to which people had traveled from across the country, but established numerous closed-circuit television viewing rooms for the public in other parts of the Hill.

Conyers refused to impeach, but did in fact draw one hard line in the sand, saying that if Bush attacked Iran, it would guarantee impeachment proceedings. George Bush must have believed him. Now as the crazies beat the drums for war with Iran, driving Obama almost irresistibly to war, Conyers has fallen silent. As recently as January 25, Obama said no options were “off the table.”

If we attack Iran, it will be an excuse to pour millions of rounds of utterly demonic – there is no other word – depleted uranium ammunition into a country which has done us no harm, which acknowledges the right of navigation in international waters but merely insists that it will not be bullied. The U.S. is determined to impose sanctions no matter what Iran says about its weapons programs, in a perfect replay of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Then as in Iraq, this will kill and maim entire generations of the most innocent life imaginable, that which sits and will sit in their mothers’ wombs.

One of the most little-noted after effects of the invasion of Iraq is the rate of horrifying birth deformities caused the the U.S.’s use of these weapons, with rates of birth deformities now running as high as 75% in Fallujah. The Iraqi nation, for all practical purposes, is destroyed. Hospitals do not know how to care for or deal with the epidemic. A country still rife with problems like clean water and sewage systems ravaged by the war is struggling with how to care for these babies for life. The greatest evil of the Iraq war, no one ever talks about. (See: “DU-Induced Birth Deformities in Iraq” by William Shannon.)

President John F. Kennedy sat alone in the war councils during the Cuban Missile Crisis demanding to know of his generals how what they wanted, strikes on Cuba, would not culminate in World War III. Our youngest president faced hawks in politics and the military who assured him that he would be made to look like a weak appeaser if he did not give them what they wanted: war. Kennedy stood firm. When General Curtis Lemay taunted him in the war room that “you’re in a pretty bad fix” Kennedy shot back: “You’re in it with me.” Kennedy may have been making it eminently clear that he was playing hardball, and if he were to go down, he would make sure that the generals who helped make it happen would go with him.

When Conyers drew his line in the sand, the system of checks and balances for once worked. He also, as a junior congressman, led the impeachment of Richard Nixon. I am no great fan of Joe Biden, but I believe he would make a perfectly fine, if unremarkable, Democratic president. I don’t care what anybody thinks. The war drums are beating, and the time to speak is now or never. The parallel to the Cuban Missile Crisis is not as far-fetched as some would believe. Pakistani nukes are probably already one step from Al Qaeda thanks to theIslamist-riddled Pakistani officer corp, and an attack on Iran might force an open coup which would place the Pakistani arsenal at the disposal of revenge-minded factions. Why Iran is being demonized, a country greatly wronged by the U.S. in the past, while Pakistan, a proven threat which has been caught helping the Taliban in Afghanistan, is left alone is a mystery.

The Israeli people should be furious that their hawkish leaders are playing this dangerous game, and the world would be safest now if they drove them out of office. On NPR the other night the topic was “Is it time for an attack on Iran?” – with one guest saying “yes” and the other saying “not yet.” Host Tom Ashbrook kept referring to the emails and and Facebook posts he was getting from his horrified listeners at Nice Peoples’ Radio, marveling that the overwhelming sentiment was “WE WANT A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION!”

Obama has said repeatedly that he finds outside pressure healthy and useful, saying “make me do it.” Now is the time to do that with respect to talk of war with Iran. Joe Biden would make a competent president.

Millions more depleted uranium rounds into another Middle Eastern country. 75% deformities in Fallujah. This great evil must not come to pass.

Depleted Uranium babies in Iraq:

NOVANEWS

 by  Sami Jamil Jadallah

What chutzpah, what hypocrisy! Israel with over 400 nuclear devices, with submarines that carry nuclear tipped missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching Washington DC! Israel, at war since before its founding has attacked its neighbors near and far, all the way from Tunisia to Iraq.

It has even attacked its own ally, killing 34 US sailors. Israel, the same country that used depleted uranium, phosphorous and cluster bombs in its wars against civilian targets in Lebanon and Gaza, is worried about Iran’s “nuclear intentions.” This must be a sick joke.

Possibly even more worrisome than Israel, is the total hypocrisy of the so-called ‘international community,’ as is the reference given to the US and certain European allies that sponsor every Israeli position.

It is even willing to take the world to an absolute disaster: a war against Iran based on unsubstantiated claims of its “nuclear intentions” –a war led by none other than Israel (again, a country with upwards of 400 nuclear devices), the country that has never signed the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty (Iran, by the way, is a signatory).

I must admit that I do think the Islamic Republic of Iran has an absolute right to nuclear energy whether civilian or not, however, I also think it is unwise, if not stupid and reckless, not to mention a waste of time and money for Iran or for any country to pursue nuclear weapons programs.

Israel’s nuclear arsenal will not do it any good, just like Soviet Union’s nuclear bombs did not do it any good.

On 5 October 1986, the British newspaper The Sunday Times ran Mordechai Vanunu’s story on its front page under the headline: “Revealed: the secrets of Israel’s nuclear arsenal”

I am not a fan of the current regime in Tehran, though I did celebrate the humiliating exiles of the Shah and the return of Khomeini. However Khomeini ended up a big disappointment for me.

He proved to be a very vindictive man full of hate and anger, not the pious man one might expect and hope for. Khomeini in fact, ended up no different than the angry rabbis of Israel.

Of course, the Islamic Revolution in Iran did not sit well with either the US or Israel, who were prime supporters and sponsors of the Shah regime. Khomeini unfortunately set out to lose the support of the hundreds of millions of Muslims in the streets.

His indifference, perhaps an encouragement for the US Embassy siege was a stupid, criminal and careless undertaking that handicapped the Islamic Revolution. Khomeini’s ruthless murder of those who stood by him and sponsored his return was something never to be forgiven.

Of course the US was ready with its own plans to teach Khomeini and the young Islamic regime a lesson. Saddam Hussein, humiliated a number of times by the late Shah, was ready to serve an angry Reagan administration. Saddam waged his proxy war, one that lasted 8 years, with over two million casualties and hundreds of billions in “Arab” money wasted on America’s agenda against Iran.

Those wasted billions could have done wonders for the development of the Arab world from Morocco to Bahrain, and from Syria to Yemen. Saddam, Khamenei, and Arab regimes all were guilty of being a part of this proxy war against the new Islamic Republic of Iran.

Rather than creating and developing a model of what a modern Islamic state might be, where the people are source of power and authority—a state that might have set a tone for freedom and democracy in the Arab and Muslim world, the mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran had other ideas.

They wanted to create a “Muslim Papal State” with a Khomeini and Khamenei as the Muslim Pope and the Mullahs as “College of Cardinals” ruling as the “Princes of the Church/Mosque”. Wilayat Al-Faqih is no different from the Vatican—they wanted a theocratic state not a people’s state. A state with the infallibility of the Supreme leader enshrined into law…that is too much to take.

Israeli Submarine

Iran’s interest in nuclear power is not new. It was there way back in the 50s to the time of the late Shah when the US, France, and even Israel were all too happy to provide the Shah with support for his nuclear energy plans.

The Israelis even developed the security plans for Iran nuclear plants. I am sure if Iran were to establish a diplomatic relationship with Israel all of these threats against it would be forgotten.

An “Islamic” republic run by Mullhas is deemed untrustworthy… meanwhile; somehow a Zionist Jewish Israel is completely trusted…what hypocrisy!

Iran, in modern times, did not invade any of its neighbors, did not initiate wars, does not occupy other people’s land is somehow deemed untrustworthy and criminal by the ‘international community.’

Meanwhile, Israel, a country constantly at war, with a leadership sanctions indiscriminate attacks by its military—a country with rabbis who legitimize the murder of non-Jews, is deemed trustworthy!

Well, I guess a country with a stockpile of over 400 nukes and angry racist leadership is quite ok…as long as it is Jewish.

In law, the burden of proof lies on the state to prove guilt, and not on the accused to prove innocence. What I fail to understand are the demands by Israel, the US, France, Germany, England and the IAEA for Iran to ‘come clean’ with its nuclear program.

Israel, with support from the US has already engaged in targeted assassination of nuclear scientist identified by IAEA.

What exactly do Israel, the US, France, Germany, the UK and the IAEA want from Iran?

If the US gives Israel the “green light,” to attack Iran, it is Americans allied in the Gulf , mainly in the Gulf, that will suffer the greatest loss.

In fact, if the US sanctions an attack on Iran, it might as well write a death warrant for the entire Arab Gulf region, including Iraq.

The Gulf States—the best US allies in the region, much more loyal than Israel—would go up in flames, and lose trillions in investments, infrastructure and development.

My question is: When will the time come for Israel to stop holding the US and the rest of the world hostage?

NOVANEWS

ED NOTE:  FOX news is now reporting an actual timeline for the up coming attack on Iran by Israel. America is backing it.

• Panetta concerned Israel months from striking Iran

AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY PROJECT

No one disputes that the United States must “keep force on the table” with Iran.

The issue is whether the United States should make force or make threats of force a prominent part of U.S. diplomacy at this point.

The answer is no, for at least seven good reasons, which apply with equal weight to an attack by Israel. An Israeli attack would have very similar consequences in Iran as a U.S. attack.  And any attack by Israel would be attributed to the United States: everyone knows where Israel’s bombs and money come from.

It is also widely known that Israel sought clearance from Secretary of Defense Gates to bomb Iran in July 2008 and were turned away.  Any future attack by Israel will clearly suggest U.S. permission, whether it is given in fact or not.  David E. Sanger, “U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site,” The New York Times, January 11, 2009.

Seven good reasons not to bomb Iran, or threaten Iran with bombing at this stage:

(1) Bombing Iran‘s openly declared and safeguarded facilities won’t stop Iran’s nuclear program.  It will simply drive the program underground while creating or hardening Iran’s resolve to pursue nuclear weapons in secret.

A military attack will only buy us time and send the [Iranian nuclear] program deeper and more covert.

– Sec. of Defense Robert Gates (May 2009)

Even those who favor the military option admit that a ground invasion is out of the question.¹ But bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities without a subsequent invasion would merely trigger rage in Iran, and solidify their intention to pursue nuclear weapons in secret.

Nuclear capacity lies mostly in knowledge.  Facilities can be hidden. If hit and destroyed they can be re-built.  As Secretary of Defense Gates put it: “Even a military attack will only buy us time and send the program deeper and more covert.” ²

Israel’s bombing of Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in 1981 is widely cited as a favorable precedent for bombing Iran. It should not be.  We now know that Israel’s bombing of the Osirak reactor did not stop Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program.  On the contrary, it so enraged Saddam Hussein that he covertly expanded that program by more an order of magnitude, according to the later, independent reports of two Iraqi nuclear scientists.³ It took Operation Desert Storm and the inspections regime that followed it to bring the program to a halt.   We should expect no different results from any bombing of Iran.

(2) Bombing an open and declared facility that is enriching uranium to low levels under full IAEA safeguards would constitute a lawless act of agression that would isolate the United States and Israel, not Iran.

International law on the use of force is crystal clear: nations may use unilateral force only to defend themselves against attack or imminent threat of attack. more

In this case, even Israel’s Mossad doesn’t claim that Iran will be able to produce a bomb before 2014. ⁴ U.S. intelligence agencies believe it will take until at least 2013.⁵ So there is not even a figleaf argument that attacking Iran could be justified by self-defense.  

While Reagan was President the UN Security Council condemned the Israeli bombing of the Osirak reactor in 1981 as “clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct.”⁷ The relevant UN Security Council resolutions on Iran reinforce this point by explicitly resting their authority on Article 41 of the UN Charter, which allows economic sanctions but precludes use of force.

Bombing Iran under such circumstances would trample existing law, while perversely reinforcing the discredited doctrine of “preventive war” that President Bush invoked in justifying the war in Iraq: that notion that one country may attack another whenever the first country feels threatened by the second.  This is not a prescription for peace and security. It is a formula for perpetual war. more

(3) Bombing Iran would cause massive civilian casualties, fortify the current regime in power and rally the Iranian people around the flag — against the United States.

Bombing Iran would create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.

– Sec. of Defense Robert Gates (2007)

Iran’s nuclear facilities involve much more than a single reactor. There are dozens of nuclear facilities scattered in population centers around the country.  Bombing these facilities would kill large numbers of Iranian civilians, with disastrous consequences not only for the victims and their loved ones, but for the United States.

Despite a long history of conflict at the official level, the Iranian people are more pro-American than any population outside Israel. They held candle-light vigils for America in the streets of Tehran after 9/11.  Bombing Iran would change all that.  A population that is now largely pro-American and angry with their own government would be enraged against the United States, and would rally round the flag against a foreign enemy (just as we would in their shoes).  It is hard to imagine a better way to play into the hands of hardliners in Iran.

(4) Bombing Iran would unleash chaos throughout the region, putting our troops’ lives at risk and undermine the war on terror.

As part of its deterrent to a feared U.S./Israeli attack, Iran has assiduously developed close relationships with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Iran, militias in Iraq and warlord clans in Afghanistan.  These groups are not puppets of Iran.  They have their own agendas.  Nonetheless, experts find it quite likely that some or all of these groups would retaliate against U.S. forces as a gesture of solidarity with Iran, particularly if they perceived Iran to have been attacked without just cause.  Our troops’ lives would be put at risk by any rash decision to attack Iran.

Terrorists thrive on hate. They find their refuge and recruits in hostile populations. With Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Egypt already hotbeds of anti-American feeling and terrorist recruiting, America cannot afford to be turning yet another large Muslim population against the United States.⁸

(5) Bombing Iran would undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Bombing declared facilites operating under under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection would send a terrible signal about the costs of cooperating with the IAEA.  It could well undermine the NPT and IAEA safeguards regime around the globe.

(6) Bombing Iran would be premature, to put it mildly.

Iran is years away from having a nuclear weapon, if it is pursuing one at all.  Meanwhile, the United States has squandered six years refusing to talk to Iran until it suspended enrichment.   We owe it to ourselves and the world to give diplomacy a chance before resorting to violence or draconian sanctions that could well lead to violence.

(7) Threatening force while lacking a credible scenario for using it would be self-defeating.

The Iranian leadership is fully aware of all the factors just cited, and has publicly dismissed the threat of force as incredible. So any bluff in this area is highly likely to be called.

Moreover, threats of force poison the waters of diplomacy. They isolate the United States in world opinion. And they entrench hard liners in Tehran who already are predicting – hopefully – that President Obama will turn out to be no different from President Bush.

Source: http://americanforeignpolicy.org/military-option-iran/attacking-iran

Footnotes

1. See, e.g., Bipartisan Policy Center, Meeting the challenge: U.S. policy toward Iranian nuclear development: Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Bipartisan Policy Center (Sept. 2008), p. 72 (“A ground invasion of Iran is widely discounted among experts. The size and complexity of the operation are daunting, the Iranian population would resist, and U.S. forces are already overstretched”). [back]

2. David Blair, “Robert Gates: bombing Iran would not stop nuclear threat,” Daily Telegraph (May 1, 2009. [back]

3. See Imad Khadduri, Iraq’s Nuclear Mirage, Memoirs and Delusions (Toronto: Springhead Publishers, 2003), p. 82. Khadduri’s account is independently corroborated by another Iraqi nuclear scientist, Khidir Hamza, who would become a leading supporter of the Iraqi invasion and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.  He reports that the Israeli raid on Osirak had the effect of transforming what had been a relatively modest operation involving 400 scientists funded at $700 million a year — with a capability for generating enough plutonium for less than one bomb a year — into a large, covert enterprise involving over 7,000 scientists and technicians with a $10 billion investment dedicated to developing the underground capacity to enrich enough uranium for six nuclear bombs a year.  {footnote}See  “Crossfire transcript,”CNN , February 7, 2003, <http://www.cnn.com/> [back]

4. Amos Harel and Natash Mozgovaya, “U.S. intel: No chance for Iran bomb before 2013 – Haaretz – Israel News,” Haaretz.com, August 10, 2009. [back]

5. Id.  See also, Dennis Blair, “FEBRUARY 2009: INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANNUAL THREAT ASSESSMENT; Statement for the Record,” February 12, 2009. [back]

6. For an excellent and concise analysis of the relevant law on the use of force, see Sir Richard Dalton, “Iran: Breaking the Nuclear Deadlock” (Chatham House, Dec. 2008), pp. 36-37. [back]

7. UN Sec. Resolution 487 (1981), cited in Sir Richard Dalton, “Iran: Breaking the Nuclear Deadlock,” (Chatham House 2008), p. 37. [back]

8. As Paul Rogers of the Oxford Research Group observed in a 2006 report, “any attack on such a significant Islamic republic would inevitably increase the anti-American mood in the region and beyond, giving greater impetus to a [terrorist] movement that is already a global phenomenon.” [back]