Iran Expects Europe’s Package to Save Nuclear Deal by End of June: Araqchi

Iran Expects Europe’s Package to Save Nuclear Deal by End of June: Araqchi

June 23, 2018

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Abbas Araqchi

A senior Iranian nuclear negotiator says the Islamic Republic expects the European Union to put forward by the end of June its package of proposals to save a multilateral nuclear agreement between Tehran and the P5+1 group of countries from which the US has withdrawn.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Saturday that the three European signatories of the nuclear agreement, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and the EU had promised to offer a package of practical steps that would fulfill Iran’s demands, including on oil sales, payments for its oil and transportation.

US President Donald Trump announced on May 8 that Washington was walking away from the nuclear agreement, which was reached between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China – plus Germany in 2015.

Trump also said he would reinstate US nuclear sanctions on Iran and impose “the highest level” of economic bans on the Islamic Republic.

Related Videos

Related Articles

 

Advertisements

Russian-Chinese Summit and the files of Iran and Korea القمّة الروسية الصينية وملفات إيران وكوريا

Russian-Chinese Summit and the files of Iran and Korea

يونيو 23, 2018

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The Russian-Chinese summit is held in Beijing while there is a talk about a Chinese-Korean dispute that is considered more probable to lead to a North Korean- American understanding without the knowledge of China, and a talk about a Russian-Iranian dispute that is considered more probable to lead to an American-Russian understanding without the knowledge of Iran and even at its expense. There are many titles on the agenda of the summit which includes the two main countries which exhaust the image of America as a superpower militarily, economically, politically, and morally. They succeeded in showing it during the last decade as a country that has a lot of debts and cannot wage a war, a country that sells its allies in public and in secret and breaks its promises. The beginning was a cooperation between Beijing and Moscow in 2007 through the double veto against the project of a US resolution in the UN Security Council on Myanmar which became a title of an open confrontation through the repetition of the double veto in the Syrian file in November 2011 to prevent the US unipolar of using the UN Security Council as a cover of the American policies since the fall of Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The debate which the Americans succeeded in its promoting to their rivals and opponents ensures that the domination of the media arena is still for the Americans and their allies, otherwise how to believe the assumptions of US-North Korea understanding without Russia or China? How does Korea quit its future and the sources of its power after half of a century of steadfastness just in exchange for American promises that the position of Washington towards the Iranian nuclear file reveals how they would be? But only if we believe the narration of the surrender of North Korea, However, we saw how the North Korean leader suggested the cancelation of the summit with the US President and we saw how the latter stuck to its holding. On the other hand how can we believe that there is a Russian-Iranian dispute about who will have an understanding with America first while the battle has not changed yet neither in Syria nor in the international arena? Furthermore the US sanctions are still pursuing Russia as they pursue Iran. In addition to the taxes and duties on iron and aluminum which target the Chinese economy, as the national security of China which is targeted by the maneuvers which are performed by Washington in the neighborhood, and what is related to the deployment of strategic weapons as the Thad missile system in South Korea and the sea parts in the China Sea?

During the separating decade from the first veto in which Russia and China participated to announce the end of the era of the US unipolar, Russia and China succeeded in launching Brix system and developing it, as they succeeded in forming frameworks for alliances in the same direction, and as they succeeded in making the war on Syria a turning point in the path of the US military interventions in the world. For the first time after the war of Yugoslavia and the war on Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya Washington hesitates and thinks fully then it disregards the wide military intervention since it knows that it will lose in the war on which it bet to change the rules of the international policy and to create a new Middle East. The Russian and the Chinese bilateral succeeded in building two regional scopes one in the south of Russia towards the borders of Saudi Arabia with Iraq, it  includes Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria and the other in the east and west of China, it includes North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan. These two scopes have become the center of the major American strategies and interests in the world, due to their strategic position, geopolitical challenge, sources of energy, crossings, and waterways, and the power pipelines.

It is wrong to think that the Russian-Iranian relationship or the Korean or Iranian relationships with Russia and China are approaching their ends. This time is for linking the two regional scopes which are linked across Iran with Russia and China to become one scope. This time is the time of combatting the challenge of the international banking relationships which America sticks to. This time is the time of interest in attracting Europe to a central region between the Chinese-Russian axis and the American one. This time is the time of drawing new rules of the new political and economic relations in the world in the light of the confrontations witnessed by the world since the fall of Berlin Wall and the US unipolar on the international arena, after the success in overthrowing the US policy of war and half way of overthrowing the protection represented by the policies of the US sanctions through the examples of Iran and North Korea,  and their ability to withstand and to impose new equations as the Russian-Chinese interest and the Iranian-Korean interest. It is the time of more cohesion and more coordination, even if the maneuvers need initiatives as the Russian-Chinese position which refuses the nuclear weapon of Korea, or bartering the US presence in Syria with aspects of the Iranian presence. These pressing cards are made to be used in negotiation not in a war, exactly as the Syrian chemical weapons which end the US campaign on Syria by using in its real place as a tool to prevent the war by presenting it as a way for face-saving of America which failed to win the war.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

القمّة الروسية الصينية وملفات إيران وكوريا

يونيو 9, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– تنعقد القمة الروسية الصينية في بكين في ظروف يطغى عليها الحديث عن خلاف صيني كوري من جهة يرجّح تفاهماً بين كوريا الشمالية وأميركا من وراء ظهر الصين، وبالعكس خلاف روسي إيراني يرجّح تفاهماً أميركياً روسياً من وراء ظهر إيران بل على حسابها. والكثير من العناوين تنتظر على جدول أعمال القمة التي تضمّ البلدين الرئيسيين اللذين تسبّبا باستنزاف صورة أميركا كدولة عظمى عسكرياً واقتصادياً وسياسياً وأخلاقياً، ونجحا بإظهارها خلال العقد الأخير كدولة ترتهن للديون، وتعجز عن خوض الحرب، وتبيع الحلفاء في العلن والخفاء، وتتنكّر للعهود وتحنث بالوعود، وكانت البداية المتواضعة لتعاون بكين وموسكو في عام 2007 بالفيتو المزدوج الذي مارساه في إسقاط مشروع قرار أميركي في مجلس الأمن الدولي حول ماينمار، الذي صار عنواناً لمواجهة مفتوحة بتكرار الفيتو المزدوج في الملف السوري في تشرين الثاني 2011 وفي شباط عام 2012 قطعاً لسياق التفرّد الأميركي باستخدام مجلس الأمن الدولي غطاء أحادياً للسياسات الأميركية منذ سقوط جدار برلين وانهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي.

– النقاش الذي نجح الأميركيون بتصديره إلى ساحة منافسيهم وخصومهم يؤكد أنّ السيطرة على الساحة الإعلامية لا تزال للأميركيين وحلفائهم، وإلا كيف يمكن التصديق والدخول في مناقشة فرضيات من نوع إمكانية تفاهم كوري شمالي أميركي بلا روسيا والصين، وأن ترمي كوريا مستقبلها ومصادر قوّتها بعد نصف قرن من الصمود في الهواء بمجرد وعود أميركية تكشف طبيعتها مواقف واشنطن في الملف النووي الإيراني، إلا إذا صدّقنا رواية استسلام كوريا الشمالية. وقد رأينا الزعيم الكوري الشمالي يلوّح بإلغاء القمة مع الرئيس الأميركي ورأينا الأخير يتشبّث بعقدها. وفي المقابل كيف نصدّق تنازعاً روسياً إيرانياً على من يسبق الآخر بالتفاهم مع أميركا، والمعركة في ذروتها ولم تنته بعد لا في سورية ولا على الساحة الدولية، والعقوبات الأميركية تلاحق روسيا كما تلاحق إيران، والضرائب والرسوم على الحديد والألمنيوم تستهدف الاقتصاد الصيني كما تستهدف الأمن القومي للصين. المناورات التي تجريها واشنطن في الجوار، وما يتصل بنشر أسلحة استراتيجية مثل منظومة ثاد الصاروخية في كوريا الجنوبية، والقطع البحرية في بحر الصين؟

– خلال العقد الفاصل من الفيتو الأول الذي تشاركت فيه روسيا والصين لإعلان نهاية زمن الأحادية الأميركية، نجح الثنائي بإطلاق منظومة «بريكس» وتطويرها، كما نجح كلّ منهما في تشكيل أطر لتحالفات موازية بالاتجاه ذاته، ونجحا في جعل الحرب في سورية نقطة تحوّل في مسار التدخلات الأميركية العسكرية في العالم، فهي المرة الأولى بعد حرب يوغوسلافيا، والحرب على العراق وأفغانستان وليبيا، تتردّد واشنطن وتقيم الحسابات ثم تصرف النظر عن التدخل العسكري الواسع، وهي تعلم أنّ ثمن ذلك خسارتها للحرب، التي راهنت عليها لتغيير قواعد السياسة الدولية واستيلاد شرق أوسط جديد، وقد نجح الثنائي الروسي الصيني ببناء فضاءين إقليميّين، واحد جنوب روسيا وصولاً لحدود السعودية مع العراق، يضمّ تركيا وإيران والعراق وسورية، وثانٍ شرق الصين وغربها يضمّ كوريا الشمالية وباكستان والهند وأفغانستان، لا تملك واشنطن في التعامل معهما الكلمة الفصل دون الأخذ بالحساب مكانة وموقف ومصالح روسيا والصين. وقد صار هذان الفضاءان محور الاستراتيجيات والمصالح الأميركية الكبرى في العالم، لما يختزنان من موقع استراتيجي وتحدٍّ جيوسياسي، ومصادر للطاقة للمعابر والممرات المائية، وشبكات أنابيب الطاقة.

– واهم ومشتبه من يظن أنّ زمن الافتراق الروسي الصيني يقترب، أو مَن يتوهّم بأنّ العلاقات الكورية أو الإيرانية بروسيا والصين تهتزّ. فالزمن هو ربط الفضاءين الإقليميّين اللذين يتصلان عبر إيران بروسيا والصين ليصيرا فضاء واحداً. والزمن هو زمن التصدّي لتحدّي العلاقات المصرفية الدولية التي تُمسك بها أميركا، وزمن الاهتمام باستقطاب أوروبا إلى منطقة وسط بين المحور الصيني الروسي والمحور الأميركي. والزمن هو زمن رسم قواعد جديدة للعلاقات السياسية والاقتصادية الجديدة في العالم، في ضوء المواجهات التي شهدها العالم منذ سقوط جدار برلين والتفرّد الأميركي على الساحة الدولية، بعد النجاح في إسقاط سياسة الحرب الأميركية، وبلوغ منتصف الطريق في إسقاط جدران الحماية التي تمثلها سياسة العقوبات الأميركية بقوة نموذجَي إيران وكوريا الشمالية، وقدرتهما على الصمود وفرض المعادلات الجديدة، كمصلحة روسية صينية، كما هي مصلحة إيرانية وكورية، فهو زمن المزيد من التماسك والمزيد من التنسيق، ولو اقتضت المناورات مبادرات من نوع الموقف الروسي الصيني الرافض لسلاح نووي في كوريا، أو عنوان مقايضة الوجود الأميركي في سورية ببعض وجوه الحضور الإيراني، فهذه أوراق قوّة تمّ تصنيعها لتستعمل في التفاوض وليس في الحرب، تماماً كما السلاح الكيميائي السوري الذي تمّ إجهاض الحملة الأميركية على سورية، باستعماله في مكانه الحقيقي، كأداة لمنع الحرب، عبر تقديمه سبيلاً لحفظ ماء الوجه للأميركي الذي خاب رهانه على الفوز بالحرب.

Related Videos

https://youtu.be/UIQyf1U07mc

Related Articles

 

 

العقدة يمنيّة لا سوريّة

 

 

يونيو 15, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– بمثل ما أن الانسحاب الأميركي من التفاهم النووي مع إيران بقي على حافة عدم السعي لإلغاء التفاهم تفادياً لذهاب إيران نحو التخصيب المرتفع لليورانيوم، ومواجهة خطر امتلاكها مخزوناً يكفي لتصنيع أول قنبلة نووية حتى لو لم يتم هذا التصنيع، وهو ما كان التفاهم هو الطريق الوحيد لتفاديه طالما الحرب تسرّع بهذا التصنيع وليس بالإمكانية النظرية لحدوثه فقط، فإن العلاقة الأميركية بإيران التي نتجت عن اختبار القوة الذي جرى عام 2013 بإرسال الأساطيل الأميركية تحت عنوان الحرب الحاسمة ضد سورية، وعودتها بلا حرب، وفتح التفاوض بعدها حول الملف النووي الإيراني، لا تزال محكومة بالقواعد ذاتها، تفاوض وعقوبات ولا حرب، وسعي لتفادي عودة إيران للتخصيب المرتفع منعاً لمواجهة الخيارات الصعبة.

– معالم الاستراتيجية الأميركية التي رسمت تلك اللحظة الدراماتيكية مع عودة الأساطيل الأميركية حكمت المنطقة، رغم كون العلاقة مع إيران العنوان الأبرز فيها، لكن عناوينها الأخرى تمثلت في السير نحو تسليم متعرّج بخسارة فرص الفوز بسورية، وخسارة فرص عرقلة نصرها، الذي لم تحُل دونه عملية استيلاد داعش صيف العام 2014، بينما عزّزته عملية التموضع الروسي المباشر في نهاية عام 2015، والتسليم هنا بنصر سورية يسير على حافة مقتضيات الرؤية الإسرائيلية لهوامش الخيارات المتاحة في التعامل مع هذا النصر، ويبدو واضحاً أنه كلما تحقّقت حلقة جديدة وحاسمة في الطريق إلى هذا النصر. كما هو حال تحرير حلب ثمّ دير الزور والبوكمال وصولاً للغوطة، واقتربت فرص النصر من الجنوب، حيث المصالح الإسرائيلية المباشرة تتطلع واشنطن نحو تل أبيب لرسم الخطوة التالية، من دون أن يبدو أن هناك مصالح أميركية منفصلة عن أولوية تلبية التطلعات الإسرائيلية نحو أمن مهدّد، وكيفية بناء الجدران بوجه مخاطر تقدّمه نحوها أكثر.

– يعبر الاستعداد الأميركي للتفاوض على تفكيك قاعدة التنف والانسحاب منها، إذا كان ذلك ضمن تسوية تمنح «إسرائيل» اطمئناناً مؤقتاً تحت شعار عدم تقدّم وحدات المقاومة والوحدات الإيرانية نحو الحدود، وعلى قاعدة التسليم بانتشار الجيش السوري وتفكيك الجماعات المسلحة، عما هو أبعد وأعمق. فما يطبّق في الجنوب هو نموذج صالح للتكرار في الشمال، ولذلك قال الأميركيون إن الأفضل هو ربط الحلول المرحلية الأمنية بالحل السياسي الذي كانوا يرفضونه دون وضع مصير الرئاسة السورية بنداً منه بنوده فوق الطاولة. فارتضوا مؤخراً بالعنوان المقبول سورياً، وهو حكومة في ظل الرئيس الأسد تضمّ المعارضة وممثلي الأكراد وتمهّد لدستور جديد وانتخابات. وهذا يعيد التذكير بما فعله الأميركيون في تلك اللحظة الدراماتيكية مع سحب أساطيلهم وبدء التفاوض مع إيران، عندما منحوا حلفاءهم بعد عام على بدء التفاوض والتثبت من أن لا خيارات أخرى في الأفق، فرصة الإمساك بأوراق قوة تمكنهم من التأقلم مع المرحلة التي كانت قد بدأت للتوّ.

– منذ مطلع العام 2015 حاول الإسرائيليون استثمار الفرصة الممنوحة لهم أميركياً. وكانت عملية القنيطرة أولى المحاولات الجادة لرسم خطوط حمراء في الجنوب السوري، وجاء الرد عليها بعملية نوعية للمقاومة في مزارع شبعا، لتليها محاولات متعددة لرسم معادلات جديدة، كانت تُمنَى كلها بالفشل، فحُرموا من التحليق في الأجواء السورية في العام 2016، وتم إطلاق الصواريخ على طائراتهم في الأجواء اللبنانية حتى أسقطت لهم طائرة الـ «إف15» في مطلع العام 2018، وتبعتها ليلة الصواريخ في الجولان، حتى صار على الإسرائيليين التسليم بلا جدوى الرهان على اللعبة العسكرية، وخطورة المضي في اختبارها، وارتضاء التعايش مع انتصار سورية، مقابل إقامة جدار دولي على حدود الجولان وصولاً لجنوب لبنان ومزارع شبعا، ولو اقتضى الأمر الانسحاب من هذه المزارع، كما ورد في عرض التفاوض الأميركي الجديد للبنان.

– الطرف الثاني المعنيّ بالفرصة الأميركية في تلك اللحظة الدراماتيكية كانت السعودية التي بادرت في ربيع عام 2015 ببدء الحرب على اليمن وفي حسابها حسم الحرب خلال أسابيع، ثم شهور، وها هي تمتدّ للسنة الرابعة، وتبدو السعودية أمام اللحظات الحاسمة التي تُختبر فيها آخر الرهانات الهادفة لبلوغ مخرج مشرّف عبر انتصار جزئي دون توهّم النصر الحاسم، وتشكل معركة الحُدَيْدة آخر فصول هذه الحرب، ليتمّ ترسيم خطوط التفاوض على أساسها، سواء فاز السعوديون بالحُدَيْدة أم فشلوا، وقد باتت ثابتة لهم وللأميركيين استحالة التملص من تسوية طرفها الثاني هم أنصار الله في اليمن الذين يشكلون قوة فاعلة في محور المقاومة، والذين لا يمكن الرهان على كسرهم وإلغاء حضورهم، طالما أن الفوز بالحُدَيْدة، وهو صعب الحدوث، لن ينهي سيطرتهم في صنعاء وصعدة، والمعارك في كلتيهما تحتاج أربع سنوات أخرى، إذا كان الفوز بعدن والحديدة قد استهلك أربع سنوات.

– إيقاع التفاوض في ملفات كثيرة ينتظر الأيام القليلة المقبلة لاستنفاد الفرصة السعودية سلباً أم إيجاباً، أو بالخروج بحل تفاوضي في منتصف الطريق حول الحُدَيْدة يشكّل بداية التفاوض الشامل حول مستقبل اليمن.

Related videos

Related Articles

Is Trump-Kim Deal Really Peace Or Is It A Set Up For War?

June 14, 2018 (Brandon Turbeville – Activist Post) – Presidents Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un are perhaps the two most unpredictable leaders in the world with everyone wondering from day to day what new provocative statement will be ushered from official channels. However, the two most unpredictable leaders appear to have found common ground, perhaps even kindred spirits, during the course of the Singapore Summit when both men came away with an apparent mutually beneficial deal that will see the de-escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula.

While there have been no real concrete agreements as a result of the talks, the North Korean side has pledged its commitment to the denuclearization of the peninsula, while the American side has strongly suggested that it will put its military exercises on hold with South Korea.

The first step seems to be an agreement for both sides to work toward recovering the remains of Korean war dead and their immediate repatriation.

Beyond that, the statement agreed to by both parties reads as follows:

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new US-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to providing security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Convinced that the establishment of new US-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump, and Chairman Kim Jong Un, state the following:

The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.

The United States and DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

Reaffirming April 27, 2018, Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

Having acknowledged that the US-DPRK summit — the first in history — was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un, commit to implementing the stipulations in the joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to holding follow-on negotiations, led by the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the US-DPRK summit.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new US-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and the security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.

DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America 

KIM JONG UN
Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 

June 12, 2018
Sentosa Island
Singapore

The talks have now concluded with the remainder of the negotiating to take place between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his counterpart with some suggesting that the next stage is the freeing of American spies incarcerated in North Korea.

The Reaction From American Political Circles

While Republicans, having never met a war they didn’t like, attempted to keep their rage at the idea of peace under control, many like chicken hawk Lindsey Graham appeared on national media to tone down praise of Trump and warn against showing weakness and removing troops from one of America’s many war zones. Essentially, they are arguing that America should dictate the terms, Kim should agree, and there should be no American concessions of any value.

Democrats, however, have predictably been frothing at the mouth at even the idea of peace, particularly a peace negotiated by “literally Hitler” himself, Donald Trump. These warmongers and psychotics have railed against even talking to Kim Jong Un, claiming that there should be no peace whatsoever with a nation that has such horrible human rights violations, as if the United States has not racked up enough of those same violations of its own. These critics complain that Trump is engaging in “appeasement” of some kind which seems impossible to explain to anyone using logic or who is restrained by reality.

But what is actually happening with this summit? Is it a true and genuine desire for peace or is it just cover for the next war to take shape over the next several years?

The Potential Positive

It is difficult for any genuine anti-war activist to oppose the recent talks between the United States and North Korea. After decades of technical war, threats to “obliterate” North Korea, constant nuclear tests, repeatedly provocative war games, innumerable threats against one another, not to mention the tension between South and North Korea, two countries that have long wanted to talk to one another, the fact that tensions seem to be easing can scarcely be considered a bad thing.

While it is unfair that the United States and its “allies” can maintain nuclear weapons stockpiles as they march across the globe slaughtering innocent people while other countries cannot, an end to nuclear proliferation (across the board) is also desirable. If both countries can come to an agreement to, at the very least, stop provoking one another, America will have taken a greater step toward peace in Singapore than it has in decades.

For all their public appearances, both Trump and Kim have appeared legitimately happy at the results of the meeting and both have expressed high hopes for the future. Trump even went so far as to tweet that the “nuclear threat” from North Korea no longer existed. But is there more to the deal than just a desire for peace?

Despite America’s desire for war or, at least the appearance of potential war, both Koreas have expressed a desire to not only talk but to reunifyIn an historic meeting in April, 2018, the presidents of North and South Korea met and agreed to remove nuclear weapons from the Korean peninsula and begin negotiating an end to the Korean war. Despite the influence of the United States on South Korea and the human rights nightmare of North Korea, it still remains clear that both Koreas have an interest in ending the war, bringing about peace, and perhaps moving forward with integration.

While it may publicly appear that the recent US/NK peace deal was a mutual desire between both parties to de-escalate and move towards peace, some analysts question whether or not that is the case and posit that the deal may have actually been made as a strategy of last resort on the part of the North Koreans.

As Andrew Korybko writes for Eurasia Future in his article, “The Trump-Kim Deal Is The First Example Of The ‘New Washington Consensus’,

As it currently stands, China has monopolized a large chunk of its neighbor’s economy, not out of any malicious or neo-imperial intentions but simply because it’s been the only lifeline to the “Hermit Kingdom” since the Soviet Union collapsed and Moscow cut off all of its previous aid to the country. For all practical intents and purposes, China controls the North Korean economy, an open secret that’s known to even the most casual observers even if it’s “politically incorrect” to publicly say and is regularly denied by Beijing. The never-ending international sanctions had the effect of scaring off most other investors, and Russia entered the game way too late in the past couple of years to make any tangible difference. Moreover, by the time that Moscow got interested in North Korea’s economic potential as a transit stateconnecting the investment-hungry but energy-rich Far East region with cash-flush but energy-poor South Korea, international sanctions became tighter, and Russia itself also signed onto them together with China.

The cumulative effect of this latest development, particularly in terms of China’s honest participation in the latest round of sanctions (for reasons related to its unease at having a nuclear-armed neighbor play the “useful idiot” in bringing American anti-missile infrastructure closer to its borders), was that North Korea had little choice other than to negotiate with the US and reconsider its nuclear capabilities. Faced with the real fear of experiencing another nationwide famine such as the one that reportedly struck the country in the 1990s, Chairman Kim’s immediate interests were purely economic, and he painfully came to perceive of his “big brother” in the north as a Great Power who isn’t above playing political games in pursuit of its self-interests. In China’s defense, its global strategy of multipolarity was being endangered by what it considered to be Kim’s recklessness in engaging in so many nuclear and missile tests, but regardless, the bonds of trust were irrevocably broken between these two.That, however, doesn’t mean that North Korea regards China as an “enemy”, but just that the young Kim had a rude awakening in terms of how the real world works, learning first-hand that slogans of ideological solidarity about a shared “communist struggle” don’t compensate for his country’s disadvantageous position as a pawn on the Hyper-Realist “19th-Century Great Power Chessboard”. Disheartened by this realization and likely feeling some natural resentment towards his former benefactors, Kim decided to enter into unprecedented denuclearization talks with the US, though prudently taking care to involve China in all manner of his consultations so as not to inadvertently make an actual enemy out of it given how easily this very sensitive situation could have turned into a fast-moving security dilemma between Pyongyang and Beijing had he not had the wisdom to do so. Seeking sanctions relief and a “counterbalance” to China, Kim ultimately agreed to the Singapore Summit with Trump.

Having predictably been briefed on the psychological-economic factors that drove Kim to come to the Singapore Summit and in all likelihood agree beforehand on what the outcome of this historic event would be, Trump came to the event with the fullest of confidence but also with a secret ace up his sleeve to sweeten the deal that he was about to publicly clinch with his counterpart. It’s now been revealed that Trump showed Kim a Hollywood-style four-minute video extolling the economic and developmental benefits that North Korea could receive if its Chairman chooses the right path at this once-in-a-lifetime crossroad that the film dramatically hints he was fated to appear at. Evidently, Kim must have really enjoyed the promising message that was conveyed because all of his body language immediately after his private viewing of this film with Trump during their one-on-one meeting was exceptionally positive and radiated happiness, sincerity, and confidence as he agreed to advance his country’s denuclearization.

In an interview with Tasnim News Agency, Korybko also stated that

After all, North Korea already blew up its only nuclear testing site, and its leader raced to win back Trump’s approval for the Singapore Summit instead of the reverse. This implies that the US is negotiating from a position of strength while North Korea is doing so from weakness, showing which of the two wants denuclearization to happen more. The lesson that both parties learned is that their highest representatives need to watch their words in order to not provoke either side into responding with anything dramatic as a means of saving their reputations, thereby potentially endangering the forthcoming talks and complicating North Korea’s strategic surrender to the US in exchange for promised aid and investment.

So the question is whether or not the North Korean side felt it had no other option than to move forward with a political deal, much like the Iran deal, in order to save face and survive. After all, it is not reasonable to require North Korea to disarm from its only real deterrent while the its enemy who has been breathing down its neck for the last several decades simply promises not to attack it.

A more important question, however, is whether or not the United States is negotiating in good faith or whether this new “deal” is just another “Iran deal” to feign an effort for peace while preparing for and even initiating war.

The “Libya Model”

Given that the United States has done nothing with its foreign policy but conduct illegal imperialist wars against sovereign countries that provided no threat to it now for decades, the concept that the United States is negotiating in good faith is hard to believe. It is particularly hard to believe when the United States had only recently engaged in epic harassment – politically, diplomatically, and militarily – against North Korea. Even more so, when the National Security Advisor and repeated war criminal John Bolton, stated plainly to FOX News Sunday that “We have very much in mind the Libya model from 2003, 2004.”

Libya negotiated in good faith with the Bush administration and eliminated its nuclear weapons. Seven years later, the country found itself on the wrong end of a U.S. backed destabilization effort which soon became a proxy war and quickly became a NATO invasion. The result? Libya was left in absolute shambles where it remains to this day. Race slavery was instituted by some of the many Islamic fundamentalist militias supported by the United States to overthrow Ghaddafi who was himself sodomized by a bayonet and executed on camera. Bolton elaborated further on the “Libya Model” reference on CBS’ Face The Nation where he stated,

In the case of Libya, for example—and it’s a different situation in some respects—those negotiations were carried out in private. They were not known publicly. But one thing that Libya did that that led us to overcome our skepticism was that they allowed American and British observers into all their nuclear-related sites. So, it wasn’t a question of relying on international mechanisms. We saw them in ways we have never seen before.

Notably, the North Korea talks are taking place in public even if they aren’t being met with high praise.

Interestingly enough, Kim Jong Un seems to have a clear understanding of why giving up one’s nuclear weapons is a bad idea, particularly when it comes to the United States. In 2011, as Libya sunk under the waves of chaos, Kim stated that Ghaddafi’s decision to give up his nuclear weapons was a mistake. A North Korean Foreign Ministry official also described the “de-nuclearization” process as “an invasion tactic to disarm the country.” The official also stated that the “Libyan model” touted by Bolton was proof that North Korea’s strategy was the right one and that nuclear weapons was the only way to keep peace on the peninsula.

Surely, Kim Jong Un has not forgotten his own wisdom in terms of dealing with the United States. After all, there is little difference between dealing with a Bush, Obama, or Trump administration.
On the other hand, even seasoned leaders like Ghaddafi fell prey to deception and false promises of the U.S. For this reason, it cannot be ignored that one possibility as to why the United States seems so interested in peace at this point is related to removing Kim’s nuclear deterrent.

The Iran Deal Precedent

On Tuesday, May 8, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States will be pulling out of the “Iran Nuclear Deal” which was struck under the Obama administration, a deal that he repeatedly called a “bad deal” and even “the single worst deal I’ve ever seen drawn by anybody.”

“The so-called Iran deal was supposed to protect the United States and our allies from the lunacy of an Iranian nuclear bomb, a weapon that will only endanger the survival of the Iranian regime,” President Trump said. “In fact, the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and over time reach the brink of a nuclear breakout.”

He added that “Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie.”

Yet there was absolutely no evidence to back Trump up on his claims. Even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats have stated that Iran is living up to its commitments. Still, Trump has argued in the past that, while Iran may be sticking to its commitments, it is violating the “spirit” of the agreement by “fostering discord” in the region.

This is highly ironic considering that the United States is the single biggest fosterer of discord in the Middle East alongside Israel. It’s also false that Iran is “fostering discord” and that it is not living up to its end of the deal. It should also be pointed out that Iran was doing nothing wrong in terms of its nuclear program before the deal and should never have been bullied into signing it to begin with.

Now, a sovereign country who has a right to pursue a nuclear energy program is being told by aggressive nuclear states that it cannot be allowed to be armed in the same manner, develop an adequate energy program, or defend itself against the aggression of the very states marching across the region and repeatedly stating their desire to overthrow, destabilize, or invade Iran.

But while this move may have come as a shock to some, it shouldn’t have. After all, the Iran deal itself was nothing more than the first step in the coming war on Iran. This can be seen clearly in the pages of the corporate-financier think tanks who develop and present US foreign and domestic policy. For instance, the Brookings Institution, as Tony Cartalucci writes, “whose corporate-financier sponsors include arms manufacturers Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, energy giants Exxon Mobil, BP, Aramco, and Chevron, and financiers including Bank of America, Citi, and numerous advisers and trustees provided by Goldman Sachs,” wrote in 2009 of the plan to use just such a “deal” to then justify military action against Iran.
The Brookings Institution Report – Which Path To Persia?

The plan for a Western or a Western/Israeli attack on Iran, along with the theatre of alleged US-Israeli tensions leading up to a strike and outright war, has been in the works for some time. For instance, in 2009, the Brookings Institution, a major banking, corporate, and military-industrial firm, released a report entitled “Which Path To Persia? Options For A New American Strategy For Iran,” in which the authors mapped out a plan which leaves no doubt as to the ultimate desire from the Western financier, corporate, and governing classes.

The plan involves the description of a number of waysthe Western oligarchy would be able to destroy Iran including outright military invasion and occupation. However, the report attempts to outline a number of methods that might possibly be implemented before direct military invasion would be necessary. The plan included attempting to foment destabilization inside Iran via the color revolution apparatus, violent unrest, proxy terrorism, and “limited airstrikes” conducted by the US, Israel or both.Interestingly enough, the report states that any action taken against Iran must be done after the idea that Iran has rejected a fair and generous offer by the West has been disseminated throughout the general public. The report reads,

…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

From the writings of Brookings, it is readily apparent for all to see what the latest browbeating over the “terrible” Iran deal and how the Iranians are not living up to their obligations under the agreement coming from the Trump administration are all about. The United States has bullied Iran into accepting a deal it should never have had to agree to in the first place and now the U.S. is attempting to add restrictions and obligations that were never part of the deal to begin with and/or claim that Iran is not living up to its end of the deal. If Iran can be represented as having been uncooperative, Iran will be painted as having refused “a very good deal.”

As the report states, any action taken against Iran must be done after the idea that Iran has rejected a fair and generous offer by the West has been disseminated throughout the general public. For that reason, the idea is being promulgated that Iran was offered a great deal at the disadvantage of the United States but Iran would not abide by even this agreement, continuing to insist on gaining nuclear weapons to destroy the U.S. and poor innocent Israel, forcing America’s hand after diplomacy failed.

Ironically, it is admitted by the authors of the report that the Iranians are not governed by lunatics intent on nuking the world but by entirely rational players. Still, they move forward with a number of options for attacking Iran. It should thus be obvious to anyone reading this report that the US, NATO, and Israel are uninterested in peace with Iran and are entirely focused on war and Iranian destruction.

“The so-called ‘Iran deal,’ introduced during the administration of US President Barack Obama, represents precisely this “superb offer,” with Flynn’s accusations serving as the “turn down” ahead of the “sorrowful” war and attempted regime change the US had always planned to target Tehran with,” writes Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report.

The report continues to discuss the citations that could be used for an attack on Iran, clearly stating its intentions to create a plan to goad a non-threatening nation into war. It states,

The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

Conclusion

While steps toward peace should be lauded, we must be sure these steps are actually being taken toward peace and not to another “Libya Model.” North Korea may want to re-enter the world at large but it must not do so if the end result will be the destruction of the country yet again. Since Kim Jong Un already has nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them, he has significant bargaining power in any negotiation. Upon giving those weapons up, however, he will have placed North Korea in a precarious position. It may be too early to tell as of yet what will be the result of the Trump-Kim agreement but, for now, those who truly desire peace must keep a watchful and skeptical eye open.

Brandon Turbeville writes for Activist Post – article archive here – He is the author of seven books,Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions andDispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Support us at Patreon. Follow us on FacebookTwitterSteemit, and BitChute. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.

Iran to Inform IAEA of Starting to Boost UF6 Production Capacity

05-06-2018 | 11:07

Iran’s national nuclear agency said it is starting a process to boost the capacity of the country’s uranium enrichment within the framework of the 2015 nuclear agreement, and will notify the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] of the decision.
 
Iran

In this regard, the spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran [AEOI], Behrouz Kamalvandi, told ISNA news agency on Tuesday that Iran will inform the IAEA of the start of the process to increase the production capacity of uranium hexafluoride [UF6], a chemical compound which serves as feedstock for centrifuges.

“In a letter that would be delivered to the International Atomic Energy Agency by the Iranian mission in Vienna, it has been announced that we will begin the process of increasing the capacity for the production of UF6 and UF4 gases on Monday as well as the manufacturing and assembly of centrifuge rotors,” Kamalvandi said.

Kamalvandi’s comments came just hours after Leader of the Islamic Revolution His Eminence Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei ordered the AEOI to get prepared for uranium enrichment up to a level of 190,000 SWU [separative work unit] within the framework of the 2015 nuclear deal.

SWU is the standard measure of the effort required to separate isotopes of uranium during an enrichment process. 1SWU is equivalent to 1 kilogram of separative work.

Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA], Kamalvandi said, Iran was supposed to achieve an enrichment capacity of at least 190,000 SWU by the end of the 15th year since the deal’s enforcement in January 2016.

“We had earlier estimated that we could reach about 250,000-SWU capacity by the end of the 15th year, but given the Leader’s call for us to pursue a 190,000-SWU capacity, we need to take measures for this to be realized faster,” the official added.

Achieving the 190,000-SWU enrichment capacity means increasing efforts to set up workshops and factories and providing the infrastructure and other arrangements necessary for moving forward at a high speed and capacity, he added.

On May 8, US President Donald Trump announced Washington’s pullout from the nuclear deal, vowing to reinstate nuclear sanctions on Iran and impose “the highest level” of economic bans on the Islamic Republic.

He also said Iran was in “pursuit of nuclear weapons,” a claim that contradicts numerous reports by the UN nuclear watchdog confirming the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear work and the country’s full compliance with the accord.
Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team
Related  Videos

Related Articles

Europe’s Moment of Truth

Darko Lazar

02-06-2018 | 09:21

As US President Donald Trump imposed steel and aluminum tariffs on the European Union this week, his Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, told CNBC that Brussels would ‘get over it’.

Donald Trump

The almost comical approach to a move that will cost the already struggling European economy billions of dollars is not a symptom exclusive to the current occupants of the White House.

It is one that has been years in the making, thanks in no small part to the European habit of ‘getting over’ things.

In 2014, the EU was compelled to impose sanctions on Russia despite the obvious downside to the economies of its member states. Since then, the bloc has been losing an estimated USD 38.4 billion annually.

And just last month, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal – formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)– putting the European signatories of that agreement in a serious bind.

What lies ahead are not only difficult choices for Europe, but ones that Brussels will have to make. Remain an American ‘partner’? Or finally go its own way?

The not-so ‘unpredictable’ US

Speaking at an EU summit in Bulgaria in mid-May, the European Council President, Donald Tusk, did not try too hard to hide his frustration with Washington’s blatant push to kill the JCPOA.

“I think that the real geopolitical problem is when you have not an unpredictable opponent or enemy or partner,” Tusk said. “The problem is when your closest friend is unpredictable. It’s not a joke now. This is the essence of our problem today with our friends on the other side of the Atlantic.”

Although Tusk’s characterization of Europe’s current predicament is in many ways accurate, his use of the word ‘unpredictable’ is slightly out of place.

There is absolutely nothing unpredictable about Trump’s exit from the Iran nuclear deal. He lobbied against it during the US presidential race in 2016 and adopted a hostile posture toward the Islamic Republic as soon as he set foot in the White House.

But Tusk might have felt constrained by the language of international diplomacy and avoided terms that more accurately describe Washington’s foreign policy agenda in this regard.

Not everyone, however, is bound by such constraints, and as such, we can safely label Trump’s exit from the JCPOA exactly what it really is ¬¬- a very deliberate violation of international conventions that guard multilateral treaties, which was based on false claims about Iran’s nuclear energy program and scripted by powerful Zionist, Arab and defense lobbyists.

Unfortunately for the Europeans, these individuals are held in much higher regard by Washington’s elites than states that the US officially refers to as ‘allies’.

Perhaps one of the more revealing illustrations of the transatlantic partnership came from former US Vice President Joe Biden in 2014, when he touched on the aforementioned Russia sanctions.

“It is true they [EU] did not want to do that,” Biden said in reference to the embargo. “It was America’s leadership and the president of the United States insisting, often times almost having to embarrass Europe to stand up and take economic hits to impose costs.”

Four years and a few billion hits later, Europe is finding itself in the same exact spot; this time, over the Iran nuclear deal. And for bureaucrats like Tusk, this should be anything but “unpredictable”.

Defenses against allies

In yet another demonstration of pragmatic politics and good diplomacy, Tehran has already expressed its readiness to stay in the nuclear accord with the remaining signatories – including European countries, Russia and China – as long as the terms of the deal are honored.

For his part, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, laid out a series of conditions, which include steps by European banks to safeguard trade with Tehran and guarantee Iranian oil sales.

Although there is no shortage of reasons to be pessimistic about whether the Europeans can deliver, there are also signs that the vassal might be willing to break free of its master.

Last month, a report by Bloomberg pointed out that EU leaders met at the summit in Bulgaria to “to deepen ties with partners in the east… [while] preparing defenses against the ‘America First’ policies of U.S. President Donald Trump.”

One of these defenses is the activation of the ‘blocking statute’ from 1996, which is designed to ban European companies and courts from complying with US sanctions against Iran.

But more importantly, the EU is planning to dump the US Dollar and use the Euro instead in its trade with Iran.

According to the EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, Brussels is working “to put in place a set of measures to make sure that the nuclear agreement is preserved and that the economic investments from the European side – but also from other sides in the world – are protected.”

Such measures would undoubtedly be a slap in the face for Washington. And not just because the Europeans are willing to ignore US sanctions, but because they would be challenging the global hegemony of the American national currency.

The adoption of alternative currencies in global trade has already been pioneered by a number of countries, including China and Venezuela. But it is generally not the preferred practice of US ‘partners’ and ‘allies’.

Uncle Sam’s embrace

Whatever course of action EU bureaucrats opt for next, it is clear that for Europe, there are no easy choices – and as time goes by, things will only get more complicated.

The Europeans may very well choose sovereignty over subservience and subjugation. They may choose to usher in their own laws and regulations that govern all corporations doing business on the European continent.

All of this would bring about an end to the western alliance and set Europe free from Uncle Sam’s embrace. But such a course requires courage, determination and true commitment to one’s own national interests.

Judging by the outcomes of recent elections, it is obvious that such sentiment is nothing new among Europe’s general public. What is quite novel, however, is the sound of Donald Tusk uttering increasingly daring and undiplomatic pronouncements such as; “Looking at the latest decisions of Donald Trump, someone could even think: with friends like that, who needs enemies?”

Source: Al-Ahed

Sayyed Nasrallah: US-Gulf Sanctions Ineffective, Confident of Victory in any Coming War

 

Sayyed Nasrallah: US-Gulf Sanctions Ineffective, Confident of Victory in any Coming War

Zeinab Essa

26-05-2018 | 00:37

Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah confirmed that this year’s Al-Quds Day should receive great attention at all levels in view of what the Holy city is facing, especially after US President Donald Trump’s to recognize it as the capital of the occupying entity.

2000 Victory

In a televised speech on the 18th anniversary of 2000 Liberation, Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted that the anniversary is a very important and national one i.e. full of lessons.

“The heroic fighters, martyrs, wounded, liberated prisoners, general public, Lebanese Army, security forces, resistance factions and the Syrian army are the ones who are credited with this achievement,” His Eminence added.

He further hailed the Syrian and Iranian support so that the 2000 liberation was accomplished.

“This victory had divine, humane and moral aspects as the resistance remained steadfast in the major confrontations,” The Resistance Leader viewed, noting that “victory has shown that the enemy has lost confidence in its army and its agents.”

This comes as he praised the sacrifices of the Resistance: “There were martyrs that gave their blood and their pure souls. They left their work and their families and lived in valleys and in fear, and spared no effort to liberate this land.”

In parallel, His Eminence underscored that “the residents returned to their homes and fields, the captives returned in pride and dignity and security returned along the border with Palestine.”

“We are living in safety, dignity and freedom thanks to this victory,” Sayyed Nasrallah mentioned.

Ready for War

Sending an assuring message to the Lebanese and a threatening one to the enemy, His Eminence vowed:

“We do not seek war. However, we do not fear it.”

In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah confirmed that the Resistance is confident of victory in any upcoming war.

US-Gulf Sanctions Ineffective

Commenting on the recent US-Gulf decision to blacklist Hezbollah and its leaders as terrorists, Sayyed Nasrallah played down the step.

“The US-Gulf blockade on the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance, including blacklisting us, is not new.”

“The US and Saudi sanctions against me and my brothers do not have material effect, as we don’t have money in banks and we don’t trade through regular channels,” he elaborated, noting that “these sanctions aim is to scare people of meeting with us.”

On this level, His Eminence went on to emphasize that the Lebanese government has responsibility towards citizens put on US terror lists and must not abandon them.

“The Lebanese government had a responsibility to all its citizens placed on US terror lists and that some of those affected were not affiliated and did not give money to Hezbollah. As they’re Lebanese citizens, the Government should defend their rights. They should reject the sanctions,” he confirmed.

Warning that this is a US-“Israeli” course and that the Gulf states are taking part in it, Sayyed Nasrallah viewed that “sanctions, the terrorism lists, the blockage, and so on are part of the battle.”

“When you defeat the invincible “Israeli” army, when you advance a cultural change in the region, and stand in as an obstacle in the way of US and “Israel” schemes in the region and contribute to foiling them, it is natural that the s enemy will threaten you,” he explained.

Sayyed Nasrallah also mentioned that

“Blacklisting Hezbollah aims at scaring the allies and pushing them away from the resistance as well as drying up the Resistance’s funding sources and they’ve been seeking this since the 1990’s.”

“Resistance fighters deserved victory in 2000 and 2006 as they had honesty and made enormous sacrifice in their battles against the enemy,” he stated, noting that “when the enemies face popular resistance, they will not be able to defeat i. They will lose their battles.”

In addition, Hezbollah Secretary General praised the fact that people from diverse Lebanese societies proved their loyalty to the Resistance by voting in favor of Hezbollah during May 6 parliamentary elections.

On Syria…

On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah congratulated the Syrian leadership and people on the liberation of Damascus and its entire countryside.

“I had previously said that the Syrian leadership and their allies would not let Damascus fall, whatever the sacrifice. Today, we also turn to Syria, its army, its people and its allies to welcome the liberation of Damascus in its entirety,” he added.

Morroco’s No Evidence

Regarding Morocco’s fabrications against Hezbollah, His Eminence stressed that there is no political relationship between Hezbollah and the Polisario, and there is no communication between the two sides

“The pressures on Iran are also part of this course,” he said, pointing out that “the Moroccan foreign minister has not offered any evidence to his Iranian counterpart backing his accusations.”

To Fight Corruption

On the internal level, Sayyed Nasrallah assured that

“Terrorism lists won’t delay formation of Lebanese government.”

“We are calling for a speedy government formation because this is in the country’s interest and because there are major files that need to be addressed and the all the developments in the region are in our favor,” Sayyed Nasrallah added.

He further unveiled that “Hezbollah will not put forward a candidate to head any of Lebanon’s key ministries.”

“Hezbollah didn’t and will not demand having one of the so-called sovereign ministerial portfolios,” His Eminence stressed.

According to him, There are parties with whom we may disagree strategically, but nothing prevents from cooperating with them in fighting corruption.

“We look forward to a cabinet which would represent politicians from all factions and parties. It is important for Hezbollah to have a constructive presence in the new cabinet. Our fight against corruption is a serious and major battle, and it completes what happened in the 2000 liberation,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, revealing that “among the brother MPs in the ‘Loyalty to the Resistance bloc’, we chose MP Hassan Fadlallah to follow up the file against corruption.”

Source: Al-Ahed 

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: