The Age of the Siege: Nazi Military Tactics Revisited

NATO Strategies, Economic Sanctions and the "Responsibility to Protect"

Global Research
Felicity Arbuthnot

“Disengage, avoid, and withhold support from whatever abuses, degrades and humiliates humanity.” (Alice Walker, b:1944.).

“[former Danish PM and Secretary General of NATO] Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Du har blod på dine hænder” ( “You have blood on your hands”), Danish protester, 2003.

The siege of Leningrad is still considered the most lethal siege in world history, a shocking “racially motivated starvation policy”, described as: “an integral part of Nazi policy in the Soviet Union during World War 11.”

The 872 day siege began on 8th September 1941 and was finally broken on 27th January 1944. It is described  as: “one of the longest and most destructive sieges in history and overwhelmingly the most costly in casualties.” Some historians cite it as a genocide. Due to record keeping complexities the exact number of deaths resultant from the blockade’s deprivations are uncertain, figures range from 632,000 to 1.5 million.

Sieges now extend to entire countries, they have become the torture before the destruction. And they are not counted in long days, but in long years. Iran thirty three years, Iraq thirteen-plus years. Ironically the disparity in the deaths in Iraq resultant from that siege, mirror near exactly what was considered a “genocide” in Leningrad.

Syria has been subject to EU “restrictions” since 2011, ever more strangulating, with near every kind of financial transaction made impossible by May 2011- when “restrictions” were also placed on President Assad himself, all senior government officials, senior security and armed forces Heads. The list of that denied is dizzying (i.) By February 2012, assets of individuals were frozen, as those of the Central Bank of Syria.

Cargo flights by Syrian carriers to the EU were also barred, as was trade in gold, precious metals and diamonds – anything which might translate in to hard cash, without which neither individuals or countries can purchase the most basic essentials.
By July 2012 Syrian Arab Airlines and even Syria’s Cotton Marketing Organisation had joined the EU’s victims.

America of course, had been way ahead of the game, with the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act (ii) signed in to law on 12th December 2003, the year of Iraq’s comprehensive US-led destruction. Thus the mighty USA’s personal siege on under twenty one million people, is now entering its tenth year.

By last August, as with Iraq before it, the inability to trade meant that, as ever, the now Nobel Peace Prize winning EU and the policies of the Nobel Peace Prize winning US President, were targeting Syria’s most vulnerable.

Zionist lobbies seek to restrict Press TV activities in US: William Spring

PressTV

United States Zionist lobby groups seek to limit the activities of Press TV in America over fears of losing the propaganda war, a human rights activist tells Press TV.

This is while the US House of Representatives has recently approved a ‘defense bill’ that includes new anti-Iran sanctions on broadcasting, another almost USD500 million for the Israeli regime’s missile systems and approximately USD89 billion for its war in Afghanistan.

Press TV has conducted an interview with William Spring, a human rights activist from London, to further discuss the issue. Spring is joined by Danny Schechter, editor with the mediachannel.org, from New York, and Omar Nashabi, Al-Akhbar Newspaper, from Beirut. The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Perhaps you can tell us about your experiences regarding what Press TV went through regarding Ofcom who took it off its Sky platform based on your repeated requests from Ofcom to give us explanations. Tell us what occurred through your different ventures with Ofcom.

Spring: Initially, I wrote to Ofcom when I knew they were planning this. I said to them that if they went ahead and took Press TV off the Sky platform, I would actually bring a high-court application - which I did.

Initially, my application was based on the fact that it was invasive of my own personal rights. Article 10 allows Europeans to receive information, and this was a high-handed attempt to stop information.

But as I did more research, I was able to tell the high-court a week or so ago, that in fact the entire proceeding is unlawful. Under the European Union directive, they have no right whatsoever to take any channel off the air simply on account of its corporate governance because that was the ostensible reason Ofcom proffered for taking Press TV off the air.

This is all covered by the EU directive. It’s an entirely unlawful act. Ofcom are responsible for an unlawful act as are Eutelsat and these other satellite providers.

I think it’s very important that Press TV target the individuals who are behind this decision because the EU, Catherine Ashton, has said apparently that this isn’t anything to do with the EU.

I’m very dubious about it, anyway; but if that’s so, let’s target the actual directors of these companies.

Press TV: Who do you think is behind it?

Spring: It all fits in with the concept of full-spectrum dominance which was put forward by the neo-cons in the United States back in the late 1990s. They want US domination of the air, land, space and the media.

What we have effectively is a domination which is the US plus the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia plus Israel plus Qatar, and this particular bunch of unlikely allies think they can determine broadcasting policy in the West for the rest of us.

It’s outrageous and something has to be done, and I really welcome Press TV’s initiative to take legal action.

Press TV: Which they are going to do...

Let’s pick up on something that [previous guest speaker] Danny Schechter talked about in this context. One of the quickest reactions based on this ban came from the American Jewish Committee (AJC) who has been very quick on the response. They’ve actually applauded the ban by Hispasat, and the executive director of the AJC has come out and said “it’s an important step,” and I’m quoting him, “in Westerner attempts to limit Iran’s influence around the world.”

I’m trying to understand what ‘limiting Iranian influence’ means. Does it mean that Press TV has made such a difference in terms of the impact that it has had? Do you think that’s what he means? Or is it because that revealing the truth based on some of the areas that Press TV places a focus on, that they don’t want? For example, the way that Israel violates itself on Palestinians in the occupied territories?

Spring: Yes, well, actually years ago I used to know a journalist who said to me that George Orwell had said to him that the Ministry of Truth in his book “1984” was based on the BBC, not on the Kremlin.

Unfortunately, we get thoroughly unreliable news from these other channels. What I do find is, and I incur what Danny said, I do find that there is reliable news from Press TV and also to some degree from RT.

RT uncovers plans for US False Flag against IRAN

Moulding Young Minds: American Schools Preaching the Virtues of a War On Iran

Global Research
Patrick Henningsen

I remember my history lessons in school. Among many things, I can recall Patton’s march through France and the Battle of the Bulge, and how we learned about the millions of deaths on, as well as off, the fields of battle throughout history.

All in all, it was a tale of battles won and lost, and as was rightly put by my junior high school teacher - a tale of caution for future generations. But as young students, we were never taught to idiosyncrasies of ‘war-gaming’ a conflict in the future.

Nor can I recall getting lessons in school about using various aspects of asymmetrical warfare to encircle an enemy, or how admirable and clever it is to deploy terrorist units to bomb a country in order to ‘soften it up’ from within.

Unbeknownst to many people, there are school teachers who are delivering pro-war propaganda, indoctrinating young children with violent globalist military stratagem selling the concept of an inevitable war on the people of Iran as well as anyone else deemed as ‘Axis’ powers in relation to western central planning.

Interestingly, and quite horrific in fact, when challenged by his young (and extremely bright) female student over the idea of western pre-emptive intervention against Iran, the teacher addressing these students laid down a nonnegotiable maxim stating:
“… one of the rules (in this discussion) – you can’t do nothing”.

The female student followed his NLP intellectual diversion by rightly pointing out to him:
“But we (the US) are the only country in the world that’s ever used nuclear weapons”.
To which the teacher replies sharply:

“That’s irrelevant.”

It appears also towards the end of the video, that the class was being monitored by the principal’s office, who then summoned the student in question to the office. Orwellian – in the extreme.

This is the generation of children who may be asked – or drafted in to fight a coming war with Iran and others – so is this part of the indoctrination of future soldiers? Maybe.
Certainly here, it’s safe to say that teachers are grooming the next generation of compliant consumer spectators.

Watch the classroom exchange recorded by the student:

Russian Military Experts Say The US Patriot Missiles On The Syrian Border Are Actually Pointed At Iran

Business Insider
Sergel Stroken
Yelena Chernenko

Russia is categorically opposed to the Turkey’s installation of Patriot anti-aircraft missiles along its border with Syria. Most have assumed that the Moscow's opposition was driven by its friendship with embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

But Russian military experts tell Kommersant that Moscow is actually concerned that the missiles will be used in military action against Iran.

In spite of the fact that the planned location of the missiles is relatively far from the Iranian border, they could be easily deployed to any place in Turkey, and be used against Iranian rockets.

The experts Kommersant spoke with said that having the Patriot missiles in Turkey seriously increases the risk of armed conflict with Iran, which would not be able to strike back if the Patriot missiles are deployed.

“Turkey has explained its request to NATO to put the Patriot missiles on its border with Syria as exclusively related to its need to defend itself from a possible attack from the Syrian army.

"But according to our information, there could be a second motivation for this actions, which is a preparation for military action against Iran,” said one diplomatic source in Moscow.

Russia has reacted extremely negatively to Turkey’s plans to install the Patriot missiles. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that this “increases the risk of military conflict,” and evoked Chekhov’s gun syndrome: if there is a gun on the stage in the first act, then it will be shot in the third act.

Western countries have reacted extremely skeptically to Russia’s concern. NATO General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen called it “baseless,” and Turkish premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that Turkey’s self-defense plans was none of Russia’s business.

The U.S. and Israel have made a Joke of the United Nations Security Council

Global Research
Glenn Greenwald
Kourosh Ziabari

Glenn Greenwald is a prominent American journalist, author, lawyer and blogger. His writings and articles have appeared on several newspapers and magazines including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The American Conservative, The National Interest and In These Times. Greenwald has received different awards including the first Izzy Award for independent journalism in 2009, and the 2010 Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary.

Until a few months ago, he was a columnist and blogger for Salon.com, but he left his job there and continued cooperating with The Guardian newspaper which he has been contributing to since June 2011.

Greenwald has published four books which include “How Would a Patriot Act?” and “A Tragic Legacy.” A progressive journalist, Glenn Greenwald is an outspoken critic of the U.S. military expeditions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and its war threats against Iran.
He has written extensively on the underground operations taken by Israel and the United States to empower and finance the exiled Iranian terrorist group MKO which has declared as one of its key objectives the overthrowing of Iranian government. With regards to the U.S. Department of State’s decision in taking the name of MKO off the list of foreign terrorist organizations, he says: “[t]his shows that anything the United States government says about terrorism and really the whole concept of terrorism itself should be viewed as nothing more than a ridiculous joke. MKO is a classic group that is a terrorist organization. They have engaged in violence against innocent civilians, they have devoted themselves to overthrow a government using violence and there are credible reports that they are the ones who are working with Israelis and are behind the assassination of civilian scientists in Iran that included the shooting of not only the scientists, but also in two cases their wives.”

I had the opportunity to talk to Glenn Greenwald for an exclusive interview which was originally appeared in Persian on Tasnim News Agency. What follows is the full text of my interview with Glenn Greenwald in which we discussed a variety of topics pertaining to the international political and military developments.

Q: What do you think about President Obama administration’s plans for shaping a new Middle East based on the national interests of the United States and dominating the vast oil reserves of these countries?

 A: A crucial part of the Obama administration’s strategy and the strategies of all the prior administrations in the United States was to basically put into place dictatorships in the Muslim world that would keep the population suppressed and serve the interests of the U.S. government, particularly in the countries with remarkable oil and energy resources. So you see the relationships the United States has with the [Persian] Gulf states such as Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. These are the governments which suppress their population, but serve as loyal allies of the United States and make oil available to the U.S. and the Obama administration continues supporting them.

Q: In the recent months, we have been witness to the continued killing of the pro-democracy protesters and imprisonment of political activists in Bahrain. However, the U.S. government hasn’t taken any practical steps to stop bloodshed and persuade the Al Khalifa regime to stop using force and violence. What’s your idea in this regard?

A: Well, this is a perfect example of what I was describing. The governments which I named and the Bahraini government are unbelievably oppressive. They murder protesters who are demonstrating peacefully, put people in prison and torture them and the Obama administration does nothing about that and continues to strengthen that regime through financing it and even sending it a lot of arms, while the regime is cracking down on the citizens in such a brutal way. The reason the U.S. government supports Bahrain is that the regime allows the U.S. to maintain a very large fleet of naval resources off the coast of Bahrain that can be used to threaten Iran and that generally allows the U.S. government to dominate the [Persian] Gulf region, and so in extreme for the regime in Bahrain, that is basically the puppet and client government of the United States, the U.S. government supports the regime as it murders its own citizens and suppresses of all forms of freedoms. And Bahrain is a perfect example of the strategy the Obama administration has adopted to just dominate the region militarily and help the dictators of the region suppress their populations.

Q: One of the electoral promises of President Obama was to close the Guantanamo bay detention facility within one year after being elected. However, on January 7, 2011, he signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill which placed restrictions on the transferring of detainees to the U.S. or other countries, thus impeding the closure of the underground detention camp. What’s your take on that?

 A: The excuse the Obama administration gave was that the people in the Congress refused to allow Obama to close down Guantanamo. But the truth is that from the beginning, Obama’s plan was to keep the system of Guantanamo in place and transfer the detainees to the U.S. while people from all around the Muslim world still are allowed to remain in prison without charges of any kind and without due processes at any time. But to remove them from Guantanamo and placing them in a new prison inside the United States would only add some sort of a symbolic aspect to it. So it was always the Obama administration’s plan to keep the Guantanamo open. They simply wanted to move it, not to close it. And this Defense Authorization Bill which you ask about was passed in December 2010 and January 2011 is a sort of legislation that empowers the president whoever he wants on accusations of terrorism, without having to charge that person with any crime, without having to in any way offer the person the opportunity to contest the allegations or present compelling evidence, and President Obama has signed a law that actually strengthened this system of indefinite lawless detention.

Q: What’s your perspective on the U.S. drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and its violation of Iran’s airspace last year in December 2011 and in the last week? 

 A: The drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have repeatedly killed all sorts of innocent civilians; women, children and innocent men, and the Obama administration simply believes that it has the right to kill anyone it wants anywhere in the world regardless of who dies, and this is the policy that the Obama administration has actually pursued even more aggressively than the Bush administration and the drone attacks have increased significantly under President Obama. He has used drones on six different Muslim countries; Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. I should point out that President Obama has extremely aggressive beliefs that in the name of combating terrorism, he can kill whoever he wants or attack anyone he wants without regard to any nation’s sovereignty. The ironic part about that is that it’s precisely the drone attacks which cause terrorism in the first place.

Fabricating WMD “Evidence”: Israeli Covert Operation inside Syria to “Track Chemical Arsenal”

Global Research
Julie Levésque

Israel is conducting a covert cross-border operation directed against Syria in liaison with NATO and the Pentagon.

After looking for a “smoking gun” in Iran earlier this year, Israeli special forces are now “tracking” Syria’s “stocks of chemical and biological weapons”, according to The Sunday Times.

“The cross-border operation is part of a secret war to trail Syria’s non-conventional armaments and sabotage their development. ‘For years we’ve known the exact location of Syria’s chemical and biological munitions,’ an Israeli source said, referring to the country’s spy satellites and drones. ‘But in the past week we’ve got signs that munitions have been moved to new locations.’” (Uzi Mahnaimi and Lucy Fisher Israel tracks Syria’s chemical arsenal, The Sunday Times 9 December 2012.)

Everyone recalls the WMD hype prior to launching the war on Iraq. It turned out that the Iraqi WMD threat was an outright fabrication.

Those involved in the Iraq WMD propaganda ploy are now applying their skills with a view to fabricating a WMD pretext to intervene in Syria. According to a report from the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, “Israelis ‘misread’ the Iraqi threat”. In 2003, the BBC wrote on the report’s findings:

Israeli intelligence miscalculated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein […] This contributed to the “false” picture painted by US and British services […]

“Israeli intelligence was a full partner with the US and Britain in developing a false picture of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction capability,” said the author of the report, retired Brigadier General Shlomo Brom.

“It badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons existed.”

“From now on, when we present serious data on other countries, like Iran for example, who will treat us seriously?” Israel Radio quoted Israeli left-wing parliamentarian Yossi Sarid as saying. (Israelis ‘misread’ Iraqi threat, BBC,December 5, 2003)

In late March 2012 The Sunday Times reported that “Israel is using a permanent base in Iraqi Kurdistan to launch cross-border intelligence missions in an attempt to find ‘smoking gun’ evidence that Iran is building a nuclear warhead.” (Israeli spies scour Iran in nuclear hunt, The Sunday Times,March 25, 2012)

There is no evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons, even US intelligence agencies agree on that. Global Research ran a story on the Israeli covert op, potentially fabricating WMD evidence in relation to Iran. What is now unfolding in relation to Syria’s  alleged WMD is a rerun of previous attempts to funnel fabricated evidence into the news chain:

Western sources told the Times Israel was monitoring “radioactivity and magnitude of explosives tests” and that “special forces used Black Hawk helicopters to carry commandos disguised as members of the Iranian military and using Iranian military vehicles”. The sources believe “Iranians are trying to hide evidence of warhead tests in preparation for a possible IAEA visit”. (Cited in Report: Israeli soldiers scour Iran for nukes, Ynet, March 25, 2012)

The number of Israeli intelligence missions focussing on the Parchin military base in Iran has increased in the past few months, according to the article. During that period, Tehran has been negotiating with the IAEA which had requested to visit Parchin. According to Iran’s permanent representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, both parties had agreed in early February that the visit would take place in March. (Gareth Porter, Details of Talks with IAEA Belie Charge Iran Refused Cooperation, IPS,March 21, 2012)

The IAEA requested to visit Parchin in late January and late February, after having agreed to a visit in March. The IAEA thus requested to visit the military complex exactly at the same time Israel was intensifying its secret operations to allegedly search for a “smoking gun”. (Julie Lévesque, Fabricating a “Smoking Gun” to Attack Iran? Israeli Spies Disguised as Iranian Soldiers on Mission Inside Iran Global Research,March 27, 2012)

Israel’s covert operation in Syria is part of a longstanding intelligence agenda directed against the Damascus government.  According to intelNews:

Israel Seen Behind AP’s Iran ‘Nuclear Graph’ Hoax

AntiWar
Jason Ditz

AP Refuses to Confirm, But Diplomats Suspect Mossad

A late November Associated Press report by George Jahn revealed a “nuclear graph” allegedly from Iran by way of an IAEA investigation, sparking a flurry of responses centering on the graph’s incorrect math and leading experts to conclude it was an amateurish hoax.

But who’s hoax? Western diplomats are pointing the finger squarely at Israel’s Mossad spy agency, saying they believe that the leaks were part of an effort to implicate an assassinated Iranian in a weapons program. The diplomats also say Mossad is increasingly active in Austria, the home of the IAEA, looking to drive support for an Israeli war on Iran.
The AP has declined to comment further on where the graph came from, only saying it was an unnamed country who has been critical of Iran’s nuclear program. Israel has refused to comment at all on the matter.

After experts announced that the original AP story had the look of an “amateurish hoax,” Jahn released a second article attempting to defend the findings and speculating that Iran might have deliberately made a bad graph just to throw people off, claiming that the graph’s wrongness “supports suspicions” about Iran.

UN calls on Israel to open nuclear facilities

Boston
Edith M. Lederer

The U.N. General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling on Israel to quickly open its nuclear program for inspection and backing a high-level conference to ban nuclear weapons from the Middle East which was just canceled.

All the Arab nations and Iran had planned to attend the conference in mid-December in Helsinki, Finland, but the United States announced on Nov. 23 that it wouldn’t take place, citing political turmoil in the region and Iran’s defiant stance on nonproliferation. Iran and some Arab nations countered that the real reason for the cancellation was Israel’s refusal to attend.

The resolution, approved Monday by a vote of 174-6 with 6 abstentions, calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty ‘‘without further delay’’ and open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those voting ‘‘no’’ were Israel, the U.S., Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

Resolutions adopted by the 193-member General Assembly are not legally binding but they do reflect world opinion and carry moral and political weight.

Israel refuses to confirm or deny it has nuclear bombs though it is widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal. It has refused to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, along with three nuclear weapon states — India, Pakistan and North Korea.

The Arab proposal to create a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone in the Mideast, and to pressure Israel to give up its undeclared arsenal of perhaps 80 nuclear warheads, was endorsed at an NPT conference in 1995 but never acted on. In 2010, the 189 parties to the 1970 treaty called for convening a conference in 2012 on the establishment of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East.

The resolution, which was approved by the assembly’s disarmament committee before the conference was cancelled, noted the decision to hold it ‘‘with satisfaction.’’

But Israel has long said there first must be a Mideast peace agreement before the establishment of a Mideast zone free of weapons of mass destruction. The region’s Muslim nations argue that Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal presents the greatest threat to peace in the region.

The Israeli government had no immediate comment on Monday’s General Assembly vote.

Last week, the General Assembly upgraded the Palestinians to that of a nonmember observer state, endorsing an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, east Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

Just before Monday’s vote, Iranian diplomat Khodadad Seifi told the assembly ‘‘the truth is that the Israeli regime is the only party which rejected to conditions for a conference.’’ He called for ‘‘strong pressure on that regime to participate in the conference without any preconditions.’’

Israeli diplomat Isi Yanouka said his country has continuously pointed to the danger of nuclear proliferation in the Mideast, singling out Iran and Syria by name.

‘‘All these cases challenge Israel’s security and cast a dark shadow at the prospect of embarking on a meaningful regional security process,’’ he said.

‘‘The fact that the sponsors include in this anti-Israeli resolution language referring to the 2012 conference proves above all the ill-intent of the Arab states with regard to this conference,’’ Yanouka said.

Syrian diplomat Abdullah Hallak told the assembly his government was angry that the conference wasn’t going to take place because of ‘‘the whim of just one party, a party with nuclear warheads.’’

‘‘We call on the international community to put pressure on Israel to accept the NPT, get rid of its arsenal and delivery systems, in order to allow for peace and stability in our region,’’ he said.

The conference’s main sponsors are the U.S., Russia and Britain. British Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt has said it is being postponed, not cancelled.

While the United States voted against the resolution, it voted in favor of two paragraphs in it that were put to separate votes. Both support universal adherence to the NPT, and call on those countries that aren’t parties to ratify it ‘‘at the earliest date.’’ The only ‘‘no’’ votes on those paragraphs were Israel and India.

AP's dangerous Iran hoax demands an accounting and explanation

The Guardian
Glenn Greenwald

An article published by Associated Press about Iran's nuclear program has sparked controversy (screen shot of AP story)

(updated below w/AP's response)

It's important to return to the story about AP's nuclear Iran "exclusive" which I wrote about yesterday. Although it was intuitively obvious that the graph trumpeted by AP as scary and incriminating of Iran's nuclear program was actually a farce, there is now new, overwhelming, very compelling scientific evidence that is the case. Whether as victim or recklessly culpable participant, AP helped perpetrate a dangerous hoax, and owes an explanation and accounting for what took place, including identifying the "officials from a country critical of Iran's atomic program" who made false claims about what this is.

To begin with, the graph AP touted as reflecting some sort of nefarious, highly threatening and complex nuclear calculation is, in fact, widely available all over the Internet in the most innocuous places. Just consider this side-by-side comparison of the AP graph on the left, with the graph on the right on this harmless site designed to teach beginner users how to use Microsoft Excel:

At the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS), Yousaf Butt and Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress on Wednesday night wrote: "Graphs such as the one published by the Associated Press can be found in nuclear science textbooks and on the Internet." Similarly, Prof. Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of chemical engineering at USC and expert in Iran's nuclear program, told Richard Silverstein of Tikun Olum that "too many graphs like this can be generated by a competent undergraduate student." So what AP presented to the world as some sort of highly complex, specialized document was, in fact, nothing more than a completely common graph easily found in all sorts of public venues.

Even worse, the calculations reflected on this graph are patently ridiculous. Butt and Dalnoki-Veress document that the graph "does nothing more than indicate either slipshod analysis or an amateurish hoax" [emphasis added]. That's because, they explain, "the diagram features quite a massive error, which is unlikely to have been made by research scientists working at a national level"; namely:

"The image released to the Associated Press shows two curves: one that plots the energy versus time, and another that plots the power output versus time, presumably from a fission device. But these two curves do not correspond: If the energy curve is correct, then the peak power should be much lower - around 300 million ( 3x108) kt per second, instead of the currently stated 17 trillion (1.7 x1013) kt per second. As is, the diagram features a nearly million-fold error."

This error is patently obvious to anyone versed in nuclear physics. Nima Shirazi yesterday spoke with Dr. M. Hossein Partovi, who teaches courses in thermodynamics and quantum mechanics at Sacramento State, and he echoed the BAS scientists:

"[Dr. Partovi], noting that the graph is plotted in microseconds, explains that 'the graph depicted in the report is a nonspecific power/energy plot that is primarily evidence of the incompetence of those who forged it: a quick look at the energy graph shows that the total energy is more than four orders of magnitude (forty thousand times) smaller than the total integrated power that it must equal!'"

Notably, the nuclear expert quoted by AP in its article, David Albright, also seemed to be trying to tell AP that the graph contained this same obvious, glaring error, yet AP - eager to believe, or at least lead others to believe, that it had some incriminating evidence - either failed or refused to understand its significance. Buried in the AP article was this passage:

"'The yield is too big,' Albright said, noting that North Korea's first tests of a nuclear weapon were only a few kilotons."

But AP never indicated that this error strongly suggested that no real nuclear scientist would have prepared it, and immediately went back in the very next paragraph to touting the document as some sort of scary evidence of Iran's threatening nuclear weapons machinations.

Does Israel’s Zionist Project Require the Destruction of Palestine?

Interview with Gregory Harms

Global Research
Kourosh Ziabari

American journalist and scholar Gregory Harms believes that the recent 8-day Israeli war on the Gaza Strip might have been waged to distract public attention from the internal socioeconomic crises and problems the Israeli regime faces, especially ahead of the January 2013 legislative elections. He believes that launching airstrikes on Gaza may serve to give Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud party a secure vote in the upcoming elections.

“[P]ushing the Gaza button focuses Israelis on matters of security. The population in Israel is highly manipulated and taught to be fearful… Israel’s isolation is bad for the country and its people; it cultivates a very unhealthy national psychology. As a result – and quite similar to Americans – the public is easily turned around. When things are too calm, the people begin focusing on domestic issues and the economy. This has been a serious issue in Israel, with massive protesting occurring over housing costs and income disparity. Israel’s economy is better than most, but there are serious grievances, and when the Arab Spring took hold of North Africa and the Arab Middle East, its effects were felt in Jerusalem, Haifa, and Tel Aviv,” he said in a recent interview with me after the announcement of ceasefire between Hamas and Israel on November 21.

Gregory Harms is an independent scholar specializing in U.S. foreign policy and the Middle East. He lectures, keeps a blog on Facebook, and publishes articles on CounterPunch, Truthout, and Mondoweiss. Harms has traveled throughout Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, and has been interviewed on BBC Radio.

His first book “The Palestine-Israel Conflict: A Basic Introduction,” 3rd ed. (Pluto Press, 2012) is brief and general summary of the history of Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the establishment of the Israeli regime in 1948.

I conducted an interview with Gregory Harms a few days after the conclusion of the Operation Pillar of Defense which claimed the lives of at least 170 Palestinians and caused serious damages to the infrastructure and civilian buildings in the besieged Gaza Strip. Following is the text of the interview.

Kourosh Ziabari: Ceasefire has now been declared between Hamas and Israel, but through the eight-day attacks and air-strikes of Israel against the Gaza Strip, some 180 Palestinians, many of whom innocent civilians, have been killed. Why do you think Israel renewed its assaults on Gaza?

Gregory Harms: The question of why is a matter of speculation; but we can make some reasonable guesses. It’s hard to imagine that the upcoming January elections in Israel are not a factor. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is likely looking to focus the country on security issues as well as consolidate Likud’s coalition in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. He and Likud are the expected victors, but the elections are too near for this not to be a consideration.

Another possible factor is Hamas’s increased regional prestige. Because of the new leadership in Cairo under President Mohamed Morsi, the strong presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egyptian politics, and Hamas’s severing of ties with its former sponsor in Damascus, relations between Hamas and Cairo have progressed. Hamas’s growing ties with Qatar and Turkey also signal the Islamist organization’s increased status. Israel’s strategic take on this is difficult to discern, but if this development did factor in the recent violence, it is Tel Aviv acting on its longstanding impulse of using the military first. One possible benefit, from Israel’s perspective, is that now that Morsi and company have played a key role in achieving a truce, Gaza has been pushed closer to Egypt. For Tel Aviv, the best-case scenario is that Gaza becomes Cairo’s problem altogether, as it was before 1967.

Iran could very well be a possible motive. If Tel Aviv plans on attacking Tehran’s nuclear facilities anytime soon, it will want Hamas’s weapon supplies diminished. If this is indeed a rationale, it raises the question of Hizballah’s caches and preparedness in Lebanon. Whether Iran is a factor is difficult to say. The Obama White House has to-date shown no interest in direct armed intervention in Iran, which in turn makes a unilateral Israeli operation an unpopular notion among the majority of Israelis. Furthermore, Iran is a very large country that can fight back, automatically making it a less likely candidate for US-Israeli action.

There is also the fast-approaching bid on the part of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to seek nonmember observer-state status for Palestine at the United Nations. By roughing up Gaza, there might be a hope of getting the Palestinian Authority to shift course. Israel’s foreign ministry has already talked of removing Abbas from power in the event the PA makes headway at the UN General Assembly – which is almost guaranteed. As stated in a foreign ministry paper, quoted in the Guardian (Nov. 14),

The Israeli Nightmare

Land Destroyer

Peace in Israel is the establishment's worst nightmare. 
an editorial by Tony Cartalucci

November 10, 2012 - Israel is an excuse, a mandate, a perpetual casus belli, and both an ideological as well as literal beachhead in the Middle East. Created and propped up by the West, in particular the US and United Kingdom, it has served as the medium through which Western foreign policy flows in and out of the Arab, and to a greater extent, the Muslim World.

It is through a carefully cultivated strategy of tension that this perpetual casus belli is maintained. Without the constant perceived fear of Israel's demise and the "moral imperative" to prevent it, real or imagined, it would be difficult to justify Western involvement in nations that otherwise pose no perceivable threat to America or Europe. A "clash of civilizations" is likewise being created within the West itself to augment this paradigm, but it has yet to "come of age," and still depends heavily on Israeli-Arab tensions to sustain itself.

Image: Israel does not bulldoze homes because it thinks it will eventually eliminate its enemies by doing so. To maintain a perpetual strategy of tension to justify perpetual meddling by neo-colonialists in the Middle East, Israel bulldozes homes specifically to create more enemies. To think otherwise, would be to falsely assume Israel's current leadership is actually invested in the self-preservation of the nation-state. They are not. 

....

It is clearly in the best interests of Western corporate-financiers seeking to remain involved in the Middle East and reassert hegemony over the region, to keep this strategy of tension viable and as heated as possible. The policies of Israel are so ham-handedly provocative, it is surprising that more people do not see the truth behind them - that Israel's heavy-handed belligerence is a calculated decision to keep the tension ratcheted up as high as possible. For what other reason could a nation-state want to deliberately, slowly, and systematically bulldoze the homes of impoverished men, women, and children? Self-preservation by eliminating it enemies? Or the perpetual creation of new enemies?

It is not just a theory that the West and Israel purposefully cultivate and exploit the hatred incurred by their calculated, blatantly provocative policies.

Like a dam straddling a river, the force of tension against the dam produces energy from which those who constructed it, benefit. The hatred, fear, and violence perpetuated between the Jewish people and their perceived enemies has been a prominent driving force behind Wall Street and London's century-long campaign of invasion, occupation, subversion, and exploitation across the Muslim World.

A recent example of this was using regional hatred toward Israel to implement the opening phases of the US-engineered "Arab Spring." Because any regime Israel feigned support for would be instantly poisoned by a political "touch of death," Israel openly and oafishly feigned support for Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, claiming it had sent weapons and riot control gear to assist his government in suppressing "anti-American/anti-Israeli" protesters. In reality, the protests in Egypt's streets were planned years in advance, beginning as early as 2008 in New York City by confabs organized by the US State Department.

Iran vs the Empire: Fighting dollarization

PressTV
Eric Walberg

The West's attempts to destroy the Iranian economy through heightened sanctions-including most imports, oil exports and use of banks for trade operations-is having its affect. According to Johns Hopkins University Professor Steve Hanke, Iran is facing hyperinflation, with a monthly inflation rate of nearly 70% per month and its national currency, the rial, plummeting in value against western currencies. Iran is the latest casualty to be placed on his Hanke-Krus Hyperinflation Index, which includes France (1795), Germany (1922), Chile (1973), Nicaragua (1986), Argentina (1990), Russia (1992), Ecuador (1999) and Zimbabwe (2007), countries which experienced price-level increases of at least 50% per month.

Hanke, relishing his role as the world’s expert on this nightmarish phenomenon, has "played a significant role in stopping more hyperinflations than any living economist, including 10 of the 57 episodes" on his Index. He writes that Iran has three options: spontaneous dollarization (people unloading rials on the black-market for dollars, as happened in Zimbabwe), official dollarization (the government withdrawing the currency in favor of dollars, as in Ecuador), or a currency board issuing a new domestic currency backed 100% by-you guessed it-dollars. Hanke insists that the foreign currency does not have to be US dollars. Pitcairn Island, for instance, uses New Zealand dollars.

The inflation doctor admits vaguely that there are "foreign factors," without a hint of criticism of not only the sanctions, but the active subversion of Iran through everything from support of Iranian terrorists, assassinations of leading scientists, right up to war (the US encouraged Iraq to invade Iran in 1980). He emphasizes "Iran's complex system of subsidies, capital controls, and multiple exchange rates," but most of all "massive overprinting of money," though he complains that "the Central Bank of The Islamic Republic of Iran has not reported any such statistics for some time." As if a country living through a state of emergency is likely to divulge such sensitive information.

He coolly dismisses consumers' expectations influencing prices, since "fear surrounding military tensions is nothing new for Iranians". Indeed, the US has been targeting Iran for destruction ever since it threw off its colonial chains in 1979-a dangerous example for other, especially Muslim countries. It is miraculous that Iran has done so well economically since the revolution, given the unremitting victimization it has experienced. One can only marvel at the stubborn courage it has shown to build an Islamic society in the teeth of opposition by the world empire and even by other Muslim nations allied to the empire.

We indeed may ask why Iran's inflation rate has jumped so dramatically precisely in recent times. Of course, it is because of the sanctions. And why the sanctions? Is it really fears that Iran will develop a nuclear bomb, despite professions to the contrary and membership in the IAEA? No. Besides Iran’s role in inspiring the current 'Islamic Reawakening' in the Middle East, there is another very important reason, one which flies in the face of Hanke's 'three options' for Iran.

Those ‘options’ all amount to one: accept US-dollar dictatorship. Iran has been trying to trade oil in non-US dollar currencies since 2008, when it opened its Oil Bourse. Iraq did this in 2000, and the US reaction was invasion-dollarization at gunpoint. The point of the sanctions today is a last-ditch attempt by the US to force Iran to comply with the US world order, as epitomized by continued acceptance of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

Hanke insists it is not necessary for Iran to use US dollars as its substitute currency, which in any case would be ridiculous under the circumstances. However, the alternative of using, say, New Zealand dollars finesses the reality that all currencies are tied to the US dollar, as the de facto international reserve currency. This has been the case in reality since the 1930s, when the world abandoned the gold standard. Acknowledging this fact, over 20 countries call their legal tender 'dollars'.

Whether the government moves quickly to raise the white flag, as in Ecuador, or belatedly, as in Zimbabwe, or insists on printing pretty new paper scrip tied 100% to the US dollar through an exchange board, as did Argentina, merely confirms the obvious. In past cases, such as Chile, Nicaragua and Zimbabwe, the message was, ‘your socialist policies are unacceptable.’ In Iran's case, the message is, ‘take dollars for your oil.’

Hanke's monetarist credo-printing money causes inflation-ignores the underlying causes of inflation. As he admits, Iranians have faced war fears for over three decades. The exchange controls and subsidies, "government monopolies, price controls, and Soviet-style economic planning," which Hanke calls "wrong-headed," are not the cause of inflation, but a way for the government to keep it under control. However, at a certain point, the "foreign factors" become so egregious that even such measures fail. That is what has happened now, as sanctions have created extreme pain for the average Iranian. Bare shelves and panic in the face of invasion threats means that the currency will devalue, however many rials the government prints.

This is what happened in Germany in 1922, when it was forced to export everything to buy the gold to pay the extortionate reparations. It ended by resorting to Hanke’s currency board and marks issued against gold, but the underlying cause-the extortion practiced by Britain and France-only ended when Hitler took power and canceled the reparations. The devastation cause by "foreign factors" led in that instance to the rise of fascism.

Iran Issue, a US Election Stratagem

Iran Review
Afsaneh Ahadi
Expert on Strategic and US Affairs

Iran’s nuclear issue has been a focus of attention for both the Republican and Democrat candidates during 2012 election hustings. In fact, Iran was among issues to which both rival candidates have paid special attention since the beginning of election campaigns. As election campaigns close to their end, the two rivals are paying even higher attention to Iran and how to deal with it. The focus on Iran has been so intense that other foreign policy issues have been discussed by presidential hopefuls in the light of Iran issue and the candidates use it to barrage each other’s positions. The Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, and his Democrat rival who is also the incumbent US president, Barack Obama, have been trying throughout their election debates and also in their other public addresses to depict Iran as a major threat to national security of the United States.

Although a similar trend has been rife in previous US presidential elections, during the current campaigns, both candidates are trying to draw more public attention to Iran issue, by putting too much emphasis on and giving urgency to Iran issue. In fact, the only way to get the American voters believe that there is an issue in the country’s foreign policy which is more pressing than economic issues is to aggrandize the threat posed by that issue to the United States national security. This is being done while the American people’s concern about gravity of their country’s economic situation is growing and various opinion polls have shown that economic programs offered by both candidates have been treated coldly by the American people. A comparison between the impressions made on the American people by either candidate’s economic program clearly proves that none of them have been considered attractive by the general public. In a recent poll conducted by the Gallup Institute, 48 percent voted for Obama while 47 percent took sides with Romney’s economic program.

At any rate, the main issue which is of utmost urgency to both rival candidates is to attract the so-called ‘swing’ votes which are cast by people in a number of states whose final vote cannot be forecasted up to the eleventh hour. Traditionally, a certain part of the US population votes for Democrat candidates, while another part supports the Republicans and their candidates. However, there is also a part of the population with no special allegiance for either party in some US states, which are known as ‘swing states.’ Such undetermined votes account for about 23 percent of all votes during this year’s presidential polls, which is quite considerable. As a result, both candidates are doing their best to win the votes of this part of the population.

Therefore, stressing on the critical nature of an issue and reiterating the necessity of taking a serious stance on it will be a good ploy in order to put a cap on the weak performance of a candidate in other fields. Iran is now in the center of the crisis theme chosen for this year’s presidential elections in the United States. This is quite similar to what happened during the US presidential polls in 1980. At that time, due to hostage taking crisis related to the American diplomats in Tehran, the American people paid special attention to political stances of both candidates.

Although the Americans saw Iran threat more tangible then, the ongoing negative propaganda against the Islamic Republic has once more brought the alleged Iran threat to the fore. As a result, the republican candidate is accusing Obama of having adopted futile and ineffective policies in order to stop Iran’s nuclear activities and is calling for a more serious treatment of Iran which may even include a military option. Polls conducted so far show that despite too much emphasis, which has been put on the serious nature of Iran’s nuclear energy program, the American people are not in favor of a military option against Iran and the beginning of a new war. This is truer taking into account that the American people are currently grappling with a major economic crisis and they believe that the main cause of the crisis is their country’s engagement in two major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Therefore, the Republican candidate is trying to show that sanctions have not been of enough effect against Iran and have failed to produce a major impact on the Islamic Republic. Therefore, he has called for further escalation of sanctions against Iran. Romney has already questioned Obama’s position of considering the capability to build nuclear weapons as the red line for Iran’s nuclear energy program, and believes that any form of nuclear capability in Iran will pose a serious threat to security of both Israel and the United States.

Many experts believe that any sudden development in relation to Iran’s nuclear issue can have a great impact on the situation of the US presidential candidates and even a development with an ephemeral effect can be consequential. Perhaps this is why a few days before the last election debate between Obama and Romney, the New York Times daily reported that the United States and Iran have reached an agreement to launch direct talks and the negotiations are to be started following the US presidential election. Although the report was rejected by both the Iranian and American officials, in short term, it can leave its mark on the US presidential contest in favor of Obama and can improve his standing compared to his Republican rival. The Republican candidate, on the other side, has noted that any kind of negotiations with Iran will be ineffective and has slammed Obama for showing unacceptable weakness in the face of Iran. Critics believe that despite international sanctions against the Islamic Republic, Iran’s nuclear program in ceaselessly progressing. On the other hand, experience has shown that even in the case of direct talks between the two sides, they are very probable not to achieve any clear-cut result just in the same way that direct talks between the United States and North Korea over the latter country’s nuclear program failed to produce a tangible result.

US Election Winner May Face a Dangerous Iran

Iran Review
Shahir ShahidSaless

Iran is likely to adopt a new and aggressive stance on the nuclear matter because Iranian leaders surmise that they can change the game. This position, however, may lead to an all-out war.

Following the European Union ministers meeting in Luxembourg 

on October 15, more sanctions were announced against Iran. According to the new set of sanctions all transactions between European and Iranian banks will be prohibited, except those with advance official permission or for humanitarian purposes, sources report. Analysts say that as a result of new sanctions Iran will lose the ability to clear its oil money in Euros. While Iran is already locked out of US transactions, these new EU sanctions can paralyze the country’s trade.

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, in a speech to the United Jewish Israel Appeal in London, said: “I have said to Prime Minister Netanyahu that now is not the time for Israel to resort to military action.” He added, “The regime faces unprecedented pressure and the people are on the streets...We need the courage to give these sanctions time to work.”

Part of Mr. Cameron’s assertion is true. The economic situation in Iran is becoming perilous. As the national currency crisis unfolds, inflation is spiraling out of control. Sanctions have reduced Iran’s oil production to a 22-year low, while sanctions have also made it extremely difficult to access and transfer oil money. Mohsen Rezaii, Secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council, remarked, “They have made trade difficult for us. They don’t let us sell oil and when we sell oil, don’t let us get our money from the Chinese bank[s].” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who in the past dismissed the effects of sanctions, for the first time during an angry speech, said, “These sanctions are barbaric. This is a war against a nation.”

However, Mr. Cameron and policy-makers in the US completely ignore the fact that the status quo is precariously unstable. It would be a grave mistake to assume that the Iranian government will stand idly by while gripped by paralyzing sanctions, and with its very survival threatened.

The potential for retaliation by Iran against sanctions has been a concern for the West in recent years. Iran repeatedly states that it has the capability of closing the Strait of Hormuz. Last month’s massive minesweeping exercise in the Persian Gulf, led by the US, reflected this West’s concern.

Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates opened new pipelines that when they become fully operational will be able to bypass the strait and handle 6.5 million barrels of oil per day.  The figure represents 40 percent of the oil exported from the region. However, still the majority of oil must be traded by using supertankers that should pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Besides Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain do not have any alternative route to ship their oil.

Until recently, observers reasoned that the likelihood of Iran closing the strait would be slim because Hormuz is the only route for Iran’s oil exports, and the main route for its food imports. This calculus, however, appears tottery and uncertain today, as Iran’s oil export plummets, clearing its oil money becomes extremely hard, and its economy steeply declines.

With sanctions tightening, dangerously reduced oil revenue may lead Iran’s leadership to the conclusion that a radical move in the Strait of Hormuz is a calculated risk that could ultimately change the game in favor of Iran.

Contrary to the US officials’ perception, keeping the Hormuz Strait open is not the issue. The crux of the strait issue resides in keeping it safe and secure, thus guaranteeing uninterrupted flow of oil. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, current international relations professor at John Hopkins University maintains, once the strait becomes a dangerous place the price of oil will skyrocket even it is not closed.   

Iran can disrupt energy supplies - including oil and 20 percent of globally-traded liquefied natural gas - without closing the strait. In July 2012, Fars News, the news agency which reflects viewpoints of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), published a long, meticulously researched, and noteworthy paper titled, “A study about the role of the Strait of Hormuz in the balance of power between Iran and the West.” The paper read:

“...complete closing of the strait by the Islamic Republic of Iran for extended duration may lead to the formation of an international coalition against Iran...therefore it doesn’t seem a logical option. But another option for the Islamic Republic of Iran is to imperil those traveling through the Strait of Hormuz...The outcome of this action would be the formation of a crisis in the global economy and a divergence between oil consuming countries and America. Meanwhile, as the economies of Europe and America toil, any disruption in oil supply will intensify the crisis. In fact, closing the Strait of Hormuz would mean, ‘making naval transit unsafe and the region look like a war zone,’ so that no government feels immune to an attack by [our] conventional armed forces, unidentified boats, or naval mines.”

Iran may use proxies to carry out attacks without directly becoming involved or simply stop supertankers from passage through its territorial waters in the narrowest parts of Hormuz, under the pretext of inspection. As oil prices soar, the conflict between Iran and the US could spiral, and ultimately transform into a disastrous military conflict.

The root cause of the deadlock over Iran’s nuclear program is the demand by the US (and of course Israel) for “zero-enrichment.” This exaction will most likely meet with insouciance, regardless of how much pressure is imposed on Iran. Iran’s leadership, even if it wanted to, could not agree with any resolution resulting in the complete suspension of their uranium enrichment program, due to the reasons and perceived costs that this author have discussed before.

The current pattern exponentially heightens the potential for a military conflict, unless demands for the complete suspension of uranium enrichment are replaced by strict and intrusive monitoring by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to limit Iran’s enrichment of uranium.

For the moment, US presidential elections have stifled new developments. Once the elections conclude, whether for the current US administration or a new president and his cabinet, Iran, most likely appearing dangerous, will take the center stage.

*This article is part of Insider & Insight, a new AIC program aimed at providing different perspectives and analyses on key developments in US-Iran relations. The commentary and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position of American Iranian Council.

Source: American Iranian Council (AIC)
http://american-iranian.org/

More By Shahir Shahidsaless:

*Netanyahu, Betting ‘All-In’ for High Stakes Iran Game?:http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Netanyahu-Betting-All-In-for-High-Stakes-Iran-Game-.htm

*Current Trend in US-Iran Relations: A Road to Hell: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Current-Trend-in-US-Iran-Relations-A-Road-to-Hell.htm

False Flag Prediction: U.S.S. Enterprise

From comments by Mike Rivero from www.whatreallyhappened.com

Now this is more prevalent than when it was first made 9 months ago. In just one week, the United States will have three aircraft carriers facing Iran, the number usually regarded as sufficient for a state of war.

In response to this build-up, along with exercises involving the US, UK and Middle Eastern countries focused around clearing mines in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has launched a Tareq-901 submarine and a Sahand destroyer into the Gulf from the port of Bandar Abbas.

It seems abundantly clear that if there is to be an "October surprise" which will decide the US presidential election one way or the other, it will involve Iran and it will happen within the next two weeks.

Last month, lobbyist Patrick Clawson stoked controversy when he urged the United States to stage or provoke an attack in order to create a manufactured casus belli for striking Iran. Please re-distribute this vid as much as you can.

Israel lobby groups press sat providers to ban Iran channels: Report

PressTV

Israeli lobby groups have reportedly contacted two communications satellite service providers to force them to take Iranian radio and television channels off the air following a recent ban on the broadcasters in Europe, Press TV reports.

The lobbies have recently approached International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (Intelsat) and Hispasat -- a group of Spanish communication satellites -- and called on them to stop the broadcast of Iranian channels.

In a flagrant violation of the freedom of speech on Monday, European satellite provider Eutelsat SA ordered media services company Arqiva to stop the broadcast of several Iranian satellite channels including Press TV, al-Alam, Jam-e-Jam 1 and 2, Sahar 1 and 2, Islamic Republic of Iran News Network, Quran TV, and the Arabic-language al-Kawthar following an order by the European Commission.

The decision follows months of jamming of Iranian channels by European satellite companies.

This is while the European Union has denied claims by European satellite companies that it ordered the providers to take Iranian channels off the air saying that the companies have acted on their own accord.

Obama Aides Launch Preemptive Attack on New Iran Plan

Iran Review

Gareth Porter

Although the place and time of the next round of talks on Iran’s nuclear programme have not yet been announced, the manoeuvring by Iran and the United States to influence the outcome has already begun.

Iran sought support for a revised proposal to the talks during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) last month, according to a New York Times report Oct. 4. Then, only a few days later, the Barack Obama administration launched a preemptive attack on the proposal through New York Times reporter David Sanger.

The officials suggested the Iranian proposal would give Iran an easier route to a “breakout” to weapons grade uranium enrichment. But that claim flies in the face of some obvious realities.

An Oct. 4 story by Sanger reported that Iran had begun describing a “9-step plan” to diplomats at the UNGA and quoted administration officials as charging that the proposal would not “guarantee that Iran cannot produce a weapon”. Instead, the officials argued, it would allow Iran to keep the option of resuming 20-percent enriched uranium, thus being able to enrich to weapons grade levels much more quickly.

Iran’s nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili issued a denial that Iran had “delivered any new proposal other than what had been put forward in talks with the P5+1″. But that statement did not constitute a denial that Iran was discussing such a proposal, because the Times story had said the proposal had been initially made to European officials during the P5+1 meeting in Istanbul in July.

Obama administration officials complained that, under the Iranian plan, Iran would carry out a “suspension” of 20-percent enrichment only after oil sanctions have been lifted and oil revenues are flowing again.

That description of the proposal is consistent with an Iranian “five-step plan”, presented during the talks with P5+1, the text of which was published by Arms Control Today last summer. In that proposal, the P5+1 would have ended all sanctions against Iran in steps one and two, but Iran would have ended its 20-percent enrichment only in the fifth step.

In that same final step, however, Iran also would have closed down the Fordow enrichment plant and transferred its entire stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium to “a third country under IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) custody”.

Iran has made clear that it intends to use the 20-percent enrichment as bargaining leverage to achieve an end to the most damaging economic sanctions.

Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian, the spokesperson for Iran’s nuclear negotiating team from 2003 to 2005 and now a visiting scholar at Princeton University, told IPS, “Iran is prepared to stop 20-percent enrichment and go below five percent. The question is what will the P5+1 provide in return. As long as the end state of a comprehensive agreement is not clear for Iran, it will not consider halting enrichment at 20 percent.”

But the administration’s portrayal of the Iranian proposal as offering a sanctions-free path to continued 20-percent enrichment is highly misleading, according to close observers of the Iran nuclear issue. It also ignores elements of the proposal that would minimise the risk of a “breakout” to enrichment of uranium to weapons grade levels.

The Obama administration criticism of the proposal, as reported by Sanger, was couched in such a way as to justify the U.S. refusal to discuss lifting the sanctions on Iranian oil exports during the four rounds of talks with Iran. A senior administration official was quoted as saying that Iran “could restart the program in a nanosecond,” whereas “it would take years” to re-impose the sanctions.

Paul Pillar, national intelligence officer for Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, noted in a commentary in The National Interest that it is “far easier to impose sanctions on Iran than to lift them” and that if Iran reneged on a nuclear agreement, “it would be easier still.”

Peter Jenkins, British permanent representative to the IAEA from 2001 to 2006, noted in an e-mail to IPS that it took the EU only two months to agree to impose oil sanctions, and that “political resistance among the 27 (EU member states) to imposing oil sanctions would probably be less if re-imposition were required by an Iranian breach of a deal with the P5+1.”

Jenkins pointed out that EU oil purchases from Iran now have experience in getting supplies from other countries which could make re-imposing sanctions even easier.

One U.S. official was quoted by Sanger as complaining that the Iranian proposal would allow Iran to “move the fuel around, and it stays in the country”. That description appeared to hint that the purpose is to give Tehran the option of a breakout to weapons grade enrichment.

But the biggest difference between the proposal now being discussed by Iranian diplomats and the one offered last summer is that the new proposal reflects the reality that Iran began last spring to convert 20-percent enriched uranium into U308 in powdered form for fuel plates for its Tehran Research Reactor.

The conversion of 20 percent enriched uranium to U308, which was documented but not highlighted in the Aug. 30 IAEA report, makes it more difficult to use that same uranium for enrichment to weapons grade levels.

The new Iranian proposal evidently envisions U308 uranium remaining in the country for use by the Tehran Research Reactor rather than the entire stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium being shipped to another country as in its previous proposal.

Former State Department official Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, who has argued in the past that the only purpose Iran could have in enriching to 20 percent is a nuclear weapon, told the Times that the conversion “tends to confirm that there is civilian purpose in enriching to this level”.

But Fitzpatrick told the Times that the Iranians know how to reconvert the U308 powder back to a gaseous form that can then be used for weapons grade enrichment. “It would not take long to set it up,” Fitzpatrick said.

In an interview with IPS, Dr. Harold A. Feiveson, a senior research scientist at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson’s school and a specialist on nuclear weapons, said “it would not be super hard” to carry out such a reconversion.

But Feiveson admitted that he is not aware of anyone ever having done it. The reconversion to 20 percent enrichment “would be pretty visible” and “would take some time,” said Feiveson. “You would have to kick the (IAEA) inspectors out.”

Even Israeli policymakers have acknowledged that Iran’s diversion of 20-percent enriched uranium represents a step away from a breakout capability, as Haaretz reported Oct. 9.

Defence ministry sources told the Israeli daily that the Iran’s reduction of its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium had added “eight months at least” to what the Israeli government has cited as its “deadline” on Iran. The same sources said it was the justification for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dropping the threat of attack on Iran in his U.N. speech.

The deep reduction in Iranian oil revenues from sanctions and the recent plunge in the value of Iran’s currency may well have made Iran more interested in compromise than when the talks with the P5+1 started in April.

Mousavian told IPS, “I am convinced that Iran is ready for a package deal based on recognition of two principles.” The first principle, he said, is that “Iran recognises the P5+1 concerns and will remove all such concerns”; the second is that the P5+1 “recognises the rights of Iran and gradually lifts sanctions”.

But Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has expressed serious doubts about whether the Obama administration is willing to end the sanctions on Iran under any circumstances. In an Oct. 10 speech, Khamenei said the Americans “lie” in suggesting sanctions would be lifted in return for Iran giving up its nuclear program.

U.S. officials “make decisions out of grudge and aversion (toward Iran)”, Khamenei said.

*Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan.