Fact check – US Governmental Lies About Iran and The Sanction Regime — Rebel Voice

Originally posted on Rebel Voice: “Truth is the first casualty of war” – But sometimes truth becomes a victim before the war ever begins, as is the case in US depictions of events in both Venezuela and Iran at present. Today, there is a concerted campaign by forces within the US regime to misrepresent and…

via Fact check – US Governmental Lies About Iran and The Sanction Regime — Rebel Voice

Nadia Murad – US Assassinated Your Savior from ISIS Sex-Slavery. Why Are You Silent?

By Julia Kassem

Source

Nadia Murad Abu Mahdi al Muhandis 91a05

On Friday, January 10th, the U.S. State Department released a statement signaling their position to stay in Iraq, in defiance of the long standing Iraqi demands requesting the removal of the illegal U.S. occupation. This came seven days after the U.S.’s assassination of the Commander of the Al-Quds brigaide of the IRGC, Qassem Soleimani, and his close friend and comrade in struggle, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. The U.S.’s action in assassinating the two most powerful fighters of Daesh in Iraq highlighted the stubbornness of the U.S. as asserting its position as an occupying power in Iraq.

Jamal Ja’far Muhammad Ali Al Ibrahim, better known as Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was born in Basra, southern Iraq in 1954 to an Iranian mother and an Iraqi father. His nom-de-guerre is a combination of “Abu Mahdi,” or “Father of Mahdi,” a traditional Arab title referring to the name of his eldest child, and “al-Muhandis,” a nickname literally meaning “the engineer,” stemming from his graduation from engineering school in 1977. Following the Iranian revolution of 1979, al-Muhandis fled to the newly Islamic Republic during Saddam Hussein’s rise to power. Hussein also waged a heavy crackdown of the mainly Shiite Islamic Da’wa party, of which the young al-Muhandis was a member.

Over the years, a-Muhandis would perfect his expertise in organized resistance and take it home to Iraq as a part of the Badr Corps. He was key in his involvement and leadership in fighting the U.S. occupation following the 2003 American invasion and destabilization of Iraq. He was a founding leader of the Kata’ib Hezbollah militia, which was a main faction in fighting against the U.S. armed forces’ presence in Iraq post-2006.

In 2009, U.S. Executive Orders (E.O.) 13438 and 13224 placed sanctions on al-Muhandis for his leadership in resistance against the U.S. invasion, claiming to target him for “threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and the Government of Iraq.” The U.S. that day also placed Kata’ib Hezbollah in the designation as a foreign terrorist organization, which at that point would mark the group a target and threat to the U.S.’s interests in occupying and looting the country.

A little known member of Iraqi parliament post 2005, al-Muhandis largely ignored the public limelight characteristic of political life, instead remaining committed towards armed struggle. The late al-Muhandis in his position, under the command of the Iraqi Prime Minister, would be integral helping facilitate and vouch for the integration of the PMU into the Iraqi national armed forces.

Al-Muhandis would assemble a coalition from the nearly 60 different paramilitary militias in Iraq he worked with, organizing and consolidating their efforts under the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMU) or Hashd al-Shaabi.

When the PMU assembled in 2014, under the directive of Iraqi Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Al-Muhandis primarily was the one to coordinate and bring the efforts of Iraq’s many resistance militas, many of whom previously fought off the American occupation, many under Kata’ib Hezbollah, to the fight against Daesh.

Thus, the integration of the PMU into the Iraqi army beginning in 2017 after Daesh’s defeat represented another step at bringing together different armed factions in Iraq to eliminate the terror group. Yet it would also help eclipse the U.S.’s presence in controlling the Iraqi army–the objective and practice of the post-2003 U.S. invasion.

This was also an important step in strengthening the power and capacity of the nationwide resistance against terrorism. Hadi al-Amiri, head of the Badr paramilitary Organization and who worked closely alongside al-Muhandis, would refer to the decision as instrumental in “encouraging others to join” the coalition fighting Daesh terror, building a large and strong organization from out of disjointed groups that were small in number and relatively weak in isolation.

Under Al-Muhandis’s directive as Deputy Commander, the PMU was–and still is–the prime force in orchestrating Daesh’s defeat. Al-Muhandis led and commanded a fighting force of 30,000 soldiers under Kata’ib Hezbollah alone, which had grown from having a couple thousand members before the Daesh invasion.

The Kata’ib Hezbollah had been responsible in 2007 of attacking and removing the American occupation from Iraqi soil. And again, the organization remains the same existential threat to the prolongation of American hegemony in Iraq–despite the Kata’ib, and its larger coalition group, the PMU, playing primary roles in defeating Daesh.

The American attacks on PMU and Kata’ib Hezbollah bases lately represent the U.S.’s ambitions to retain its occupation of Iraq and thwart resistance that would challenge its presence and/or embolden Iraq’s alliance with Iran, the U.S.’s political nemesis. The recent U.S. attacks, building up in the months before the January 3rd assassination of IRGC Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani and al-Muhandis, were also preceeded by Israeli attacks in coordination with the U.S. against the PMU at locations near the Syrian border in late August.

By December 2017, the PMU had waged and completed a full-scale operation against Daesh, clearing the terror group out from Sinjar, Kirkuk, Mosul, and many other areas held by Daesh for the past three years.  This showed how effective the PMU was in their support of the Iraqi Security Forces, (ISF) who alone or alongside the U.S. Army, was relatively weak and ineffective in fighting Daesh.

The U.S.’s attacks on the PMU, clearly a service to Daesh, go back years. It is well known that the U.S. regularly attacks the PMU and has supported Daesh in Iraq in Syria with air cover, airstriking “Iranian-allied” opposition to Daesh, and, consequently, using Daesh’s emboldened presence after a virtual defeat by the PMU to justify the re-occupation in Iraq.

The U.S. attacks against the PMU weren’t limited to military attacks alone. The Western mainstream media constantly downplayed Al-Muhandis’s and the PMU’s role in defending Iraqis, defeating Daesh, and rebuilding Iraq’s broken defense apparatus. Many attacks on Daesh and its affiliates or even liberation of territory would attract reports of human-rights violations charges from the likes of Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, and mainstream media. For example, the July 2016 liberation of Fallujah by the PMU was followed by a Reuters “massacre” report detailing human rights abuses scolding the “detainment and torture” of those with suspect links to Daesh.

Senator Rubio Press

@SenRubioPress

Sen Rubio met with Nobel Peace Prize recipient @NadiaMuradBasee to discuss the future of Iraq’s religious minorities & the importance of ensuring they are able to return home to rebuild their lives. They also discussed the need for justice & accountability for ISIS war crimes.

View image on Twitter

One significant example can be found in that of Nadia Murad, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient and Yazidi former sex-slave victim who recently met with Republican Senator Marco Rubio. During a July 2019 visit to the White House with 27 other refugees, U.S. President Donald Trump expressed an aloof reaction to her pleas to the U.S. to “do something.”

Following the U.S.’s theatrics in “killing” Baghdadi, Murad would post a tweet thanking the U.S. for their action. However, Murad expressed no words following the U.S.’s murder of Al-Muhandis, who was instrumental in liberating her village of Kojo, in the Sinjar region in 2017, which had been under Daesh occupation since 2014.

Nadia Murad

@NadiaMuradBasee

Thank you to all involved in taking down . Indeed he died a coward not a hero. https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1188483085840584711 

The White House

@WhiteHouse

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was violently eliminated last night. He will never again harm another innocent man, woman, or child.

The world is now a much safer place.

Embedded video

In a 2017 video, Murad is seen alongside PMU forces following the liberation of her hometown, in tears, thanking the Iraqi resistance and the PMU.

“Thank you to all that liberated our land across Iraq and Syria,” she says in the clip. “It is why we are free today and just for that we are thankful.”

Murad is also seen sitting with Al-Muhandis as he expresses his sympathies and condolences to her.

Despite Al-Muhandis’s clear service to minorities in Iraq, Murad has shown little dignity or respect following his assassination.

Western media narrative framed the PMU, under the command of Muhandis, in its image as a conglomerate of rogue “Shiite militias,” ready to turn on their Sunni counterparts should the U.S. pull out of Iraq. This narrative was supported by ridiculous claims such as these militias’ propensity for “revenge killings” and reducing al-Muhandis’ role in national and regional liberation as being little more than an agent for Iran.

In reality, in bringing together different aspects of Iraqi armed groups, in collusion with the Iraqi army, al-Muhandis helped cement a resistance force that transcended sect and ethnicity. The PMU includes many Yazidi, Christian, and Sunni units and all worked towards the same goal of defending their land, communities, and sovereignty. More than 45,000 Sunni Arabs fought under the PMU umbrella by 2017, and the PMU had won the support of an estimated 65% of Sunnis in Iraq that year.

In November 2017, the PMU had facilitated the liberation of Qaim from Daesh, coordinating with the Iraqi army, in just four days. It was the last stronghold of the terror group. Qaim also hosts an important border crossing between Syria and Iraq, with its jeapordization holding heavy economic as well as geostrategic implications for the region.

The Qaim border crossing between Iraq and Syria was officially opened in September 2019.

The U.S.’s December 29 killing of over 30 PMU forces in Qaim along the Syrian border was the final straw that roused the anti-imperialist sentiment of the New Year’s Eve mass demonstrations at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

The embassy demonstrations drew many parallels on social media to the 1979 student-led demonstrations against the former U.S. embassy in Tehran that revealed the center as a spy den, which only accelerated the threatened response to target Al-Muhandis.

It is also clear that the U.S.’s attacks on the PMU and subsequent killing of al-Muhandis, both a literal murder and a figurative assassination of character, emerge from the U.S.’s dissatisfaction with losing ground and control over Iraq. It was primarily Al-Muhandis’s history of organizing and resisting to undermine and thwart U.S. influence in both Iraq and Iran had long put him in the crosshairs of Empire. This plan, which began with American support to Saddam Hussein against the newly pro-Palestine and sovereign Iran, had evolved into the U.S. attempts to fan the flames of Daesh in Iraq, even if it meant killing the very leader that had organized its downfall.

Iran Jet Disaster Setup – Who Is the Mysterious Videographer?

By Suraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

Co-author: Finian Cunningham

Source

Iran Jet Disaster 6d63b

The 19-second video published by the New York Times last week showing the moment an Iranian missile hit a passenger jet has prompted much social media skepticism.

Questions arise about the improbable timing and circumstances of recording the precise moment when the plane was hit.

The newspaper ran the splash story on January 9, the day after a Ukrainian airliner was brought down near Tehran. It was headlined: ‘Video Shows Ukrainian Plane Being Hit Over Iran’. All 176 people onboard were killed. Two days later, the Iranian military admitted that one of its air defense units had fired at the plane in the mistaken belief that it was an incoming enemy cruise missile.

“A smoking gun” was how NY Times’ journalist Christiaan Triebert described the video in a tweet. Triebert works in the visual investigations team at the paper. In the same tweet, he thanked – “a very big shout out” – to an Iranian national by the name of Nariman Gharib “who provided it [the video] to the NY Times, and the videographer, who would like to remain anonymous”.

🤖Nariman

@NarimanGharib

The footage i’ve got from a source – the moment the missile hit the . I can’t verify the video yet! but please let me know if you find anything. I’m in contact with the person who send this video to see if I can get a version of video which has a meta data on it

Embedded video

The anonymous videographer is the person who caught the 19-second clip which shows a missile striking Flight PS752 shortly after take-off from Tehran’s Imam Khomenei airport at around 6.15 am. This person, who remains silent during the filming while smoking a cigarette (the smoke briefly wafts over the screen), is standing in the suburb of Parand looking northwest. His location was verified by the NY Times using satellite data. The rapid way the newspaper’s technical resources were marshaled raises a curious question about how a seemingly random video submission was afforded such punctilious attention.

But the big question which many people on social media are asking is: why was this “videographer” standing in a derelict industrial area outside Tehran at around six o’clock in the morning with a mobile phone camera training on a fixed angle to the darkened sky? The airliner is barely visible, yet the sky-watching person has the camera pointed and ready to film a most dramatic event, seconds before it happened. That strongly suggests, foreknowledge.

Given that something awful has just been witnessed it is all the more strange that the person holding the camera remains calm and unshaken. There is no audible expression of shock or even the slightest disquiet.

Turns out that Nariman Gharib, the guy who received the video and credited by the NY Times for submitting it, is a vociferous anti-Iranian government dissident who does not live in Iran. He ardently promotes regime change in his social media posts.

Christiaan Triebert, the NY Times’ video expert, who collaborated closely with Gharib to get the story out within hours of the incident, previously worked as a senior investigator at Bellingcat. Bellingcat calls itself an independent online investigative journalism project, but numerous critics accuse it of being a media adjunct to Western military intelligence. Bellingcat has been a big proponent of media narratives smearing the Russian and Syrian governments over the MH17 shoot-down in Ukraine in 2014 and chemical weapons attacks.

In the latest shoot-down of the airliner above Tehran, the tight liaison between a suspiciously placed anonymous videographer on the ground and an expatriate Iranian dissident who then gets the prompt and generous technical attention of the NY Times suggests a level of orchestration, not, as we are led to believe, a random happenstance submission. More sinisterly, the fateful incident was a setup.

It seems reasonable to speculate that in the early hours of January 8 a calamitous incident was contrived to happen. The shoot-down occurred only four hours after Iran attacked two US military bases in Iraq. Those attacks were in revenge for the American drone assassination on January 3 of Iran’s top military commander, Maj. General Qassem Soleimani.

Subsequently, Iranian air-defense systems were on high alert for a possible counter-strike by US forces. Several reports indicate that the Iranian defense radars were detecting warnings of incoming enemy warplanes and cruise missiles on the morning of 8 January. It does seem odd why the Iranian authorities did not cancel all commercial flights out of Tehran during that period. Perhaps because civilian airliners can normally be differentiated by radar and other signals from military objects.

However, with the electronic warfare (EW) technology that the United States has developed in recent years it is entirely feasible for enemy military radars to be “spoofed” by phantom objects. One such EW developed by the Pentagon is Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD) which can create deceptive signals on enemy radar systems of incoming warheads.

What we contend therefore is this: the Americans exploited a brink-of-war scenario in which they anticipated Iranian air-defense systems to be on a hair-trigger. Add to this tension an assault by electronic warfare on Iranian military radars in which it would be technically feasible to distort a civilian airliner’s data as an offensive target. The Iranian military has claimed this was the nature of the shoot-down error. It seems plausible given the existing electronic warfare used by the Pentagon.

It’s a fair, albeit nefarious, bet that the flight paths out of Tehran were deliberately put in an extremely dangerous position by the malicious assault from American electronic warfare. A guy placed on the ground scoping the outward flight paths – times known by publicly available schedules – would be thus on hand to catch the provoked errant missile shot.

The shoot-down setup would explain why Western intelligence were so quick to confidently assert what happened, contradicting Iran’s initial claims of a technical onboard plane failure.

The disaster has gravely undermined the Iranian government, both at home and around the world. Protests have erupted in Iran denouncing the authorities and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp for “lying” about the crash. Most of the 176 victims were Iranian nationals. The anger on the streets is being fueled by the public comments of Western leaders like Donald Trump, who no doubt see the clamor and recriminations as an opportunity to push harder for regime change in Iran.

Who Targeted Ukraine Airlines Flight 752?

By Philip Giraldi

Source

Iran Shot It Down But There May Be More to the Story

Ukraine Airlines Flight 752 3cf8b

The claim that Major General Qassem Soleimani was a “terrorist” on a mission to carry out an “imminent” attack that would kill hundreds of Americans turned out to be a lie, so why should one believe anything else relating to recent developments in Iran and Iraq? To be sure, Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 departing from Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International Airport on the morning of January 8th with 176 passengers and crew on board was shot down by Iranian air defenses, something which the government of the Islamic Republic has admitted, but there just might  be considerably more to the story involving cyberwarfare carried out by the U.S. and possibly Israeli governments.

To be sure, the Iranian air defenses were on high alert fearing an American attack in the wake of the U.S. government’s assassination of Soleimani on January 3rd followed by a missile strike from Iran directed against two U.S. bases in Iraq. In spite of the tension and the escalation, the Iranian government did not shut down the country’s airspace. Civilian passenger flights were still departing and arriving in Tehran, almost certainly an error in judgment on the part of the airport authorities. Inexplicably, civilian aircraft continued to take off and land even after Flight 752 was shot down.

Fifty-seven of the passengers on the flight were Canadians of Iranian descent, leading Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to point the finger both at the Iranian government for its carelessness and also at Washington, observing angrily that the Trump Administration had deliberately and recklessly sought to “escalate tensions” with Iran through an attack near Baghdad Airport, heedless of the impact on travelers and other civilians in the region.

What seems to have been a case of bad judgements and human error does, however, include some elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable “jamming” and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched. There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.

The electronic jamming coming from an unknown source meant that the air defense system was placed on manual operation, relying on human intervention to launch. The human role meant that an operator had to make a quick judgment in a pressure situation in which he had only moments to react. The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming American cruise missiles, then fired.

The two missiles that brought the plane down came from a Russian-made system designated SA-15 by NATO and called Tor by the Russians. Its eight missiles are normally mounted on a tracked vehicle. The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents. Given what happened on that morning in Tehran, it is plausible to assume that something or someone deliberately interfered with both the Iranian air defenses and with the transponder on the airplane, possibly as part of an attempt to create an aviation accident that would be attributed to the Iranian government.

The SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be hacked or “spoofed,” permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take control. The United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies “that can fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets.” Fooling the system also means fooling the operator. The Guardian has also reported independently  how the United States military has long been developing systems that can from a distance alter the electronics and targeting of Iran’s available missiles.

The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location. The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has the same ability. Joe Quinn at Sott.net also notes an interested back story to those photos and video footage that have appeared in the New York Times and elsewhere showing the Iranian missile launch, the impact with the plane and the remains after the crash, to include the missile remains. They appeared on January 9th, in an Instagram account called ‘Rich Kids of Tehran‘. Quinn asks how the Rich Kids happened to be in “a low-income housing estate on the city’s outskirts [near the airport] at 6 a.m. on the morning of January 8th with cameras pointed at the right part of the sky in time to capture a missile hitting a Ukrainian passenger plane…?”

Put together the Rich Kids and the possibility of electronic warfare and it all suggests a premeditated and carefully planned event of which the Soleimani assassination was only a part. There have been riots in Iran subsequent to the shooting down of the plane, blaming the government for its ineptitude. Some of the people in the street are clearly calling for the goal long sought by the United States and Israel, i.e. “regime change.” If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands. There is much still to explain about the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752.

 

Comrades in Battle: Soleimani’s Journey of Resistance Narrated by a Hezbollah Commander

Fatima Deeb Hamzeh

The night was coming to an end when the curtains were brought down on his last journeys of jihad in Syria. The final scene was at Imam Hussein’s Iraq, the way Hajj Qassem wanted it to be and always asked for in his prayers. It was loud. It happened on the battlefield of jihad alongside his comrades in arm and peace, the people he loved. And for the story in his prayers to be completed, the villain was the most wretched of villains. Cowardice was the credibility of their claim. They were not able to get him except by assassination.

Hajj Sadiq tells us: He was the clearest example of leadership in Islam.

He spent twenty years and more working for the Palestinian cause. He knew the mission and the goal when he was appointed the commander of the Quds Force in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in 1998. Everyone who knew him well acknowledges that he was a man who was tireless and uncompromising in his pursuit. He, too, was one of those who believed in the certainty of achieving the goals set on the path of the divine promise.

He had many traits. Others surrender to his attractive but simple characteristics. The region’s recent events and developments were the gateway to this “jihadi by nature”.

From Palestine, to Lebanon, to Syria and Iraq and farther away, the martyred lieutenant general went on a jihad streak helping the oppressed against the oppressor and the weak against the arrogant.

But how was he present, how did he fight, lead battles, negotiate, raise morale and bring together the alliances and the axis? How was he killed? And what comes after him?

To answer all these questions, Al-Ahed news website conducted an exclusive interview with Hajj Sadiq, a field commander in the Islamic Resistance who accompanied martyr Qassem Soleimani on his jihadi rounds.

Hajj Sadiq begins talking about Soleimani, “In the name of Allah, He who Smites the Necks of the Cruel (qasim al-jabarin). It is impossible to summarize this leader’s career or his jihad.”

Calmly and with great accuracy, Hajj Sadiq reveals to us some of Hajj Qassem’s qualities.

“Work wise, he was the clearest and most recent example of the concept of leadership in Islam. Because I know him and have accompanied him, I believe that theories of leadership, management as well as military and field control need to be reviewed looking back at this person’s role, impact and behavior.”

The Islamic Resistance field commander adds, “Through his positions and words, he – Hajj Qassem – expressed the concept of the Imamate in Islam whereby the minds are attracted to him without will or effort.”

What jihad legacy did he leave behind?

“It is enough that he was practically the one who created what is now called the axis of resistance. He was at the forefront of establishing it after it was just a mere idea spoken about behind the scenes,” Hajj Sadiq replies quickly. “Martyr Soleimani was able to translate this idea into practice, accurately and with unimaginable craftsmanship.”

He adds, “In his jihadist thought, he wanted to go beyond the idea of the axis. And those who know the literature of the Islamic Revolution, know who Soleimani was, what he gave, and what he left behind.”

Hajj Sadiq, one of the people who knew martyr Soleimani, repeats that talking about him is not for the sake of writing about Soleimani’s personality after his martyrdom. Rather, to reveal possible aspects of “this leader, whose services for the Islamic causes were not confined to a place or time. On the contrary, his military, administrative and diplomatic vision, activities and movements tightly linked the organizations and countries of the [resistance] axis together.”

Hajj Sadiq does not hide Soleimani’s great, influential and pivotal role in confronting the Zionist and American projects in our region.

“Soleimani was a supporter of the resistance in Lebanon. He was present alongside the resistance during the July 2006 war. He was also in Iraq from the start of Daesh’s invasion until the announcement of their end as a danger to the state and the people. He was also in Syria. He was not only a military leader but also a clever diplomat and administrator.”

How Soleimani saw us and how we saw him

Hajj Sadiq talks more about the military commander who was close to the arenas of jihadi and mujahideen, saying “He was keen on the subject of advice. It was one of his well-known practices, and it was not a formal behavior. Rather, it was realistic and practical. He practiced it with conviction as well as action. He was always on the fields and at the forefront. He always sought to involve field leaders in decision-making. He always reminded us that our weapon, which is directed at our most powerful enemy, is our morale.”

Hajj Sadiq stresses, “Hajj Qassem’s physical presence cannot be compensated. However, the model of a moral jihadist and leadership school that he established will make up for his absence. This will be reflected in the price his murderers will pay as they will be expelled from the whole region.”

The martyred commander’s companion tries to convey to us the image of the relationship that Soleimani was most keen to weave with the mujahideen.

“He was concerned with the mujahideen’s most accurate daily and combat details, including their sleeping accommodations, their sustenance, their psychological and spiritual conditions, their communication with their families and everything that could make them feel secure and belong to this holy jihadist line. He was even concerned with the conditions of ordinary citizens who support the organizations that were fighting us and made sure not to harm them.”

“Killing him this way, during this time, with his companions, is a juncture in the struggle with our enemy. Soleimani succeeded in breaking the prestige and power of the American giant in the region. He paved the way for us to get rid of it. He showed us the shortest way to expel it humiliated. He was, without a doubt, the largest nail in the coffin of the Americans in our region. And the coming days will bear witness to this,” Hajj Sadiq concludes his talk about martyred leader Soleimani. “I am happy for him for attaining this great martyrdom and this end. We, who remained after him, will continue his path and work to achieve his goals and carry his banner in all arenas. Taking just retribution on the killers of the mujahideen will be the responsibility of all the resistance fighters.”

Also read it in Arabic

What’s Behind The West’s Hatred of Iran?

By Stuart Littlewood

Source

Mohammad Mosaddegh 82014

Nobody saw that coming. Trump ordering Soleimani’s execution, I mean.

Nobody thought even he was quite so stupid.

It follows his last year’s caper when the “cocked and loaded” drama-queen ordered military strikes against Iran’s radar and missile batteries in retaliation for their shootdown of a US spy drone. He changed his mind with only minutes to spare on account of a reminder that such lunacy might actually cost human lives.

Plus the fact that the drone was eight miles from the coast, well inside the 12 nautical miles considered to be Iran’s territorial waters under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and it clearly represented a military threat and provocation. So he had no lawful claim of self-defense that would justify a military attack.  The United Nations Charter only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or with Security Council approval. So his proposed action would have been illegal as well as unwise, but none of that seemed to enter into his calculations then, or now.

Before that we had Trump’s executive order in August 2018 reimposing a wide range of sanctions against Iran after pulling the US out of the seven-party nuclear deal for no good reason, a spiteful move that annoyed the EU and caused  all sorts of problems for other nations. And he was going to impose extra sanctions aimed mainly at Iran’s oil industry and foreign financial institutions.

“If the ayatollahs want to get out from under the squeeze,” warned US national security adviser John Bolton, “they should come and sit down. The pressure will not relent while the negotiations go on.” To which Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani responded: “If you stab someone with a knife and then you say you want talks, then the first thing you have to do is remove the knife.”

United Nations Special Rapporteur Idriss Jazairy described the sanctions as “unjust and harmful…. The reimposition of sanctions against Iran after the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, which had been unanimously adopted by the Security Council with the support of the US itself, lays bare the illegitimacy of this action.”

The other countries party to the nuclear deal – Russia, China, Germany, France, the UK and the EU – vowed to stick with it and continue trading with Iran, some EU foreign ministers saying Iran was abiding by the agreement and delivering on its goal when Trump withdrew and they deeply regretted the new sanctions. Trump in turn called Iran “a murderous dictatorship that has continued to spread bloodshed, violence and chaos.”  The irony of such a remark was, of course, completely lost on him.

I read today that the EU “will spare no efforts” to keep the nuclear deal with Iran alive though I doubt if Boris Johnson, passionate Zionist that he is, will be among them.

When it comes to aggression and dishonesty the US has form, and lots of it. Who can forget during the Iran-Iraq war the cruiser USS Vincennes, well inside Iran’s territorial waters, blowing Iran Air Flight 655 to smithereens and killing all 290 passengers and crew on board? The excuse, which didn’t bear examination afterwards, was that they mistook the Airbus A300 for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat manoeuvring to attack.

George H. W. Bush commented on a separate occasion: “I will never apologize for the United States – I don’t care what the facts are… I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.” Trump seems to have caught the same disease. And, from the outside, the White House itself seems home to the the sort of “murderous dictatorship” he describes.

The need to continually demonize Iran

When I say the West’s hatred of Iran, I mean primarily the US-UK-Israel Axis.  Ben Wallace, UK Defence Secretary filling in for Boris Johnson who had absented himself, has told Parliament: “In recent times, Iran has felt its intentions are best served through… the use of subversion as a foreign policy tool. It has also shown a total disregard for human rights.” This is amusing coming from the British government and especially a Conservative one which adores Israel, the world’s foremost disregarder of human rights and international law.

Britain and America would like everyone to believe that hostilities with Iran began with the 1979 Islamic Revolution. But you have to go back to the early 1950s for the root cause in America’s case, while Iranians have had to endure a whole century of British exploitation and bad behaviour. And the Axis want to keep this important slice of history from becoming part of public discourse. Here’s why.

In 1901 William Knox D’Arcy obtained from the Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar a 60-year oil concession to three-quarters of the country. The Persian government would receive 16% of the oil company’s annual profits, a rotten deal as the Persians would soon realise.

D’Arcy, with financial support from Glasgow-based Burmah Oil, formed a company and sent an exploration team. Drilling failed to find oil in commercial quantities and by 1908 D’Arcy was almost bankrupt and on the point of giving up when they finally struck it big.  The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was up and running and in 1911 completed a pipeline from the oilfield to its new refinery at Abadan.

Just before the outbreak of World War 1 Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, wished to convert the British fleet from coal. To secure a reliable oil source the British Government took a major shareholding in Anglo-Persian.

In the 1920s and 1930s the company profited hugely from paying the Persians a miserly 16% and refusing to renegotiate terms. An angry Persia eventually cancelled the D’Arcy agreement and the matter ended up at the Court of International Justice in The Hague. A new agreement in 1933 provided Anglo-Persian with a fresh 60-year concession but on a smaller area. The terms were an improvement but still didn’t amount to a square deal for the Persians.

In 1935 Persia became known internationally by its other name, Iran, and Anglo-Persian changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil. By 1950 Abadan was the biggest oil refinery in the world and the British government, with its 51% holding, had affectively colonised part of southern Iran.

Iran’s tiny share of the profits had long soured relations and so did the company’s treatment of its oil workers. 6,000 went on strike in 1946 and the dispute was violently put down with 200 dead or injured. In 1951 while Aramco was sharing profits with the Saudis on a 50/50 basis Anglo-Iranian declared £40 million profit after tax and handed Iran only £7 million.

Iran by now wanted economic and political independence and an end to poverty. Calls for nationalisation could not be ignored. In March 1951 the Majlis and Senate voted to nationalise Anglo-Iranian, which had controlled Iran’s oil industry since 1913 under terms frankly unfavourable to the host country. Social reformer Dr Mohammad Mossadeq was named prime minister by a 79 to 12 majority and promptly carried out his government’s wishes, cancelling Anglo-Iranian’s oil concession and expropriating its assets.

His explanation was perfectly reasonable…

“Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries… have yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.” (M. Fateh, Panjah Sal-e Naft-e Iran, p. 525)

For this he would be removed in a coup by MI5 and the CIA, imprisoned for 3 years then put under house arrest until his death.

Britain was determined to bring about regime change so orchestrated a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil, froze Iran’s sterling assets and threatened legal action against anyone purchasing oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. The Iranian economy was soon in ruins…. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

America was reluctant at first to join Britain’s destructive game but Churchill (prime minister at this time) let it be known that Mossadeq was turning communist and pushing Iran into Russia’s arms at a time when Cold War anxiety was high. That was enough to bring America’s new president, Eisenhower, on board and plotting with Britain to bring Mossadeq down.

Chief of the CIA’s Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt Jr, played the lead in a nasty game of provocation, mayhem and deception. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi signed two decrees, one dismissing Mossadeq and the other nominating the CIA’s choice, General Fazlollah Zahedi, as prime minister. These decrees were written as dictated by the CIA.

In August 1953, when it was judged safe for him to do so, the Shah returned to take over. Mossadeq was arrested, tried, and convicted of treason by the Shah’s military court. He remarked: “My greatest sin is that I nationalised Iran’s oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world’s greatest empire… I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests.”

His supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. Zahedi’s new government reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium to restore the flow of Iranian oil, awarding the US and Great Britain the lion’s share – 40% going to Anglo-Iranian. The consortium agreed to split profits on a 50-50 basis with Iran but refused to open its books to Iranian auditors or allow Iranians to sit on the board.

The US massively funded the Shah’s government, including his army and his hated secret police force, SAVAK. Anglo-Iranian changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954. Mossadeq died on 5 March 1967.

The CIA-engineered coup that toppled Mossadeq, reinstated the Shah and let the American oil companies in, was the final straw for the Iranians. The British-American conspiracy backfired spectacularly 25 years later with the Islamic Revolution of 1978-9, the humiliating 444-day hostage crisis in the American embassy and a tragically botched rescue mission.

Smoldering resentment for at least 70 years

And all this happened before the Iran-Iraq war when the West, especially the US, helped Iraq develop its armed forces and chemical weapons arsenal which were used against Iran.  The US, and eventually Britain, leaned strongly towards Saddam in that conflict and the alliance enabled Saddam to more easily acquire or develop forbidden chemical and biological weapons. At least 100,000 Iranians fell victim to them.

This is how John King writing in 2003 summed it up…

“The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam’s army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.”

And while Iranian casualties were at their highest as a result of US chemical and biological war crimes what was Mr Trump doing? He was busy acquiring the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Trump Castle, his Taj-Mahal casino, the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan…. oh, and he was refitting his super-yacht Trump Princess. What does he know, understand or care about Iran and the Iranian people today?

On the British side our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was at Oxford carousing with fellow Etonians at the Bullingdon Club. What does he know or care?

The present Iranian regime, like many others, may not be entirely to the West’s liking but neither was Dr Mossadeq’s fledgeling democracy nearly 70 years ago. If Britain and America had played fair and allowed the Iranians to determine their own future instead of using economic terrorism to bring the country to its knees Iran might have been “the only democracy in the Middle East” today.

So hush! Don’t even mention the M-word: MOSSADEQ.

Impeach Trump for Acts of War on Iraq, Iran and Elsewhere

By Stephen Lendman

Source

No War with Iran 7333b

Trump’s legal team reportedly prepared their strategy to challenge articles of impeachment by House Dems — yet to be sent to the GOP-controlled Senate for trial.

According to Law Professor Jonathan Turley, “(b)y rushing the impeachment and forcing a vote before Christmas, the House gave up control over an incomplete and insufficient case for removal,” adding:

“It gave up that control to a chamber controlled by the opposing party.”

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to game the system has not achieved any concession from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.”

“Few of us believed it would. Now the House will proceed on the thinnest record ever presented in a modern presidential impeachment trial.”

Clearly it’s going nowhere, likely to help Trump’s reelection, not undermine it.

Articles of impeachment by House Dems against Trump with no legitimate standing seek political advantage in November’s presidential and congressional elections.

That’s what this is all about, ignoring serious Trump wrongdoing, just cause for impeachment and removal from office. More on this below.

Under the Constitution’s Article II, Section 4, impeachment and conviction require proving “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

No legitimacy exists to impeach Trump for abuse of power on grounds of seeking interference from Ukraine to aid his 2020 presidential reelection and obstruction of Congress for defying House subpoenas.

Clear just cause exists to impeach and remove him from office for crimes of war, against humanity, and betraying the public trust by serving monied interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary people he greatly harmed at home and abroad.

Breaching virtually every positive promise made to the American people proved he can never be trusted and no longer has justification to serve.

Abroad, he escalated crimes of war and against humanity against Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalia.

He supports aggression in Libya, Donbass, Ukraine, and Occupied Palestine.

He’s waging economic terrorism on Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia and other countries.

He supports international terrorism while pretending to combat it.

As US president and commander-in-chief, he’s responsible for high crimes at home and abroad, legitimate impeachable offenses.

He committed acts of war against Iraq and Iran by terror-bombing Iraqi territory, killing deputy PMU leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and others, along with assassinating IRGC Quds Force commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

All of the above are high crimes, just cause to impeach and remove him from office, what Dems and Republicans should support.

Clearly they won’t because they share guilt. The vast majority of Washington’s political class is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors — by supporting aggression, state terrorism, and other hostile actions

In response to Trump’s threat to target dozens of Iranian sites, including cultural ones, President Rouhani warned him “never (to) threaten the Iranian nation.”

In solidarity against imperial USA for assassinating General Soleimani, millions of Iranians took to the streets over the weekend and Monday to honor him and symbolically stand against the scourge America represents.

As a nation mourns the loss of its revered Quds Force commander, his assassination an act of war by any standard, Iran’s parliament discussed an appropriate response, the body’s spokesman Asadollah Abbasi saying:

“In reaction to the recent terrorist and cowardly assassination of Lt. Gen. Qassem Soleimani and his companions by the US and as decided by the presiding board, the triple-urgency motion will be put on the agenda of the parliament’s open session,” adding:

“The latest US action is viewed as ‘state-sponsored terrorism’ not only by the parliament’s presiding board but also by most world countries, and the ratification of the triple-urgency motion lends legal credit to this issue.”

On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif denounced the US for its “blatant disregard for the jus cogens in international law as well as for universally-recognized rights and immunities,” adding:

“This is the same schizophrenic approach that repugnantly threatens, in contravention of international law, to strike Iran’s cultural sites which are part of the shared human cultural and civilizational heritage.”

Killing Soleimani, a “voice of independence-seeking struggles” in the war-torn Middle East, was a “cowardly” attack on him and the Iranian nation, “a strategic blunder.”

The only way forward for restoration of regional peace and stability is “expulsion of the US from West Asia.”

Zarif stressed that Iran remains “the anchor of peace and security” in the Middle East, along with its development.

Peace and stability defeat US imperial aims. Endless wars and other hostile actions serve it — what its imperial scourge is all about.

%d bloggers like this: