Iran Continues to be Attacked by Imperialist Powers of the West During G20
Armed with the disclosure of a secret Iranian nuclear facility, President Barack Obama and the leaders of France and Britain demanded Friday that Tehran fully disclose its nuclear ambitions “or be held accountable.”
(Ed Hale | Transcendence Diaries | 25 September 2009) - CNN the most rusted name in fake-news reported today that the United States, France and Britain have presented “detailed evidence” to the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog that “Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility,” President Obama said Friday before the start of the G-20 economic summit here.”
What’s ironic of course about this sudden announcement is that those same three countries — in a covert CIA-led coup d’etat never reported by Western media but largely known about now after the fact — invaded and then ousted Iran’s democratically elected president, Mosaddeq, in 1953 after they became a democracy in the early nineteen-fifties. Those same three countries — United States, France, Great Britain — then installed ‘the Shah’ as a puppet leader against the people’s will and split Iran’s oil up three ways for themselves, paying the Iranians pennies a barrel for it for nearly thirty years; they called their new “company” British Petroleum, or BP – you might have heard of it. This led of course to the extreme ‘Islamic revolution’ of 1979. (Religious fervor as the powers that be would have dumbed-down TV guzzlers believe had nothing to do with the American Embassy hostage “crisis,” but rather thirty years of rage and frustration over imperialist domination and their oil being stolen from them.)
Next up came the eight year US-led Iran-Iraq war where the Reagan administration funded a young CIA operative named Saddam Hussein, giving him millions of dollars and chemical and biological weapons to use against the Iranian people, where over 20 million of them died. And then when Iraq proved unable to defeat the strongly proud and patriotic Iranians, Reagan decided to play both sides against the other in the infamous Iran-Contra Affair and started illegally selling weapons of mass destruction to Iran as well, thinking one assumes that if both countries destroy each other in the process with US money and weapons that the US and Britain could walk right in and grab at all the oil in the region. Of course the plan didn’t work. The United States added yet another fallen hero to its shelf of publicly shamed and sham presidents. Iran and Iraq eventually called a truce.
The Iranian people sit at a crossroads now. Read the rest of this entry »
|
Aug
19
|
Filed Under (Iran Foreign Relations, Israel, U.S. Relations, Videos, diplomacy, nuclear) by admin2 on 25-04-2007
|
Israeli’s Ambassador to the United States discusses Iran
(Fareed Zakaria | CNN | 16 August 2009) – An exclusive interview with the new Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, on Israel’s policy toward Iran. For summary, excerpts, and links to additional information as provided in the GPS Briefing Book, please read below.
|
Aug
16
|
Filed Under (Iran Domestic Politics, Op-Ed, U.S. Relations, diplomacy, nuclear) by admin2 on 25-04-2007
|
Throwing Ahmadinejad a Lifeline
(Hossein Askari and Trita Parsi | New York Times Op-Ed | 14 August 2009) – In an effort to squeeze Iran into submission over its nuclear policy, Congress and the White House are edging toward a gasoline embargo. This would do nothing to force Iran into submission. In fact, it would be a blessing for the hard-line government to once again be able to point to a foreign threat to justify domestic repression and consolidate its base at a time when opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is increasing among conservatives. Read the rest of this entry »
|
Jun
16
|
The Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi talks to David Batty about the regime’s abuse of its population – and how the west needs to abandon the threat of war if it wants to win over Iran’s people and bring change
David Batty
guardian.co.uk, Friday June 13 2008
Shirin Ebadi at a media forum in Germany this month. Photograph: Felix Heyder/EPA
The Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi is not a woman easily stopped in her tracks – she has been held in jail and faced repeated death threats, but continues to speak out against the abuses of the theocratic regime. On the doorstep of the BBC’s Bush House in central London, though, an American tourist waves the Nobel peace laureate and her entourage aside, complaining loudly: “Do you mind? We’re trying to take a picture!”
It serves, perhaps, as a reminder for Ebadi – who has spent the day being treated like a VIP by the BBC World Service – of the challenge she faces in attracting western interest to her cause.
With the international community fixated on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Ebadi says there is dwindling scrutiny of human rights in her homeland, and the hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has taken advantage of this to increase repression.
“Since the world started focusing on the nuclear programme, the human rights situation in Iran has worsened every day,” says Ebadi, who won the Nobel prize in 2003.
|
Jun
05
|
Article originally published in the LA Times here
The possibility of a United States or Israeli war to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions has been an obsession among foreign policy wonks, diplomats and journalists for some time.
Many Iran experts believe such a war would be a disaster that would fail to halt Iran’s nuclear program. Michael Axworthy (pictured) is one of them.
During the 1970s, the British author and former diplomat traveled to Iran many times while his parents lived and worked there. He joined the British foreign service in 1986, serving as a head of the Iran desk from 1998 to 2000.
Over the last eight years he’s been writing books and teaching about Iran in the United Kingdom. His latest book, “A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind,” was released last month. It traces the country’s history from its earliest days,
emphasizing its religious, intellectual and cultural traditions.
Axworthy graciously agreed to an e-mail interview about Iran and its current confrontation with the West. “The crisis is a result of the hostility that has persisted between the U.S. and Iran since the revolution of 1979 and the hostage crisis.
“But it has its roots in the U.S.-Iran relationship earlier than that, notably in U.S. support for the regime of the Shah in the 1960s and 1970s, and the coup attempted by the British and the CIA against Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953. The prime reason the clerical regime in Iran might want a nuclear weapon is as a deterrent to the U.S. regime-change policy.”
An excellent article from truthdig.com relating to recent comment made by barbarian Hilary Clinton regarding Iran.
How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton’s eminently sensible and centrist—to a fault—opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job.
On primary election day in Pennsylvania, even with polls showing her well ahead in that state, Hillary went lower in her grab for votes. Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn’t have nuclear weapons, on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to “totally obliterate them,” in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.
Shouldn’t the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism. This from a candidate who attacked her opponent for suggesting targeted strikes against militants in Pakistan and derided his openness to negotiations with other national leaders as an irresponsible commitment on the part of a contender for the presidency.
