U.S. President Barack Obama waves from his car after landing at the airport in Los Cabos June 17, 2012. REUTERS/Henry Romero
Big day today. While Obama and Putin are meeting across the globe at the Group of 20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, both are well aware there’s a showdown going on in Moscow. With American and Russian positions diverging on multiple fronts (missile defense, Syria) the climate heading into the P5+1 meeting in Moscow between Iran and world powers is fraught with quandary.
The US will not be offering any option of easing the harsh sanctions. Nope, just like in Baghdad– no proposals to ease the sanctions will be presented. Yes that’s a harsh prediction, but so far those are the rumors.
AP:
While not budging on lifting existing sanctions or those already decided upon, diplomats familiar with the talks told The Associated Press the six are also prepared to guarantee that no new U.N. penalties will be enacted if Tehran shows enough compromise. The diplomats demanded anonymity because that possible offer has not yet been formally made.
For Iran, the main demand is international recognition of its right to enrich and related issues. Although it is under U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to stop that activity because of concerns it could use it to arm nuclear missiles, Tehran insists it has a right to do so to for its stated goal of creating reactor fuel and medical isotopes.
“No new U.N. penalties will be enacted if Tehran shows enough compromise.” Where is the compromise if the offer to ease the sanctions is not on the table?
That sounds more like a demand for submission. Does this mean the UN security council will adopt the US version of harsher sanctions?
In Baghdad, Iran expressed the hope that its proposals would be met with the principle of reciprocity: if they agreed to limit enrichment, the sanctions would be eased. Talib Mahdi, a member of the Iranian delegation in Baghdad stated Iran would accept a proposal limiting enrichment to 5% if the sanctions were eased. But Iran’s bottom line is recognition of a right to enrichment, and they are not even interested in discussing further rounds of negotiations without this recognition.
A member of Iran’s team engaging in the new round of negotiations said Monday the talks are doomed if his country’s “right” to uranium enrichment is not recognized.
“If this demand isn’t recognized, the negotiations are certainly headed for failure,” the official said, according to state news agency IRNA, which did not identify him.
“If our demand on the acceptance of the right to enrichment is not recognized, we are not afraid of the talks failing,” he added.
…..
“As long as there is no agreement on that, we don’t want to talk about any future negotiating rounds,” he said.
Russia called for an immediate easing of the sanctions in preparation for the Moscow talks and has repeatedly denounced further restrictions by the US and the EU aimed at ratcheting up existing UN sanctions.
In March feathers were ruffled when Obama was overheard telling Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev to give US ‘space’ on the nuclear issue. It isn’t Russia he needs to give him space. It’s Israel, the lobby and US congress squeezing him. The pressure on Obama keeps escalating severely limiting any room for negotiation.
MOSCOW, June 17 (Xinhua) — Potential U.S.sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program will “deal a blow” to Russian-U.S. relations, a senior Russian official said Sunday, presuming a hard-line stance before the long-waited meeting of the heads of the two states.
Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov told reporters that U.S. sanctions on Iran would “run against international law and affect third countries.”
Moscow could not accept if Russian firms and banks become potential victims of such unilateral actions from the U.S., Ushakov warned.
Good coverge annie.
And as for this quote…
“Moscow could not accept if Russian firms and banks become potential victims of such unilateral actions from the U.S., Ushakov warned.”
I keep saying and saying the US is gonna have it’s lunch eaten eventually if it keeps demanding and pushing other countries into actions that harm their own economy and interest Pariculary when they understand it’s not even in the US real interest.
They might actually go along with it if they believed it really did threaten the world’s super cop that a lot of them turned over world policing responsibility to because they don’t want to or can’t assume that role themselves…..but for Israel? nope, they see it for what it is.
thanks american.
i know i know..and the juxtaposition of going to an economic summit and NONE of the coverage i read covered the economic impact these iran sanctions could have on our (the global) economy. it’s unbelievable.
his face looks a little pickled doesn’t it? talk about a rock and a hard place.
You know it’s doubly insane for the US to be fixated on Iran to the exclusion of almost everything else, couldn’t be a worse time global economy wise with so many countries hanging by their fingernails..Greece, Spain… the euro problems…..one slip and we have a global depression.
plus, the election gambit. this timing is designed for rightwing likud politics. anyway obama turns it’s good for the gop. kowtow to israel oil prices go up..good for the gop. don’t kowtow to the lobby..bwaaaaa, he might as well be in bed w/hitler the way they will spin it.
and did you open the ‘feathers were ruffled’ link?
and that wasn’t even about iran. nope, this will directly go to america’s numero uno concern, the economy via gas prices. most american no zilch about the economy. they measure it by gas prices and they will blame him, not the sanctions.
we’ll have to set them straight on WHY this happened. also, note the “the US version of harsher sanctions?” link. goes to wiki, under ‘Supporters and opponents’:
i guess supporters of the bill won out..again.
Yea annie I saw that….very (: (: (: making.
Anti Defamation league has one sole business confined to using politically appropriate words and terms to advance Israeli causes . Words don’t mean anything to these self-misguided zealots. In 1994, the author of the book by name Israeli Peace,Palestinian Justice unearthed numerous examples at state,district, and county levels where innocuous names like ” Good Government for ” say: “Seattle” would be hiding dangerous anti American treasonous activities to increase Israeli interests.
@ American,
Q: one slip and we have a global depression.
R: Borrowing time and money means postponement, not tackling the problem or solving it. We’re in for a wild roller coaster ride. Better buckle up, buddy.
Agreed Rich…it will be bumpy.
I thought the “space” was about missile defense. Pretty sure it was about missile defense.
dan, missle defense is about iran. from the link:
and the name of the article is ‘Obama caught on mic telling Medvedev to give US ‘space’ on nuclear issue’
“missile defense” is about a first strike capability, thats how missile defense is understood by all parties. going by what you are saying, Obama is asking for “space” on the “iranian issue” – but thats not at all what happened, these guys were talking about the US and Russia. The fact that the US uses Iran as a pretext for “missile defense” in Europe doesnt make it true, in fact, the opposite is true. Vlad knows the score. If obama was asking for “space” on a nuclear issue – its the US/Russian nuclear issue, not the Iranian one.
dan, thanks for bringing this up. and i would appreciate you not using quote marks around words and attributing them to me unless i specifically used them. the words i used were the words in the title to the embedded linked article “nuclear issue”.
also, if you follow the other links, or google ‘russia denounced sanctions’ you can read other articles published recently before that incident in march attesting to continued statement by russia wrt the iran issue/sanctions as well as russia’s statement wrt nuclear capability.
to get back to that article that accompanies the video:
(mybold)
now when obama says “all these issues” what other issues do you think they might be discussing wrt “the nuclear issue” at the Nuclear Security Summit? just syria and missile defense? is there any particular reason obama wouldn’t be discussing iran with world leaders in seoul especially when it has already been determined he met with Erdogan in seoul days before Erdogan then went to tehran?
link to hurriyetdailynews.com
just like he’s meeting w/putin now at an economic summit, why would he not be discussing multiple topics, and how they might relate to each other? they probably wheel and deal.
I didnt use quotes to attribute what was quoted to you, I used quotes for orwellian and nonsensical terms like “missile defense” – nothing to do with you.
Call me crazy, but I think “all these issues” that Obama refers to are US/Russia issues – missile defense, Georgia, Tartus, the pipelines, the list goes on. The question is whether Obama was asking for “space” on the Iranian Nuclear Issue from the Russians, and I dont think he was.
Call me crazy, but I think “all these issues” that Obama refers to are US/Russia issues
me too, but i think the iran sanctions/nuclear issue is one of the US/Russia issues. from embedded link:
here’s a lot more where that came from:
link to google.com
i think i was being truthful and i am sorry if you think i misrepresented what was being said. i stuck close to my interpretation.
Disagree Dan,
Iran would be one of the US-Russia issues…also Syria would a US-Russian issue. The global economy and euro crisis is also a issue to both leaders and countries.
Obviously Obama needs space on everything right now.
I can almost feel sorry for Obama he is getting squeezed every which way by everyone.
Disagreement by US-Russia on missile defense is important but not the most ‘immediate concern’ I wouldn’t think.
Annie’s got it right, the missile defense issue IS about Iran — that’s how US foreign policy community is selling it.
Ellen Tauscher, (former) U.S. State Department Under Secretary, Arms Control and International Security, explained this to an audience at Commonwealth Club of California last July. link to voicebase.com
Paraphrased, the notion is: Iran is a threat to the US because Iran could target NATO member Turkey & US allies in Europe; therefore, U.S. is protecting itself against Iran’s ballistic missiles.
So now Putin and Co. are worried about the living conditions in Iran? Does anyone seriously believe that? Vlad will make sure Iran gets carved up to his liking, but to think that Russia is somehow committed to the Islamic Republic as it is, is nuts. Does anyone really think that NATO and the BRICS want major oil and gas producers developing alternative energies domestically? Does anyone think the big boys want Iran to be able to sell off its oil as it wishes? To ask these questions is to answer them.
@ American,
- I can almost feel sorry for Obama he is getting squeezed every which way by everyone.
- Leaders are supposed to be strong, no?
Being so anxious about being perceived as a tough guy is a mark of a very weak leader. And so is being enraged by leakers.
no dan, i do not think putin is doing this to get iran carved up to his liking. i don’t think what he wants is a regional war. i really do not think he wants an expansion of US hegemony in his neighborhood. it’s not like i had to look long and hard for the references. russia has made numerous statements wrt to iran’s nuclear development. russia signed the UN sanctions.
what many people do not know is it was just a matter of days after the UN security council voted on sanctions yet another tougher sanctions bill was signed by congress. he doesn’t agree with it and neither does india or china. the brics are sticking together.
plus, it’s a lobby gambit. as long as iran keeps it’s treaty agreement they should be able to carry on. why should he side with IS/US on this? he’s playing politics. russia is no where as powerful as the US but he’s fabulously popular. russia and iran do business together, i do not think what the US is doing is fair.
i very much think he wants these talks in moscow to got well. and why would anyone want to be instigating war in iran?
sweeeet
“Leaders are supposed to be strong, no?”…Rich
Yea and they’re actually suppose to lead…not be led around by the nose.
Iran was a UNITED STATES CLIENT – NOT RUSSIAN UNTIL 1979. THE US BUILT THEIR NUCLEAR REACTOR UNDER THE SHAH. PUTIN CAN SAY WHATEVER HE WANTS ABOUT KINDRED SPIRITS, IT DOESNT MEAN HE MEANS IT. WAKE UP AND STOP THINKING WORLD LEADERS CARE ABOUT PEOPLE.
One last thing — Russia was found to have given the Israeli’s the security codes to the missile defense system they sold to the iranians
Wikileaks via Ynet:
link to ynetnews.com
According to the leaked document, Israel gave Russia the “data link codes” for unmanned aerial vehicles that the Jewish state sold to Georgia, and in return, Russia gave Israel the codes for Tor-M1 missile defense systems that Russia sold Iran. (Ynet)
So maybe now we can cease with the kumbaya, russia loves iran NONSENSE?!?!?!
Do not feel sorry, he gets what he deserves!
He walked into this mess with open eyes, pleasing a foreign apartheid country, following orders from AIPAC and Tel Aviv.
He is supposedly the leader of the mightiest land on this globe and leaders lead, do not follow orders.
At issue here is whether the US can successfully bully Russia, China and Iran. The US are telling China that they must cut their own throats by limiting oil imports from Iran while giving their friends a pass, I’m sure the Chinese will tell them where to get off, US hubris knows no bounds,the US bottom line of no enrichment at all, is of course a non starter, so it does not look good for a negotiated settlement, unless Obama can spin the negotiations past November. In the event talks do not succeed J Petras has an excellent article on his site here.. link to petras.lahaine.org
Everyone should read Harry’s link to Petras. Although his disgust with ‘racist’ Israel comes though loud and clear what he describes below is exactly what the US intelligence and military have said therefore been warning against.
(excerpt)
“To approach Iran’s nuclear facilities Israeli and US forces will confront well-equipped and defended bases, missile installations, maritime defenses and large-scale fortifications directed by the Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Armed Forces. Moreover, the defense systems protecting the nuclear facilities are linked by civilian highways, airfields, ports, and backed by a dual purpose (civilian-military) infrastructure, which includes oil refineries and a huge network of administrative offices. To ‘knock out’ the alleged nuclear sites will require expanding the geographic scope of the war. The scientific-technological capacity of the Iranian civilian nuclear program involves a wide swath of its research facilities, including universities, laboratories, manufacturing sites, and design centers. To destroy Iran’s civilian nuclear program would require Israel (and thus the US) to attack much more than research facilities or laboratories hidden under a remote mountain. It would require multiple, widespread assaults on targets throughout the country, in other words, a generalized war.”
i agree, great article:
Thanks for the link
“How cheap has it become to ‘buy a war’ in the US? For a mere few million dollars in campaign contributions to corrupt politicians, and through the deliberate penetration of Israel-First agents, academics and politicians into the war-making machinery of the US government,…. ” petras.lahaine.org
I also wonder what Syria’s position would be, a US deal made or no deal? Or an attack on Iran expanded to include Syria? Syria, has always been a ME domino that has to fall, one way or another, in Israel’s plans.
Putin to embark on rare Middle East tour next week (June 18, 2012):
I hope they organize good security for Putin while he’s in Israel. An attack on him would exacerbate matters, and a successful assassination — God forbid — could even cause a war.
Well, people can call Putin what they will but he is a wily fox who has only one interest——Russia.
Yes, he is a nationalist and does what he was elected to.
I wish we had a similar president.
Joint Statement by the President of the United States of America Barack Obama and the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.
lysias, thanks for posting. check this out:
from the “reciprocity” embedded link, quoting the iranian official:
and here is another from yesterday:
link to csmonitor.com
and another: “Iranian diplomats charge that the P5+1 offer violated the framework agreed in Istanbul of a reciprocal, step-by-step exchange of concessions.”
and april from istanbul: link to guardian.co.uk
Catherine Ashton, the European Union foreign policy chief, said the new negotiating process would be guided by the “principle of a step-by-step approach and reciprocity”
so i wonder what version of principle of step-by-step approach and reciprocity will be offered in moscow because i do not think it was offered in baghdad.
Reciprocity in this context means reducing (or eliminating) sanctions in return for Iranian concessions on enrichment, does it not?
That’s what it means to Iranians and the rest of the sane world.
To the US reciprocity means “do exactly as we tell you and we won’t ratchet up the sanctions”. In other words: extortion, a classic gangster protection racket.
The big unknown is China which so far behaves with high ambiguity.
For example, Chinese bank dropped from consortium financing gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan. But, interestingly, Pakistan shrugged that off and now this pipeline is produced with full speed. Obama basically drove Pakistan into an almost alliance with Pakistan. But China has complicated games with USA, so they alternate what they say and do.
The stupid thing is that rather then trying to convince Chinese to do this or that on issues that are irrelevant to us we should stick to what is important: industrial policy, opening markets to US products, protecting our industries when Chinese subsidize competition and resort to dumping — like with solar panel etc. But Chinese can distruct us with half-concessions on irrelevant issues.
If China goes 100% against sanctions, I think they will be as good as gone. Nowadays one can live without Western markets or products, and lack of access to Western banking can be a blessing. Right now, I perceive that Chinese red line is armed attack on Iran or Syria.
OT, Israeli tanks enter demilitarized area on borders with Egypt — Haaretz:
Sinai Gunmen Attack Israelis Building Fence on Egypt Border:
ahramonline: Despite losing Cairo: Mursi leads Shafiq by 929,000 votes after count in all 27 governorates:
Amazing that Shafiq did that well in Cairo.
If they steal the election for Shafiq now, I think there may well be a second revolution.
Egypt MPs to convene in Tahrir Square if parliament’s doors remain shut:
Is anybody else reminded of the Tennis Court Oath [Serment du jeu de paume]?
Hum…so Israel breached the demilitarized buffer huh?
Israel is playing with so many matches something is bound to catch fire.
Great post, annie!
As with all crises, this is a time of great opportunity for Obama, and for the US, if he is smart enough (or unshackled enough) to take it.
This is the moment for a “Nixon to China” – of turning the tables and demolishing the game. Obama has to know that most Americans are against wars, including the soldiers, contrived polls notwithstanding.
If he got on Airforce One to Tehran and negotiated an arrangement that put a stop to all talks of war and embraced Iran as a member of the International community, with bilateral access, no sanctions, and verifiable compliance with the NNPT, the Israel-firsters may fuss and fume, but the US citizenry would reward him with an overwhelming victory in November. The great PR he would get from this could not be bought with all the money that his AIPAC donors could throw his way, so he wouldn’t need them.
If he were to pull off such a coup, his second term would be historic. Coming back with such a mandate would allow him the opportunity to truly clean house, and guarantee his place in history. AIPAC would be footnote in history. The Israel-firsters in government would be erased from history. The world could relax for the first time in a very long time. The drama of such a bold action would get world attention.
Will he do it? …stranger things have happened before.
I hope Obama will do as you say, but I doubt it – sadly I don’t think he’s got the guts.
Think of the huge amount of bad PR that can be made from this. He could combat it to a degree but just think of all the msm talking heads (whose companies are owned by other companies that make huge profits from war) that would attack Attack ATTACK Obama if he were to adopt a sane policy. Remember also that the Israel lobby is a lot more than AIPAC – it’s also that same compliant, malleable or openly zionist media.
I think it’s really important to remember that Obama is a brand, like the Miss World contest he was carefully vetted before he wooed and got on top of the stage. Fortunately he’s still a human who may cross his handlers now and then, but at the end of the day he’s fulfilling the purpose he was set out with. It is human to feel sad for him but he sold his soul all by himself. To expect miracles from him is too dream (“yes we can”), all he can offer is the occasional discomfort with the size of the saddle on his back.
stranger things have happened before.
love your positive energy c&d. i’m all with you on the hope..but i think we’re sorta down to the wire here at moscow. there has yet to be an implosion w/the press…all very undercover wrt spelling it out to the masses. that first blockquote from AP this morn, the one with the very buried “not budging on lifting existing sanctions”..the title cbs slapped on that is
Diplomats voice optimism as Iran nuclear talks resume in Moscow
pleeease. now that the day is over there’s seeping out a tad of reality thanks to CSM:
great article.
and commentary mag, the evil queen of neocon discourse..note how they ripped off the AP framing and flipped it on it’s head:
Iran has not budged from its demand for recognition of its right to right refine uranium
link to commentarymagazine.com
“This is the moment for a “Nixon to China” – of turning the tables and demolishing the game. Obama has to know that most Americans are against wars, including the soldiers, contrived polls notwithstanding.”
The “Nixon to China” moment for Obama is the idea that the Leveretts have been pushing. And they know far more than most on this topic
the president could use the bully pulpit to win over the public to support resolving the iranian nuclear debacle, just as FDR used it to convince america to support the new deal. and by pulling out all the stoppers he could silence the opposition with warnings about the cost (in american & iranian lives as well as on the economy) of going to war against iran.
another precedent for this was president eisenhower handling of the 1956 suez canal crisis. not only did the public support him, but the invading french-british-israeli forces quickly packed up and returned to their bases.
Hi Annie,
This is the same as Israel wanting peace. It wants peace as much as these Western clowns want justice. A dog and pony show with cockroaches and lice is just that. No matter how you brand it.
yep, daniel, lots of yada yada subterfuge we wanna get ur war on..
Couldn’t agree more, except the word “clowns” may be too obliging. Chris Hedges calls it “junk politics”.
Keep reading and hearing Russia and China are not going to blink on Iran.
link to raceforiran.com
In his Op Ed, Ambassador Hua states his bottom line up front, with commendable clarity: “It is unrealistic for the US to expect China to act in a way that is harmful to its interests and against its diplomatic principles.” After succinctly reviewing why, contrary to Western stereotypes, “Iran is neither rogue nor fundamentalist,” he gets to the core of Sino-American disagreements over dealing with the Islamic Republic:
“The US is not willing to let its dominance in the Middle East be challenged by a regional power like Iran; so the hostility and antagonism between the two countries has grown. In contrast, Sino-Iranian relations are one of the oldest bilateral relations in the world and valued by both sides…The foundations for their friendship are that China has never intervened in Iran’s domestic affairs and their economies are complementary, offering huge potential for cooperation.
The US hopes to enlist China’s help in dealing with Iran. But that’s impossible because China will never join the zero-sum game between the US and Iran…The disagreement between the US and China has become especially serious with the US imposing sanctions to restrict Iran’s oil exports as China is a big importer of Iranian oil. But maintaining relations with Iran is a matter concerning China’s vital interests and China’s fundamental diplomatic principles. The US should respect China’s friendly relations with Iran, as well as its interests.”
Ambassador Hua is kind enough to cite one of our posts on the triangular dynamics between Iran, China, and the United States, see here [link to July 27, 2011 post, “U.S. Sanctions and China’s Iran Policy”], including our observation that “the United States cannot forever ask other countries to act in ways that are harmful to their interests.” He expands on this point, noting that “the US may gain some short-term victories by asking China to act against its own interests but this will only sour the Sino-US relationship in the long run. To prevent disagreements over Iran from harming bilateral relations, it is necessary for the two sides to respect each other’s interests and bottom line. That requires the US change its hostility toward Iran.”
China has much more ambigous behavior concerning sanctions that the official statements, therefore I think that for them, currently the red line is a military attack. Once there is consensus between China and Russia that NATO has to be punished, Central Asian countries will follow the suit and there will be no transit route for military supplies to Afghanistan whatsoever.
Thus a 100 billion dollar question is under what conditions China will go all against sanctions on Iran. Basically, Iran has to present a case in Moscow that passes Chinese requirements.
Just as an anecdote, Chinese ambassador mentioned “Sino-Iranian relations are one of the oldest bilateral relations in the world and valued by both sides”. Some ancient Chinese tombs contain precious artifacts from Iran, without a doubt traded along the legendary Silk Route.
link to chinaculture.org
Ultimately this is about cornering Russia -well Putin, actually – so that when the time comes to wipe Iran off the map to advance Israeli goals the Russians won’t be able to counter the American threat to her sovereignty. I think the ZioAmerican trap is going to fail….
Iran’s rights under the NPT should be acknowledged, but so should its government’s obligations and its people’s rights under various international and human rights conventions that it’s a signatory to. As advocated by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), whose president Trita Parsi has been featured at this site, the sanctions should be targeted towards the government’s repressive apparatus and not the country’s people,
link to niacouncil.org
Easing of targeted sanctions should be made conditional on improvements in Iran’s human rights record, consistent w/ Desmond Tutu’s message of solidarity on the anniversary of the 2009 democratic uprising,
link to youtube.googleapis.com
Unfortunately, it appears that human rights improvements are not particularly on the agenda, rather defanging Iran b/c it’s not a Western ally. As far as the US and its allies are concerned, the Islamic Republic could remain as oppressive as it is and even be allowed to further develop its nuclear capabilities (as Iran was during the Shah) if only it would reorient itself westward.
thank you subconscious.
Important read at Race for Iran
link to raceforiran.com
“The fact is: Obama could have had a nuclear deal in May 2010, when Brazil and Turkey brokered an agreement for Iran to send most of its low-enriched uranium abroad in return for new fuel for a research reactor in Tehran. The accord met all the conditions spelled out in letters from Obama to then-Brazilian President Lula and Turkish Prime Minister ErdoÄŸan — but Obama rejected it, because it recognized Iran’s right to enrich. (That this was the main reason was affirmed by Dennis Ross, the architect of Obama’s Iran policy, earlier this year.) The Obama team has declined to reconsider its position since 2010 and, as a result, it is on its way to another diplomatic failure.”
Ahmadenijad constantly states “marg bar Israel” which means “death to Israel”. Ahmadenijad in a speech on February 20th, 2008 stated, “In the Middle East, they [the global powers] have created a black and filthy microbe called the Zionist regime.”
More importantly, what comes out of the Supreme Animal’s Khamenei’s mouth? On December 15, 2000, he declared on Islamic Republic State TV: “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.”
During military parades, they have slogans draped “Israel must be wiped off the map” over the missiles in military parades. In addition, similar slogans and signs are present at every Friday prayer.
In an address to the “World without Zionism” conference in Tehran on October 26, 2005, Ahmadenijad said, “Va Imam-e-aziz-e-ma farmudand ke in rezhim-e- eshghalgar-e Qods bayad az safhe-ye ruzegar mahv shaved. In jomle besyar hakimane ast” which translates to “Our dear Imam [Khomeini] ordered that this Jerusalem-occupying regime [Israel] must be erased from the page of time. This was a very wise statement”.
In addition in the same speech he added: “Be-zudi in lake-ye nang ra az damane donya-ye Islam pak khahad kard, va in shodani’st” which translates to: “Soon this stain of disgrace will be cleaned from the garment of the world of Islam and this is attainable”.
Further examples include a speech on April 14, 2006 which he stated, “Derakht-e khoshkide va puside’i ast ke ba yek tufan dar ham khahad shekat” which translates to: “A dried, rotten tree that will collapse with a single storm”. Furthermore during a military parade on April 17, 2008 referring to the U.S. and Israel he stated: “Mantage-va jehan amade-ye tahavolat-e bozorg va pak shodan az doshmanan-e ahrimani’st” which translates to: “The region and the world are prepared for great changes and for being cleansed of Satanic enemies”. Again, on May 14, 2008 in a city called Gorgan he stated: “Israel’s days are numbered” and that “the people’s of the region would not miss the narrowest opportunity to annihilate this false regime” and he continued, “Thanks to god, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off the face of the world”.
THIS IDEOLOGY IS AT THE CORE OF THIS REGIME SINCE KHOMEINI as Khomeini always declared he would destroy Israel as the “reconquering” of Jerusalem is necessary for the “return of the hidden imam”.
To go back to the Supreme Animal Khamenei, he stated on January 15, 2001 at a meeting with organizers of the International Conference for Support of the Intifada, “The foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region” and in fact the original translation by Islamic Republic journalists were “It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region”.
One of Khamenei’s top Ayatollah’s, Ayatollah Shariatmadari stated on October 4, 2007: “Death to America and Death to Israel are not only words written on paper but rather a symbolic approach that reflects the desire of all the Muslim nations”.
Ayatollah Janati: “The blind enemies should see that the wish of these people is the death of America and Israel”.
General Safavi (Revolutionary Guards): “With god’s help the time has come for the Zionist regime’s death sentence” (February 2008). and in Hamadan on February 23, 2008 he stated: “Death of this unclean regime [Israel] will arrive soon following the revolt of the Muslims”.
The thug Mohammad-Ali Ramin: on June 9, 2006: “Among the Jews there have always been those who killed god’s prophets and who opposed justice and righteousness. Historically, there are many accusations against the Jews. For example, it was said that they were the source for such deadly diseases as the plague and typhus. This is because the Jews are very filthy people. For a time people also said that they poisoned water wells belonging to Christians and thus killed them”.
Ayatollah Nuri Hamadani in April 2005, “One should fight the Jews and vanquish them so that the conditions for the advent of the Hidden Imam will be met” and he continued, “at present the Jews’ policies threaten us. One should explain in the clearest terms the danger the Jews pose to the [Iranian] people and to the Muslims. Already from the beginning the Jews wanted to hoard the world’s goods in their greed and voracity. They always worked in important professions and now they have hoarded all of the wealth in one place. And all of the world, especially America and Europe, are their slaves”.
General Mohammad-Ali Jafari in February 2008 in a message to Hassan Nasrallah: “In the near future, we will witness the destruction of the cancerous microbe Israel by the strong and capable hands of the nation of Hizbollah”.
Former foreign minister Mottaki on February 18, 2008: “The west has tried to impose a fabricated regime on the Middle East, but after sixty years, the Zionist regime [Israel] has neither gained any legitimacy nor played any role in this region”.
Majles speaker Adel in February 2008 stated, “The countdown has begun for the destruction of the Zionist regime”.
What the hell else do you want to prove this regime is a threat?? How about a documentary produced by the regime in which Khamenei, Hassan Nasrallah, and Ahmadenijad are portrayed as key members of the Hadith whom will usher in the return of the “Hidden Imam” in which conquering Jerusalem is a prerequisite and the end-goal is to spread Islam to “all corners of the Earth” in a worldwide chaos in which 2/3rd of humanity will “perish through death, havoc,and famine? And they believe that the Middle East freedom movements are all a part of an “Islamic Awakening” for this end…: link to youtu.be
Sassan
They talk, however simple talk never hurt anyone.
Israel doesn´t talk much, it bombs, shoots, kills, destroys and subjugates people for the sake of Erez Israel.
As an outsider, I prefer Iran any day.
Never hurts anyone?? Is that a joke?? This regime is the biggest sponsor of terror in the world. The Islamic Republic is the world’s greatest terrorist regime. They have been involved in countless of terror attacks over the past 30+ years starting with the assassinations of dissidents throughout Europe and the west. Then let’s not forget all the terrorist attacks ranging from the funding and support of suicide bombers and their families to the Hizbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Let’s not forget the Marine Barracks in 1983, the taking of countless number of hostages worldwide, Argentinian terrorist attack killing countless civilians, the support of IEDs and other militants in Afghanistan and Iraq in which U.S. and allied troops have been killed; to worldwide terror all around the world! I wonder who is helping Assad keep power through mass slaughter? This regime poses a threat to all of humanity. If you recall, Khomeini had two opportunities to end the Iran-Iraq war (once early on through a ceasefire brokered by the Saudis and later by the U.N. before the war reached its apex) but Khomeini the barbarian instead declared “On to Karbala, Saudi Arabia, Jerusalem, and the west!” This is an Islamic Imperialist regime at its core and guided by the “return of the hidden imam”. What does this mean? At their core they believe they must “reconquer Jerusalem” followed by a global war in which 2/3rd of humanity perishes. Remember last year with the plot against the Saudi ambassador in D.C.? This is a pariah regime of the worst degree. This is a regime guided by maniacs who believe they must rape our young sisters before executing them so that they don’t “die as virgins” as “virgins go straight to heaven”. This is a regime run by primitive Islamic madmen. This regime doesn’t pose a threat to humanity??
Iran’s covert actions (aka state sponsored terrorism) don’t hold a candle to those of US/Israel. Iran’s military budget doesn’t hold a candle to Israel’s.
I simply detect loathing of Iran in your screeds, somehow not bone-rattling fear of their might.
Loathing of Islamic Republic – not Iran. And as an Iranian, I know exactly the threats humanity faces from this bunch of religious zealots.
I detect a large case of copy and paste, without link or attribution.
this made it thru moderation. maybe it’s providing ‘balance’? between truth and islamophobic david horowitz/frontpage mag type screeds? what.ever.
Ooohh, so *you* can loathe the regime, but not the country, whilst they *can’t*; you can wish their regime to pass from the pages of history, but they can’t wish the same for the zionist regime,.
What a hypocrite.
“Let’s not forget the Marine Barracks in 1983″…Sassan
Ah yes…..And let’s not forget why the US Marine were there as Peace Keeping Forces to begin with—-Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.
You’re and Israel’s ‘Way of Deception’ isn’t really all that deceptive….some people always know what’s behind the scenes.
So keep up the good hasbara work, countering it gives us an opportunity to enlighten even more people.
‘Israel forces clash with Marines’
On March 14, 1983 the commandant of the Marine Corps, General R. H. Barrow, sent an unusual letter to the secretary of defense. He charged that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon. There was, he wrote, a systematic pattern of harassment by Israel Defense Forces that was resulting in “life-threatening situations, replete with verbal degradation of the officers, their uniform and country.”
He added: “It is inconceivable to me why Americans serving in peacekeeping roles must be harassed, endangered by an ally … . It is evident to me, and the opinion of the U.S. commanders afloat and ashore, that the incidents between the Marines and the IDF are timed, orchestrated, and executed for obtuse Israeli political purposes.”[4]
Israel’s motives were less obtuse than the diplomatic general let on. Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon was deliberately creating the incidents probably in an effort to convince Washington that U.S. and Israeli forces had to coordinate their actions, so this would be taken by the Arabs as proof that the Marines were not really in Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers but as allies of the Israelis.[5] [Considering that Israel had been attacking Lebanon with bombs furnished by the U.S. from aircraft furnished by the U.S., the Arabs were well-primed to believe this.]
The Marines’ posting to Lebanon started on August 25, 1982, as a result of Israel’s invasion 11 weeks earlier. Initially a U.S. unit of 800 men was sent to Beirut harbor as part of a multinational force to monitor the evacuation of PLO fighters from Beirut. The Marines, President Reagan announced, “in no case … would stay longer than 30 days.”[6] They did withdraw on September 10, but a reinforced unit of 1,200 was rushed back 15 days later when Israel seized West Beirut accompanied by the massacres at the Palestinian refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila. The U.S. forces remained until February 26, 1984.[7]
The casualties started within a week of the return of the Marines in September 1982. On September 30th, a cluster bomb (U.S.-made) left behind by the Israelis exploded, killing Corporal David Reagan and wounding three other Marines.[8]
While the purpose of the Marines’ first brief stay had been to separate Israeli forces from Palestinian fighters evacuating West Beirut, their new mission was – as part of a multinational force – to prevent Israeli troops from attacking the Palestinian civilians left defenseless there after the withdrawal of PLO forces. President Reagan said: “For this multinational force to succeed, it is essential that Israel withdraw from Beirut.”[9]
Israel’s siege of Beirut during the summer of 1982 had been brutal and bloody, reaching a peak on August 12. On that day at dawn, Ariel Sharon’s forces launched a massive artillery barrage that lasted for 11 straight hours accompanied by saturation air bombardment.[10] Hundreds, mainly Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, were killed.[11]
On top of the bombardment, next month came the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, when Ariel Sharon’s troops helped Lebanese Maronites enter the camps filled with defenseless civilians. The massacres sickened the world and pressure from Western capitals finally forced Israel to withdraw from Beirut in late September. Troops from Britain, France, Italy and the United States were interposed between the Israeli army and Beirut, with U.S. Marines deployed in the most sensitive area south of Beirut at the International Airport, directly between Israeli troops and West Beirut.
Starting in January 1983, small Israeli units began probing the Marine lines. The Marines politely but firmly turned away the Israeli troops. Soon the incidents escalated, with both sides pointing loaded weapons at each other. Tensions were so high by late January that a special meeting between U.S. and Israeli officers was held in Beirut to try to agree on precise boundaries beyond which the IDF would not penetrate.[12]
However, on February 2 a unit of three Israeli tanks, led by Israeli Lt. Col. Rafi Landsberg, tried to pass through Marine/Lebanese Army lines at Rayan University Library in south Lebanon. (Landsberg was no stranger to the Marines. Since the beginning of January he had been leading small Israeli units in probes against the Marine lines, though such units would normally have a commander no higher than a sergeant or lieutenant. The suspicion grew that Ariel Sharon’s troops were deliberately provoking the Marines and Landsberg was there to oversee the effort, and that these Israeli tactics were aimed at forcing a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy.)
In the February 2 incident, the commander of the U.S. checkpoint, Marine Capt. Charles Johnson, refused permission for Landsberg to advance. When two of the Israeli tanks ignored his warning to halt, Johnson leaped on Landsberg’s tank with pistol drawn and demanded Landsberg and his tanks withdraw. They did.[13]
The Israeli embassy in Washington tried to laugh off the incident, implying that Johnson was trigger-happy and that the media were exaggerating a routine event. Landsberg even went so far as to claim that he smelled alcohol on Johnson’s breath and that drunkenness must have clouded his reason. Marines were infuriated because Johnson was a well-known teetotaler. Americans flocked to Johnson’s side and Landsberg soon dropped from sight.[14]
But the incidents did not stop. These now included “helicopter harassment,” where Israelis flew their U.S.-made helicopters over Marine positions at night, with glaring spotlights illuminating Marine outposts exposing them to potential attack.
As reports of these incidents piled up, on March 12 Gen. Barrow received a letter from a U.S. Army major stationed in Lebanon with the UN Truce Supervisory Organization. The letter described a systematic pattern of Israeli attacks and provocations against UNTSO troops, including U.S. officers singled out for near-miss shootings, abuse and detention.[15]That same day two Marine patrols were challenged and cursed by Israeli soldiers.[16]
Two days later Barrow wrote his letter, quoted above, to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who endorsed it and sent it along to the State Department. High-level meetings were arranged between the U.S. and Israel, and the incidents abated, perhaps because by this time Ariel Sharon [in what turned out to be only a temporary setback in his career] had been fired as defense minister over the Sabra and Shatila massacres.[17]
On the night of April 17, 1983, an unknown sniper fired a shot that went through the trousers of a Marine sentry but did not harm him. For the first time, the Marines returned fire.[18]
The next day, the U.S. embassy in Beirut was blown up by a massive bomb, with the loss of 63 lives, including 17 Americans. [According to the CIA, a group backed by Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran was responsible.]New York Times, 4/22/83 and 4/26/83.[19]
Four months later, on August 28, Marines came under direct fire by rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons at International Airport. They returned fire with rifles and machine guns. The firefight resumed the next day with Marines firing artillery, mortars and rockets from helicopter gunships against Shi’i Muslim positions. Two Marines were killed and 14 wounded in the exchange.[20]
The combat involvement of the Marines grew. The conflict was seen in terms of the U.S., Israel and Lebanon’s Christians against Iran, Islam and Lebanon’s Shi’i Muslims.[21]
Israel accelerated the conflict on September 3, 1993 by withdrawing its troops southward, leaving the Marines exposed behind their thin lines at the airport. The United States had asked the Israeli government to delay its withdrawal until the Marines could be replaced by units of the Lebanese army, but Israel refused.[22]
The result was as feared. Heavy fighting immediately broke out between the Christian Lebanese Forces and the pro-Syrian Druze units, both seeking to occupy positions evacuated by Israel, while the Marines were left in the crossfire.[23] On September 5, two Marines were killed and three wounded as fighting increased between Christian and Muslim militias.[24]
The Sixth Fleet frigate Bowen fired several five-inch naval guns, hitting Druze artillery positions in the Chouf Mountains of Lebanon that were firing into the Marine compound at Beirut airport.[25] But the Marines’ exposed location on the flat terrain of the airport left them in an impossible position. On Sept. 12, three more Marines were wounded.[26]
On September 13, President Reagan authorized what he termed aggressive self-defense for the Marines, including air and naval strikes.[27] Five days later four U.S. warships unleashed the heaviest naval bombardment since Vietnam into Syrian and Druze positions in eastern Lebanon in support of the Lebanese Christians.[28] The bombardment lasted for three days. It was personally ordered by National Security Council director Robert McFarlane, a Marine Corps officer detailed to the White House who was in Lebanon at the time and a strong supporter of Israel.
McFarlane issued the order despite the fact that the Marine commander at the airport, Colonel Timothy Geraghty, strenuously argued against it because, in the words of correspondent Thomas L. Friedman, “he knew that it would make his soldiers party to what was now clearly an intra-Lebanese fight, and that the Lebanese Muslims would not retaliate against the Navy’s ships at sea but against the Marines on shore.”[29]
By now the Marines were under daily attack.[30] At the same time the battleship USS New Jersey, with 16-inch guns, arrived off Lebanon, increasing the number of U.S. warships offshore to 14. The Marine contingent at Beirut airport was increased from 1,200 to 1,600.[31]
The fight now was joined between the Shi’i Muslims and the Marines, who were pinned down in their airport bunkers and under orders not to take offensive actions. The climax of their predicament came on October 23, when [with Israeli foreknowledge] a Shi’i Muslim drove a truck past guards at the Marine airport compound and detonated an explosive with the force of 12,000 pounds of dynamite under a building housing Marines and other U.S. personnel. Almost simultaneously, a car-bomb exploded at the French compound in Beirut. Killed were 241 Americans and 58 French troops.[32][33]
On December 3, two carrier planes were downed by Syrian missiles during heavy U.S. air raids on eastern Lebanon.[34] On the same day, eight Marines were killed in fighting with Muslim militiamen around the Beirut airport.[35]
By the start of 1984, an all-out Shi’i Muslim campaign to rid Lebanon of all Americans was underway. The president of the American University of Beirut, Dr. Malcolm Kerr, a distinguished scholar of the Arab world, was gunned down on January 18 outside his office by Islamic militants.[36] On February 5, Reagan made a speech, saying that “the situation in Lebanon is difficult, frustrating and dangerous. But this is no reason to turn our backs on friends and to cut and run.”[37]
The next day Professor Frank Regier, a U.S. citizen teaching at AUB, was kidnapped by Muslim radicals.[38] Regier’s kidnapping was the beginning of a series of kidnappings of Americans in Beirut that would lead to the eventual expulsion of nearly all Americans from Lebanon where they had prospered for more than a century. Even today Americans still are prohibited from traveling to Lebanon. [For an account of Israel’s refusal to help regarding these hostages, see the Beirut Hostages link on the previous page of this website.]
The day after Regier’s kidnapping, on February 7, 1984, Reagan suddenly reversed himself and announced that all U.S. Marines would shortly be “redeployed.” The next day the battleship USS New Jersey fired 290 rounds of one-ton shells from its 16-inch guns into Lebanon.[39] Reagan’s “redeployment” was completed by February 26, when the last of the Marines retreated from Lebanon. During their year-and-a-half posting there, the Marines suffered a total of 268 killed.[40]
A sympathetic U.S. Congress granted increased aid to Israel to compensate it for the costs of its invasion of Lebanon.
Further reading
Much of the above from “Israel Charged with Systematic Harassment of U.S. Marines” by Donald Neff, former Time Magazine Israel Bureau Chief – originally published in Washington Report, March 1995, later in Fifty Years of Israel.
Paul Findley, Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U.S.-Israeli Relationship, Brooklyn, NY, Lawrence Hill Books, 1993.
Michael Jansen, The Battle of Beirut: Why Israel Invaded Lebanon, London, Zed Press, 1982.
Sean MacBride, Israel in Lebanon: The Report of the International Commission to enquire into reported violations of international law by Israel during its invasion of Lebanon, London, Ithaca Press, 1983.
Jonathan Randal, Going all the Way, New York, The Viking Press, 1983.
Joseph Schechla, The Iron Fist: Israel’s Occupation of South Lebanon, 1982-1985, Washington, D.C.: ADC Research Institute, Issue Paper No. 17, 1985.
Jacobo Timerman, The Longest War: Israel in Lebanon, New York, Vantage Books, 1982.
Israel supporters such as ARIwatch took the view that the U.S. was wrong to oppose Israel’s invasion of Beirut, whose purpose, they say, was to destroy the PLO. By the time the Israelis were “harassing” the U.S. marines, the PLO had already withdrawn from Beirut. At that point the goal of the Israelis was not to destroy the PLO, it could only have been to (1) kill Muslim Lebanese factions in the Lebanese civil war and (2) rope the U.S. into helping them do it.”
According to Victor Ostrovsky, Mossad had information that could have prevented the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, if they had only passed on that information to their American counterparts.
My only comment in reply to you is that the difference is that the Islamic Republic considers all Israelis to be “Zionists” – hence legitimate targets. In contrast, my homeland is occupied by fanatical zealots. You are comparing a democracy to an authoritarian regime. Remember, those suicide bombings targeting civilians were financed by the Islamic Republic.
my homeland is occupied by fanatical zealots
oh right, you just happen to be iranian. how could we forget.
the Islamic Republic considers all Israelis to be “Zionists”
source? or is this just your hunch?
You are comparing a democracy to an authoritarian regime
are you talking about the apartheid state? the government who rules over millions w/no representation? dude? not convincing.
don’t bother answering me, the questions were just for rhetorical purposes.
eee gads look what the cat dragged in.
“eee gads look what the cat dragged in.”
looks like a gaint hairball to me.
This one very recent and on the Islamic Republic news source Fars News!
“Top Commander Reiterates Iran’s Commitment to Full Annihilation of Israel”
link to english.farsnews.com
Sassan :
Zionist regime. Not this crap again. Find dictionary and look what that means.
I thought Mondoweiss had a rule that someone pretending to be who they were not would result in banning. This “Sassan” pseudonym is visible on many blogs on the Internet as a self-purported Iranian. There is no Iranian (or the citizen of any country in the world, including Israel) who would ever desire that their own country be bombed, resulting in the death of fellow citizens, because of their hatred for their government. Heck – who here would desire the US be bombed because of our hatred of our congress and its political corruption and enslavement of the 99% by the 1%??
I have always been for free speech and the right of anyone to say what they believe – but debate using deception, (to paraphrase the State Department), is not helpful.
So today (wed Jun 20) at 3 pm est Neil Conan host of NPR’s Talk of the Nation will be focused on Iran. I believe NPR’s choice of guest to discuss the situation with Iran have persistently leaned in the direction of those who support a military attack on Iran. Just looking through TOTN’s archives here are a few of the folks Neil has allowed to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran. What I am interested in is how the MSM covers these critical issues. Who they chose and keep out of the U.S./s foreign policy debate on Iran and other issues. We know what happened in the run up to Iraq. My take is that for 10 solid years the MSM has either ignored the issue or allowed so called selected experts endlessly repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran
link to npr.org
“ABRAHAM LEWIN(ph) (Caller, Bethesda, Maryland): Yes, it’s Abraham Lewin from Bethesda, Maryland. Thinking of who would become president, whether it’s McCain or Obama, my question is what could or should America do with regards to the constant threats of Iran’s Ahmad Dinejad to eliminate the state of Israel.
CONAN: Ambassador Bolton.
Ambassador BOLTON: Yes. I think that’s a very important question. I think the sad fact is that Iran is now essentially unimpeded in its some 20-year course of trying to achieve a deliverable nuclear weapons capability. I think this is a good example of a case where diplomacy has been tried and failed and where Senator Obama’s suggestion that we resort to more diplomacy would simply benefit Iran. Look, diplomacy is like any human activity. It has costs and it has benefits, and the example of Iran shows where diplomacy does have costs. Our European friends have spent five years negotiating with the Iranians to try and get them to give up their nuclear weapons program. And the only result of five years of negotiations is that Iran is five years closer to achieving that deliverable nuclear weapons capability. So when Senator Obama says, as if it’s a new idea, well why don’t we negotiate with Iran? We have. And it’s failed, and that’s why I think our options are very limited. I think now the next point to watch is whether the government of Israel, seeing an Iran with nuclear weapons as an existential threat to the state of Israel, decides to use targeted military force against the Iranian nuclear program before this administration is over. I think that is very much on the horizon and something that I think we should have a debate about during the course of this presidential election.
CONAN: The Israelis could not possibly do that without American acquiescence. They would have cross Iraqi territory to get them.
Ambassador BOLTON: No they wouldn’t. No, they wouldn’t. And let me tell you something. In flying across other airspace, I think that in the Arab world, although certainly you wouldn’t hear this publicly, that there would not be any great amount of sadness if Israel, in fact, did destroy a significant part of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. We can see from the reaction in the Arab world when Israel just last year in September destroyed the North Korean Reactor being built on the banks of Euphrates River in Syria, that the pubic reaction was silence. And with the private reaction was that they were quite happy that Israel had taken that action. And here’s a case where if you ever expected an Arab reaction, that would be it – Israel attacking a brother Arab state. And the reason that the other Arabs reacted the way they did is that they fear that what was really going on was that this reactor was another example of Iranian penetration of Syrian sovereignty and a cooperative venture with the Iranians. So I think it’s – look, the military option against Iran’s program is deeply unattractive. It’s risky. It’s fraught with danger, and it’s deeply unattractive. But much more unattractive is an Iran with nuclear weapons, and that’s why you have to have the military option available.”
————–
-Nuclear Jihadist’ Tells of Dangerous Secrets
link to npr.org
—————————
Rick Steves Takes Us To Iran
link to npr.org
Options in Dealing with Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions. Hey I had forgotten I was able to get through with a phone call on this show.
CONAN: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I’m Neal Conan in Washington.
We’re talking about Iran’s efforts with nuclear technology. Representatives from Britain, France, Russia, China, the United States and Germany met in London today to discuss what action to take over Iran’s decision last week to remove seals from equipment used to enrich uranium. We’re expecting that the matter will now come up before an emergency meeting of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, that would be in the early part of next month in about two weeks time.
Our guests are Richard Beeston, diplomatic editor of the Times of London, and Jon Wolfsthal, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington, DC. Let’s get another caller on the line. And this is Kate. Kate’s calling from Glouster, Ohio.”
KATE (Caller): Yeah. Thanks for taking my call.
CONAN: Sure.
KATE: This morning on BBC, they had three different representatives from India, Russia and–now I’ve forgotten; maybe China. But one of the fellows said that in the last six months there have been 1,400 IAEA inspections in Iran and that sanctions would be completely counterproductive and back Iran into a corner. So I’d like you to address that about the ongoing inspections. And where is the hard evidence in regard to the claims being made? Hopefully it’s not from Niger (pronounced nigh-jeer). And I’ve also asked NPR to do a program on Israel’s, Pakistan’s and India’s nuclear, technological and chemical weapons. So I hope NPR does some fair and balanced reporting on those countries.
CONAN: OK. I assume she meant Niger (pronounced nee-jair), the country involved in the–turned out to be incorrect contribution of yellowcake, a form of uranium to Iraq. And so that was part of the WMD conversation before the war. Jon Wolfsthal, what about her point about international inspections of Iran?
Mr. WOLFSTHAL: Well, I think this is an important point because I would imagine most of the people listening are saying, `Wait a second. I’ve heard this before. You know, I’ve seen this movie recently.’ There’s a big difference between what we thought was happening in Iraq and what is clearly happening in Iran. We have inspections that are part of the normal inspection process in Iran. We do have inspectors going not everywhere they would like to go; Iran is still not fully cooperating, but they are providing a lot of access. And the inspectors are there showing that Iran has acquired these centrifuges; that they are about to begin the process of mastering the enrichment process. They will be there to tell us when they’ve reached a point that they could use this material for weapons. And so this isn’t, you know, just in the purview of intelligence communities that you have to sort of piece together. We have people on the ground.
The concern, of course, is that Iran is threatening to throw inspectors out if they are referred to the UN Security Council, and that could make the situation a lot cloudier. But, in the end, we don’t have the same sort of questions marks we do about Iran’s capability. What we’re really trying to guess at is intentions, and the fact that they’ve broken out of this self-imposed freeze is adding to the concern that their intentions are, in fact, not peaceful.
CONAN: And pushing Iran into a corner, Richard Beeston, as Jon Wolfsthal was just saying, they’ve said if referred to the Security Council, they will end all cooperation with the IAEA.
Mr. BEESTON: Yes, so obviously a window that we do have. Indeed when they took the seals off and resumed their–what they said was research work into enrichment, we were able to see that on television and to have a report by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA, the following day. So these are–it’s an important access into understanding what–how far Iran has moved in developing technology and whatnot.
KATE: May I…
Mr. BEESTON: Referring to your other point, from your caller, though, about Israel, India and Pakistan, of course, they were not signatories to the NPT, so they developed their nuclear technology by themselves. And they–whatever you may think of it, they didn’t break any international laws in the sense that they were seeking cooperation for developing a civilian program, which they–we now suspect they’ve diverted to a military one, and I think that’s an important point.
But, nevertheless, it is important, I think, in the eyes of many Arabs and many Muslims around the world to regard–to see Iran’s move to possibly acquire a weapon as, `Well, Israel’s done it, and why shouldn’t we do it? You’re operating double standards.’ I saw Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, here last night for an interview, and that was one of the main points he was making. And it’s obviously something that does rankle in the Arab world; that the West appears to be applying double standards to this issue.
CONAN: I’m sorry, Kate. I thought I heard you trying to get in there.
KATE: Yeah. I’m wondering what part, like, for instance, John Bolton has played at the UN in regard to kind of lining up the other countries? And doesn’t he become the president of the Security Council in the next month, and what part does that play in the direction that we’re headed?
CONAN: Yeah. Security Council presidency rotates on an alphabetical basis, and the United States’ turn is coming up. John Bolton–was he there in London, Richard Beeston?
Mr. BEESTON: No, he wasn’t. The US was represented by Nicholas Burns, so it was sort of political directors meeting. Obviously, if you have the chair of the Security Council, you are able to sway the debate and how things move. Having said that, my distinct impression, from speaking to people today, including Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, is that just getting the referral to the UN Security Council is going to be quite a diplomatic accomplishment. They are not planning to sit down and start talking about sanctions as soon as they get there. Everybody–Putin, the British, others–imagine this is going to be a slow process. We’re not talking about something that’s going to happen in February. And they’re hoping in a way that just a referral in itself will act as a sort of incentive on the Iranians to moderate their position.
CONAN: Kate, thanks very much.
KATE: Thank you.
link to npr.org
———————————-
Amazing how many times NPR has had John Bolton on to discuss Iran
link to npr.org
———————–
Aaron David Miller seems to be Neil Conan and teams new favorite guest to have on about the middle east, Iran, Syria etc. I have heard him he seems to be with the “negotiations have been exhausted with Iran” team (Anne Marie Slaughter, Yoghi Dreazen, Barbara Slavin)
link to npr.org
———————–
Another favorite guest on NPR when it comes to the middle east, Iran etc has been “negotiations have been exhausted with Iran” Barbara Slavin
link to npr.org
——————————
Anne Marie Slaughter is a frequent guest on Iran, Syria. She is also another big pusher of the “negotiations with Iran have been exhausted team”
link to npr.org
————————-
Ok Flynt is referenced and quoted quite a bit. But when is the last time Flynt has been a guest on any of NPR’s talk shows
link to npr.org
—————————–
WONDERING IF THIS IS THE LAST TIME FLYNT HAS BEEN ON TALK OF THE NATION AS A GUEST TO DISCUSS IRAN?
link to npr.org
link to npr.org
Most recently I asked Neal to have the Leveretts on his program to discuss Iran.
link to npr.org
“CONAN: Let’s see if we could get some callers in on this conversation. We’re speaking with Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post about the most recent incidents in the shadow war between Iran and Israel. And we’ll go to Mary Ann(ph). Mary Ann on – with us from Pittsburgh.
MARY ANN: Hey, Neal. Hey, you’ve been so – you were so careful, you know, in Iraq, to the invasion of Iraq and really tried to educate the public. So I hope you have Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett on about the situation with Iran. But – and I encourage people to go to their website, Race for Iran. But I want to ask your guest. You know, Richard Engel wrote an article, you know, MSNBC’s foreign correspondent, wrote an article the other day – six days ago – about U.S. officials talking to him and the other reporter and verifying that Israel and Israeli intelligence agencies have armed, trained and financed the MEK. Now, the MEK is on the U.S. terrorist list as you well know.
CONAN: This is a group that is based in Iraq and – long based in Iraq, yes, indeed.
ANN: Yeah. And so could you, I mean, NPR’s barely touched this story, yet we’re hearing a lot about Netanyahu’s claims about Iran attempting, you know, to assassinate Israeli diplomats. So could your guest talk about Israel, you know, this story about U.S. officials verifying that Israeli intelligence agencies are arming, training and financing the MEK? And the MEK allegedly killed the Iranian scientists. So can you talk about that, please?
CONAN: Jackson Diehl?
DIEHL: Sure. Those are the reports that are out there. Richard Engel reported that. I believe it was also reported in The New York Times Magazine a couple of weeks ago by an Israeli journalist. The MEK is an Iranian dissident organization that operated inside Iran, a secular leftist organization, immediately after the revolution and then was sort of driven out of the country. It’s been in Iraq for the last couple of decades.
And the allegation is that the Israelis are using members of the MEK to carry out these clandestine operations inside Iran, including the killing of the scientist and other operations. There was a huge explosion at an Iranian military base late last year that killed a senior general and wiped out several buildings in an area that was being used to develop Iranian missiles. No one knows exactly what happened there, but some people suspect that also could have been an Israeli operation.
CONAN: By the way, Mary Ann, we did have that Israeli journalist who was just referred to on our program, I think, a couple of weeks ago. We also spoke recently with Daniel Byman, a professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He said – he was quoted in that piece by Engel, saying that if the accounts of the Israeli MEK assassinations are accurate, the operations border on terrorism. But thanks very much for the phone call. Appreciate it.
ANN: I hope you have Flynt and Hillary on. Thank you.
CONAN: All right. Thanks very much. Bye. And so we’re looking at this tit-for-tat operation. I mean, nobody seems to be – Israel is, as usual, opaque on these matters in its formal official statements. But nobody seems to be seriously doubting the fact that Israel is carrying out operations inside of Iran, and maybe even that giant explosion you refer to.”
WHAT IS WITH THE WALL UP IN THE U.S. MSM ..WHY NOT HAVE THE LEVERETTS ON IF THE ALLEGED GOAL OF THE PRESS IS TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC BASED ON ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT IRAN?
Don’t know if this has been mentioned but 89 year old Saudi King Abdullah has appointed Crown Prince Salman as his successor. Word is Salman is already in charge for all practical purposes. Reports say Salman will continue the kingdom’s ‘pragmatic’ policies. But and not that it indicates anything, but Salman’s son Prince Fasial is the one who has been very loudly and publicly threatening/warning on the US-Saudi relationship re the Israel occupation of Palestine.