Iran vs Israel: What The Media Wants You To Forget

by Michael Rivero

The corporate media have been given their orders to throw the focus back on to Iran.

Here is a recap of what they are trying to make you forget.

1. In 2009, Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington’s chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refused.

2. In 2009. the United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. The UN General Assembly passed a similar resolution in 2012 calling for inspections. Israel refused.

3. The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.

4. Iran’s formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.

5. Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities.

6. Contrary to face-saving claims, it appears that the US and Israel were both caught off guard by Iran’s announcement of a planned underground (to avoid being bombed) enrichment facility. The reasoning is simple. Had the US or Israel announced the existence of he new facility before Iran’s notified the IAEA, it would have put Iran on the defensive. As it is now, the US and Israel seem to be playing catch up, casting doubt on the veracity of Israel’s claims to “know” that Iran is a nuclear threat.

7. The IAEA and all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.

8. In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.

9. Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel’s bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.

10. The United Nations has just released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accuses Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as “Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish), and the United States will block the report from being referred to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, thereby making the US Government an accessory after-the-fact.

11. Recently revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapos, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.

12. In 1965, Israel stole over 200-600 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from the United States.

13. Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries!

14: No less a source than the Jerusalem Post confirms that Israel has armed their German-supplied Dolphin submarines with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

We all need to be Joe Wilson right now. We need to stand up and scream, “LIAR!” at every politician and every talking media moron that is pushing this war in Iran. And we need to keep dong it until they get the message that we will not be deceived any more.

Israel wants to send your kids off to die in Iran, and YOU are the only one that can stop them.

Please forward this comment to your social networks.

Advertisements

I question why the U.S. and israel is even involved, this should be a matter between Iran, the IAEA & the U.N.

Here we go, Senate Hawks Eye Veto Power Over Iran Deal

I question why the U.S. or Israel is even involved, this should be a matter between Iran, the IAEA & the U.N.

Senate Hawks Eye Veto Power Over Iran Deal

Incoming Senate Leaders Aim to Assure Israel that Deal Won’t Be Made

by Jason Ditz, November 09, 2014

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R – SC), the incoming Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Foreign Operations chair, has announced his intentions to push a bill that will give the Senate effect veto power over any nuclear deal reached with Iran.

Graham and incoming Foreign Relations Committee chair Sen. Bob Corker (R – TN) will cosponsor the bill in January, with Graham vowing to “kill” any deal that he believes is a bad deal.

Which likely means any deal, as Graham has been an opponent of negotiations in general, and made the vow before an Israel Lobby faction that similarly opposes any deal.

With the incoming Senate hawkish on a number of fronts, this effectively puts the end of the current year as a deadline for any Iran deal, as virtually no pact is going to be acceptable to Israel, and by extension will never get Congressional approval.

Related Videos – added by UP

قضية ساخنة _ محادثات مسقط والاقتراب من نقطة الحسم

Malicious Anti-Iranian Propaganda

Source

by Stephen Lendman

Managed news misinformation substitutes for truth and full disclosure. Big Lies persist with disturbing regularity.

It’s been this way for 35 years. Washington tolerates no independent governments. Nor does Israel, its Lobby and other supportive organizations.
They want pro-Western vassal states worldwide. They want sovereign independence destroyed.
They want unchallenged control. They want monied interests served. They want ordinary people exploited.
The second Tehran New Horizon Conference was held from September 29 – October 1. Participants included academics, writers, authors and journalists.
They came from numerous countries. Middle East issues were discussed. Ongoing events explained why.
Participants dispelled Western propaganda. It’s unrelenting. It features Big Lies.
Hard truths readers and viewers most need to know are buried. It’s longstanding scoundrel media policy.
The American Jewish Committee is one of the oldest advocacy organizations of its kind in America.
The New York Times calls it “the dean of American Jewish organizations.” It’s notoriously anti-Iranian.
On October 2, it headlined “AJC: Iran Conference Promotes Hatred of Jews, Israel.” It turned truth on its head saying so.
Press TV explained. It said the purpose of Tehran’s New Horizon Conference was “to unveil the secrets behind the dominance of the Zionist lobby over US and EU politics.”
It “showcased films at the festival represented Islamic resistance against the Zionist regime, war threats against Iran and anti-war movements, the Islamic Revolution of Iran, Iranophobia and Islamophobia, a world without Zionism, and (one) without terrorism and atomic weapons.”
It provided a platform for independent observers. It let them express their views freely and openly.
Polar opposite what goes on in America. Freedom is increasingly threatened. Democracy is pure fantasy. 
Fundamental rights are eroding in plain sight. Police state lawlessness persists. Monied interests alone benefit.
Permanent war is official policy. Iran’s governance shames America’s. AJC Executive Director David Harris lied, saying:
New Horizons Conference “is proof-positive that the government of Iran has not mitigated its deeply entrenched hostility towards Jews and the State of Israel.”

“Iran, even under the supposedly moderate President Rouhani, remains intent on achieving the capacity to build nuclear weapons, actively supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations, and promoting venomous hatred of Jews.”

Fact: Sixteen US intelligence agencies annually say no Iranian nuclear weapons program exists.
Fact: No evidence suggests one.
Fact: None exists.
Fact: Hamas is no terrorist organization.
Fact: Nor is Hezbollah.
Fact: They’re democratically elected Palestinian and Lebanese government representatives respectively.
Fact: So-called “venomous” Jew-hating doesn’t exist. 
Fact: Nor are threats made about wanting Israel destroyed.
Washington Post editorial policy fell from grace long ago. Credibility no longer exists. Watergate-type exposes are verboten.
Editorial policy fronts for power. Extreme hawkishness defines it. New owner Jeff Bezos has CIA ties. He’s in bed with the devil.
He was bought. Paid off. He got a $600 million CIA contract.
It’s double what he paid for WaPo. At the time, he said:

 “We look forward to a successful relationship with the CIA.”

Perhaps it involves much more than meets the eye. He expects lots more business. For sure CIA officials want plenty back besides Amazon Web Services (AWS).
Bezos’ disturbing history curries favor with national security officials. After WikiLeaks published State Department cables, AWS removed them.
WaPo should explain Bezos’ CIA connection. Readers should know its editorial policy is biased.
It’s propaganda. It turns truth on its head. It’s corrupted. It’s illegitimate. It’s bought and paid for.
WaPo is a CIA house organ. It regurgitates official policy. It’s militantly anti-Iranian.
It commented on New Horizon headlining “Obama clueless on Iran once again.” International “Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites (met) in Tehran.”
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) demagoguery, hate-mongering and Islamophobia are longstanding.
Its claims about promoting human rights ring hollow. It eschews them altogether.
It supports Israeli genocidal high crimes against peace. It does so unapologetically.
WaPo quoted ADL calling New Horizon participants “an international assortment of Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites.”
It’s “part of (Iran’s) 13th International Resistance Film Festival.
Last year, the conference’s cancellation was attributed to the ‘more moderate’ tone of the new government of President Hassan Rouhani.”
According to ADL national director Abe Foxman, “(T)his conference provides yet another example of how the Iranian government facilitates the spread of global anti-Semitism.”

“Participation by an international assortment of Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites is de rigueur for these types of events.”

“A disturbing new element in this anti-Jewish gathering is the appearance on the guest list of a few high visibility US antiwar and anti-Israel activists who claim their positions are not motivated by anti-Semitism.”

“It will be harder for them to make that claim now, given their open collusion with this event and its Iranian government sponsors.”

Republican extremist Mark Kirk is Illinois’s junior senator. His views are over-the-top and then some.
He’s in lockstep with imperial lawlessness. He wants war on Iran. According to National Iranian American Council (NIAC) founder Trita Parsi:
He wants what he won’t admit publicly. Only privately. Parsi wants lawless sanctions removed. Kirk wants more piled on.
He wants the Islamic Republic destroyed. He wants pro-Western stooge governance replacing it.
WaPo quoted him saying:

“The so-called “New Horizon’ conference in Tehran proves why the current Iranian regime under President Hassan Rouhani is, at its core, no less extremist and dangerous than the regime under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”

“The conference’s participants promoted anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, and were even greeted on day one by high-ranking Iranian cleric Mohsen Ghomi, a close advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who falsely alleged that ‘American officials are puppets of the Zionist lobby.’ “

“It’s critical that US Administration officials, who are desperately offering ever more dangerous nuclear concessions to get Iran to accept a watered-down nuclear deal, open their eyes to the true nature of the current Iranian regime.”

WaPo and other media scoundrels publish this type rubbish regularly. With disturbing regularity. They betray their readers in the process.
The Jerusalem Post is a notorious right-wing Israeli publication. According to a former reporter:
Its “problem is that politics enters news coverage, choice of stories, language, often in ways they might not even begin to realize.”
Much of its reporting is irresponsible. Its partisanship at times is way over-the-top. Israeli broadsheets are considered the most effective way to preach partisan politics.
According to one Israeli writer, “to make sure the party’s followers  (get) ‘correct’ educational guidance.”
JP called New Horizon “a hatefest.” It turned truth on its head saying so. It supports Israel’s worst crimes. It considers its genocidal high crimes against peace self-defense.
It calls legitimate Palestinian self-defense terrorism. Its mindless of Gazan suffering. It buries vital truths. It ignores what readers most need to know.
Western New Horizon reporting made yellow journalism look good by comparison. Independent sources explained things right.
Iran wants freedom to live in peace. Sovereign states deserve it and much more.
America and Israel want imperial dominance. No two nations throughout history devoted so much firepower to mass slaughter and destruction.
None over a longer duration. None cause more human misery.
Saving humanity depends on stopping them before it’s too late. World peace hangs by a thread.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

The IAEA has lost all credibility, israel simply ignores them and nothing is done

If Israel can ignore the IAEA, why should anyone else listen?

Media reports on Monday suggested that this week’s annual conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will include a serious discussion of Israel’s presumed nuclear capabilities. One can only hope that this takes place, that the long-running grievances of Arab and other countries are finally given their just due. With accusations relating to weapons of mass destruction having been a large part of the US pretext for invading Iraq and Iran now facing heavy pressure over similar claims, the double standard involving the Jewish state ­ which has steadfastly refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ­ has become too obvious to ignore any longer.

None of this has deterred the Israelis, though, from speaking out against the alleged ambitions of others. In fact, Israel has been at the forefront of countries demanding that the IAEA get tough with Iran. The Israelis are not at all embarrassed that Tehran is a signatory to the NPT and they are not; nor does it bother them that no one thinks the Islamic Republic has nuclear weapons, while the Jewish state is estimated by experts to possess something in the order of 200-300 warheads, not to mention a variety of air-, land- and sea-based delivery systems.

The unbridled hypocrisy of Israeli policy and rhetoric on this issue constitutes a major test for the IAEA, and indeed for two cornerstones of modern diplomacy: arms control and collective security. If the presumed violations of some countries are to be “punished” pre-emptively while those of others go unchecked, there is little point in cooperating with the co-opted organization that enforces its own regulations according to Washington’s whim. Israeli impunity relies on America for its sustenance, and the nuclear question is a case in point: US law is very clear in banning foreign aid to countries that either do not sign or fail to obey the NPT, but somehow more than $3 billion in illegal funds gets from Washington to Israel every year with nary a word of protest on Capitol Hill.

If America is unwilling to comply with its own laws when these do not suit Israel’s purposes, why should anyone trust it to undertake an accurate accounting of international security arrangements? And if the IAEA is unwilling to assert its independence in the face of pressure from Washington, why should any of its members bother to help maintain the pretense that signed agreements mean anything at all?

Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930702001743

Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare

TEHRAN (FNA)- In all the discussion of Iran’s nuclear program, the consequent international economic blockade directed by the United States, and the ongoing negotiations to resolve the issue, Washington’s official history of the program has rarely been challenged.

In ‘Manufactured Crisis, The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare’, award-winning investigative journalist Gareth Porter traces the true history of the program, as well as how and by whom the official narrative was constructed. I put six questions to Porter about his book.

Q. Although the Iraqi nuclear “threat” was discredited as an utter fraud years ago, the idea that across the border Iran has sought, at least in the past, to build a nuclear weapon has long been widely accepted in political and media circles in the West. Are you saying that the claim of secret work on nuclear weapons is equally fraudulent, and that the Iranians have never had a nuclear-weapons program?

A: Yes. In Manufactured Crisis, I show that the claim of an Iranian nuclear-weapons program has been based on false history and falsified records. The description of the Iranian nuclear program presented in official documents, in commentaries by think-tank “experts,” and in the media bears no resemblance to the essential historical facts. One would never know from the narrative available to the public over the years that Iran had been prepared in the early 1980s to rely entirely on a French-based company for enriched uranium fuel for its Bushehr reactor, rather than on enriching uranium itself. Nor would one learn that the Reagan Administration sought to strangle Iran’s nuclear program, which was admitted to have presented no proliferation threat, in its cradle by pressuring Germany and France to refuse to cooperate in any way. The significance of that missing piece of history is that Iran was confronted with a choice of submitting to the US effort to deprive Iran of its right to a peaceful nuclear program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty or else acquiring its own enrichment capability.

Not surprisingly, the Iranians chose the latter course, and went to the black market in defiance of what was by that point a unilateral US policy. Their decision is now described in the popular narrative as evidence that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons early on.

The other relevant historical reality that has been systematically excised from the story of the Iranian nuclear program is what happened in regard to chemical weapons during the Iran–Iraq war. Contrary to disinformation issued by the US Defense and State departments, which suggested that both sides had used chemical weapons in the Iraqi city of Halabja in 1988, the evidence is very clear that Iran never used chemical weapons during the war. The only explanation consistent with the historical record is that Ayatollah Khomeini forbade the use of such weapons, on the ground that both the possession and use of weapons of mass destruction are illicit under Islamic jurisprudence.

This policy, maintained despite the terrible losses Iran was suffering from Iraqi chemical attacks, represents powerful evidence that Shia jurisprudence is a fundamental constraint on Iranian policy toward weapons of mass destruction. It also makes credible the claim that Iran is forbidden by a fatwa from Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Seyed) Ali Khamenei from possessing nuclear weapons. But senior Iranian officials, including a former president of Iran, Hashami Rafsanjani, have been making cogent arguments against nuclear weapons based on strategic grounds since the early 1990s.

Q. The US produced various items of evidence over the years to demonstrate the felonious intent of the Iranian program. Where did this evidence come from, and how well does it stand up to scrutiny?

A: The evidence adduced to prove that Iran secretly worked on nuclear weapons represents an even more serious falsification of intelligence than we saw in the run-up to the war in Iraq. I tell the real story behind a large collection of intelligence documents that appeared mysteriously in 2004 and have been crucial to the Iran nuclear narrative. They supposedly came from the purloined laptop of an Iranian participant in a nuclear-weapons research project, but a former senior official with the German foreign office told me the real story: the documents were provided to Germany’s intelligence service by an occasional source who was part of the Iranian-exile terrorist organization Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK, also known as MKO, PMOI, NCR and NCRI).

The obviously self-interested MEK member was thus the Iranian equivalent of the now-discredited Iraqi source known as “Curveball,” whose tales of mobile bioweapons labs in Saddam’s Iraq became the centerpiece of the Bush case for invading Iraq. It is well documented, however, that the Israeli Mossad was using the MEK to launder intelligence it didn’t want attributed to Israel, with the aim of influencing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and foreign governments. Further pointing to the Israeli origins of the documents is the fact that Israel was the only country in the world known to have a special office responsible for influencing news coverage of Iran’s nuclear program.

Some key points in the documents give away the fact that they were falsified. The most important example is a set of studies, supposedly done in 2002 and 2003 on the Shahab-3 missile’s reentry vehicle, with the purported aim of allowing the missile to accommodate a nuclear weapon. Evidence from the US intelligence community and authoritative independent sources shows that the Iranians had already abandoned the Shahab-3 by then, and were far along in developing an improved missile with a reentry vehicle that bore no resemblance to the one depicted in the studies. And we now know from Mohamed ElBaradei’s 2011 memoirs that in 2009 Israel provided a new series of intelligence reports and documents to the IAEA that offered further claims of Iranian work on nuclear weapons both before and after 2003.

Those claims were ultimately published in an IAEA dossier of intelligence reports in November 2011. The most sensational assertion made there was that Iran had constructed a large metal cylinder for testing nuclear-weapons designs at its military-research base at Parchin in 2000. This led officials from the IAEA and some of its member states, including the United States, to charge that Iran was altering the site to eliminate evidence. But as I document in the book, Iran had allowed the IAEA to carry out inspections at ten sites of the agency’s choosing on two different occasions in 2005. Furthermore the IAEA obtained satellite images of the site covering February 2005 to February 2012, and found no indication that Iran had been concerned about hiding anything. Finally, a former chief IAEA inspector in Iraq, Robert Kelley, has said that the agency’s description of the alleged cylinder made no technical sense.

Q. How did the IAEA end up endorsing the notion that the Iranians have had a covert bomb program in the past and may still have one today?

A: The IAEA was crucial in legitimizing claims of a covert Iranian nuclear-weapons program, because it was seen as a neutral actor. That image was largely the result of the independence of its former director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, from the Bush Administration. In 2005, when the IAEA received the documents that had come in through Germany’s intelligence service, ElBaradei was deeply skeptical of their authenticity and warned publicly against using them as evidence in a case against Iran.

But his control over the Iran issue was eroded starting in 2008, when the head of the IAEA’s Department of Safeguards, Olli Heinonen, began collaborating with US officials on how to treat the documents. Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, when read against the background of 2008 IAEA reports, show that Heinonen and his Western allies came up with a strategy to falsely portray Iran as having conceded the authenticity of some of the documentation. Their aim was to justify IAEA demands for highly classified information on Iran’s missile and conventional-weapons programs. When Iran predictably refused, the IAEA and a US-led coalition cited this as evidence of a cover-up.

The IAEA came to play an even more partisan role after Yukia Amano of Japan replaced ElBaradei in November 2009. A WikiLeaks cable from July 2009 reveals that Amano promised US officials he would be firmly in their camp on Iran in return for American support of his election as director general. “In their camp” could only have meant that he would support the publication of the intelligence dossier — based entirely on intelligence reports and documents from Israel — that ElBaradei had refused to authorize. The dossier’s November 2011 publication date was timed to provide a political boost to the US-led campaign for crippling international sanctions against Iran.

Q. The US intelligence community became a global laughingstock when its assessments of Iraqi WMDs were revealed as entirely bogus. Yet its pronouncements about the Iranian nuclear program are treated with deferential respect. How do you compare the performance of the US intelligence community on Iran with its record on Iraq?

A: The same political and institutional dynamics drove both failures. The March 2005 Robb–Silberman Commission Report cited analysts who worked on the Iraq WMD file as admitting freely that they had effectively reversed the burden of proof, refusing to believe that Iraq didn’t have WMD unless a highly credible human source said otherwise.

The same thing happened on Iran. It began in 1991, when then CIA director Robert M. Gates singled out Iran as the premier assessment target for the agency’s new center for proliferation issues. Not surprisingly, analysts immediately began interpreting even the most ambiguous evidence as indicating Iran’s intention to develop nuclear weapons. This predisposition just happened to be in line with American policy of forbidding its allies from providing nuclear technology to Iran. In other words, the intelligence followed the policy, not the other way around.

CIA brass apparently went so far as to suppress WMD intelligence obtained by one of its best covert agents in the Middle East because it didn’t fit the conclusion they knew George W. Bush’s administration wanted. I reveal for the first time in the book that a former undercover operative who brought a lawsuit against CIA leadership in 2004 claimed that a highly respected source in Iran had told him in 2001 that Iran had no intention of “weaponizing” its nuclear program. The CIA apparently never informed the White House of that information, and refused to circulate it within the intelligence community.

National Intelligence Estimates in 2001 and 2005, and a draft estimate in mid-2007, all concluded that Iran had a nuclear-weapons program. Paul Pillar, a former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East who participated in the 2001 and 2005 exercises, has recalled that no hard evidence of weaponization informed either estimate, and that their conclusion was based on inference. In the 2005 estimate and the 2007 draft estimate, the conclusion was influenced by the intelligence documents that had come from Israel by way of the MEK. The failure of the CIA’s well-staffed weapons-proliferation center to detect the fraud paralleled its failure to notice the obvious signs that the “Nigergate” document offered as evidence of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger was a rather amateurish fabrication.

The final 2007 NIE, which was issued in November, asserted that the 2005 NIE and the mid-2007 draft had both been dead wrong in their assertions that Iranian still had a nuclear-weapons program at the time of their writing. It concluded, rather, that based on intercepted “snippets of conversation,” Iran had had a nuclear-weapons program as of 2003, then stopped it. This finding, which gave additional credibility to the official narrative of Iran’s nuclear intentions, is itself highly questionable. It is very likely that the 2007 NIE authors interpreted evidence of one or more individuals’ work as confirmation of the existence of a full-fledged program — a belief in which they had clearly acquired a strong vested interest.

Q. The news media generally disgraced itself in its coverage of the Iraqi nuclear issue. How has it comported itself with respect to Iran?

A: With Iraq, there was at least dissent over issues like its alleged illegal importation of aluminum tubes, which reflected debates within the intelligence community. Coverage of Iran, on the other hand, has been virtually unanimous in reporting the official line without the slightest indication of curiosity about whether it might be false or misleading. The closest we got to investigative work in the commercial media were hints, buried inside longer stories in the Washington Post, of skepticism in the intelligence community about the 2004 laptop documents.

Some of the most egregious misinformation came in late 2007 and early 2008, in stories in the New York Times and Washington Post about two IAEA reports containing the final results of a major agency investigation. Rather than reporting the fact that the agency had been unable to challenge any of Iran’s explanations of the six issues under investigation, the Times and Post stories simply quoted Bush Administration officials and an unnamed IAEA official as dismissing the Iranian responses.

When the media challenged the official line, it was only because that line wasn’t hawkish enough. David Sanger of the New York Times carried out a relentless campaign in innumerable articles after the 2007 NIE attacking its conclusion that Iran had ceased work on nuclear weapons in 2003.

Q. What impact do you believe the essentially unquestioned acceptance of this fraudulent nuclear narrative is likely to have on negotiations with Iran and beyond?

A: It creates serious obstacles. For one, it makes the Obama Administration much more vulnerable to the arguments of Israel and its followers in Washington that Iran cannot be allowed to have any enrichment capacity. But then, the administration itself has absorbed the essential elements of the narrative into its own analysis, notably via the creation of the “breakout” concept.

“Breakout” is defined as the time it would take Iran to enrich enough uranium to weapons-grade level to allow it to construct a single nuclear bomb. But it was a bogus idea from the beginning, because it assumed that Iran had the desire to rush-build a nuclear weapon. Furthermore it was based on highly unlikely worst-case scenarios for very rapid Iranian enrichment of uranium to a level sufficient for a bomb. According to the worst-case scenarios conjured up by conservative US think tanks and others promoting the myth, Iran has had the same theoretical capacity for breakout — a month or two — since 2010. But rather than racing for a bomb, it has instead converted much of the uranium it enriched to a concentration of 20 percent uranium-235 (the enrichment level that has most worried the United States) to an oxide form that makes it unavailable for enrichment to weapons-grade level.

Nevertheless, the Obama Administration has been so intimidated by the breakout drumbeat that it has now adopted a policy of limiting Iran’s breakout period to between six and twelve months. That translates into a demand that Iran agree to be stripped of 80 percent of its centrifuges, which is all but certain to ensure the breakdown of the talks. Unless the administration changes its posture — which became less likely after it publicly cited that goal as a baseline — fear-mongering propagandists may well succeed in pushing the United States into a situation of increased tension with Iran, including the possible mutual escalation of military threats. That, of course, would be the result that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long sought.

Source: Harper’s Magazine, the oldest general-interest monthly in America.

The USA is the world’s No.1 when it comes to Nuclear Weapons Proliferation

US Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: We’re No. 1!

http://warisacrime.org/content/us-nuclear-weapons-proliferation-we%E2%80%99re-no-1

The corporate media is focused on the question of how or if Iran could ever break out of its promise under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to eschew nuclear weapons, to use reactors only for civilian purposes. So many headlines refer to sanctions imposed against Iran that millions of people mistakenly think Iran has a nuclear arsenal. It doesn’t.

Meanwhile the Congress in January fully funded production of a new B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, a program dubbed “Life Extension.” This year’s $537 million is the down payment on the 12th version of the B61 that the millionaires in DC agreed should get $11 billion over the next few years.

Dubbed the “solid gold nuke” by critics, the 700-lb. H-bomb is running $28 million apiece at the moment. That much gold bullion is only worth $16 million.

The program to replace today’s B61s with a new “mod12,” is being condemned by our allies in NATO, by Congressional budget hawks and of course by the entire arms control community. Even former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright has said the bombs are “practically nil” in military value. (Gen. Cartwright only is partly right: Since it seems the Department of Defense is in the business of producing suicides by the thousands, among veterans and active duty soldiers, the suicidal mission of deploying B61s across Europe — for detonation there — seems a perfectly ghastly fit.)

“This decision represents the triumph of entrenched nuclear interests over good government. The B-61 is no longer relevant for U.S. national security, but continues to rob billions of dollars from programs that would make America safer,” President Joe Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund told Hans M. Kristensen for the Federation of American Scientists.

Kristensen reported March 12 that the Pentagon has decided that the new B61 will begin its deployment in Europe next year.

This 300-to-500 kiloton “variable yield” thermonuclear device has 24 to 40 times the destructive power of the US bomb that killed 170,000 people at Hiroshima in 1945. Still, this machine’s threat of meaningless, genocidal, radioactive violence is called “tactical.”

Rush to Deploy New H-bomb Before It’s Killed by Public Opposition

The Air Force budget makes it appear that the older B61s will all be replaced — in Turkey, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany — by 2020. This rush job is being hustled through the military-industrial-complex in a very big hurry because the broad international condemnation of the program is gaining depth and breadth.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., along with Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., and Rep Jared Polis, D-Colo., tried to curtail the program last year. Five NATO partners — Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Norway — asked four years ago that all B61s be removed permanently from Europe. In Germany, every major political party has formally resolved to pursue final withdrawal of the 20 remaining B61s at Buchel AFB.

Major US allies in Europe informed Gen. Cartwright’s critical opinion. High-level European politicians have been saying the B61s are “militarily useless” since the end of the Cold War. In a widely published op/ed in 2010, former NATO secretary-general Willy Claes and three senior Belgian politicians said, “The US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe have lost all military importance.”

Still, Kristensen reports, “integration” of the new B61 is supposed to take place on Belgian, Dutch, and Turkish F-16 jets and on German and Italian Tornado fighter-bombers soon.

Another reason for the rush to deploy this perfect candidate for dumb bomb retirement is that Germany is considering replacing its Tornado jets in short order. All the expense of refitting its current Tornadoes to carry the “more accurate” and “more usable” B61-mod 12 would be wasted. New B61 production could also be made expensively moot by progress in arms control.

The “nuclear sharing” arrangement with the five technically non-nuclear NATO partners glaringly contradicts, in Kristensen’s words, “the non-proliferation standards that member countries are trying to promote in the post-Cold War world.” In its 2012 posture review, even NATO’s ministers pledged to work for a world without nuclear weapons.

So as the White House and its Secretary of State wag fingers at Iran, we and our NATO friends openly violate the binding promise made in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty “not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.”

Maybe Iran can arrange for some sanctions to be imposed on us.

—end—

– John LaForge writes for PeaceVoice,is co-director of Nukewatch—a nuclear watchdog and environmental justice group—andlives at the Plowshares Land Trust out of Luck, Wisconsin.

Khamenei: Compromise will lead nowhere

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says any compromise with arrogant powers will lead nowhere, stressing that interventionist powers are after putting autocratic puppets at the helm.

Iran cleric urges ‘crushing’ response to US threats

Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahhedi Kermani addresses worshippers at the weekly Friday Prayers in Tehran. (File photo)

Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahhedi Kermani addresses worshippers at the weekly Friday Prayers in Tehran. (File photo)
Fri Feb 7, 2014 12:57PM GMT

A senior Iranian cleric has called on the Foreign Ministry to react decisively to US threats against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear energy program.

“People expect the Iranian Foreign Ministry to give crushing response to rants, lies, accusations and brazenness of the United States,” Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahhedi Kermani said in a sermon to worshippers at the weekly Friday Prayers in Tehran.
He was reacting to US Secretary of State John Kerry’s renewed threat of military action and allegations made by US top nuclear negotiator with Iran, Wendy Sherman, against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“Mr. Kerry and Ms. Sherman behaved very impolitely, they expressed ugly words and this ugliness is” in their nature, said the Iranian cleric.

Movahhedi Kermani added that the US officials continue to threaten Iran with the military option.
In a testimony to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 4, Sherman, the US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and the Obama administration’s top negotiator with Iran, questioned Iran’s need to maintain a number of its nuclear facilities.
On February 5, Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif rejected Sherman’s comments as “worthless.”
In addition, some 200 Iranian legislators slammed Sherman’s remarks on Thursday, calling them offensive and reflective of the US hegemonic character.
Iran and the six major world powers – the United States, Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany – signed a nuclear deal in Geneva, Switzerland, last November to pave the way for the full resolution of the West’s decade-old standoff over Tehran’s nuclear energy program. The two sides started to implement the agreement on January 20 and aim to continue negotiations for a final comprehensive deal.

KA/HSN/SS

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: