Showing posts with label WW3. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WW3. Show all posts

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Turkey declares War on Syria


 
Russia Today Report: Turkish parliament authorizes military assault on Syria ‘when necessary’

Source; Russia Today
http://rt.com/news/turkish-parliament-military-syria-651/

Turkey’s parliament has authorized cross-border military operations into Syria ‘when necessary’ following a random mortar-shelling incident on the Turkish-Syrian border, reports Hürriyet Daily News.

The Turkish army has been retaliating by shelling Syrian military positions since Wednesday.­

The government-initiated debates in the Turkish parliament took place behind closed doors. The cabinet of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan claimed the Syrian military had launched an act of aggression against Turkey.

The motion signed by Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan says that the Syrian crisis “affects the stability and security in the region” and accuses Damascus of conducting assaults into Turkish land.

“This situation risks and threatens our national security. In this respect, the need for taking precautions and acting quickly against any threats to Turkey has arisen,” says the document.

In accordance with Article 92 of the Turkish constitution, the government demanded a one-year authorization to send Turkish troops to foreign countries, which was granted.

On Wednesday at least three mortar bombs fired from Syria killed five civilians and wounded at least eight in the Turkish town of Akcakale. This became a second mortar attack on the Turkish town since last Friday. Back then Foreign Minister Davutoglu said he would take action if there were a repeat.

After a heated debate an urgent parliamentary session has opted to apply the new law.

The motion was supported by 320 deputies, while 129 voted against it.

Originally the bill targeted militants of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) fighting for independent Kurd state for the last three decades. The Kurds have bases in northern Iraq, de-facto not controlled by the government in Baghdad. The Turkish military has conducted a number of air and ground assaults on Kurdish positions in Iraq, most of them considered successful.

The debates around the move have sparked sharp negative reaction among the Turkish population. While a small group of anti-war protesters rallied outside the Turkish parliament in Ankara, a real anti-war storm has been initiated by Turkish and foreign activists on social networks both inside and outside of Turkey. The hashtag #savasahayir (no to war) quickly spread beyond Turkish borders into global social networking.

 

Turkey Attempts to Trigger a NATO-led War against Syria


 
By: Tony Cartalucci
Land Destroyer Blog
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/
Source: Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/turkey-attempts-to-trigger-a-nato-led-war-against-syria/

After over a year of harboring foreign terrorists and supporting their operations near and across the Turkish-Syrian border, NATO-member Turkey has claimed it has retaliated with military force against “targets” inside Syria for an alleged attack on Turkish territory that it has blamed on the Syrian government.

Despite heavily armed listed-terrorist organizations operating in large numbers on both sides of the Turkish border with Turkey’s explicit approval and logistical support, the government in Ankara appears to have excluded the possibility that these terrorist forces, not the Syrian military, were responsible for the attack which consisted of mortar rounds the armed militants are known to widely use.

 
Image: Terrorists operating in Syria pose next to a large mortar. Mortars of all sizes are a favorite of terrorists operating in and around Syria in NATO’s proxy bid to effect violent regime change. The mortars fired into Turkish territory could just as likely have come from terrorists Turkey itself is funding, arming, and harboring on behalf of long-planned NATO machinations. Unlike the Syrian government, the terrorists, Turkey, and by consequence, NATO, all have an actual motivation for launching the initial attack that has caused Turkey to retaliate and predictably call on NATO to intervene.

The New York Times itself, in its article titled, “Turkey Fires Artillery at Syrian Targets in Retaliation for Civilian Deaths,” concedes that:

It was unknown whether the mortar shells were fired by Syrian government forces or rebels fighting to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The Turkish response seemed to assume that the Syrian government was responsible.

Turkey’s immediate, unwarranted act of military aggression, along with knee-jerk condemnations from the US bear all the hallmarks of an orchestrated event – or at the very least an attempt to opportunistically seize upon an isolated incident to disingenuously advance the West’s collective geopolitical agenda.

Syria clearly has no interest in threatening the security of Turkey, nor any reason to attack Turkish territory which would surely give NATO the excuse it has been looking for to directly intervene on behalf of its faltering terrorist proxies.

Turkey Has Longed for a Pretext to Start War with Syria

It was previously reported that Turkey was intended by NATO, and more specifically, Wall Street and London, to lead efforts in carving out “safe havens” in Syria’s north, and to do so either under a false “humanitarian” or false “security” pretext.

This has been confirmed by Fortune 500-funded, US foreign-policy think-tank, Brookings Institution which has blueprinted designs for regime change in Libya as well as both Syria and Iran. In their report, “Assessing Options for Regime Change” it is stated (emphasis added):

“An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.” -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution

 
Image: The Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” makes no secret that the humanitarian “responsibility to protect” is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.

Brookings continues by describing how Turkey’s aligning of vast amounts of weapons and troops along its border in coordination with Israeli efforts in the south of Syria, could help effect violent regime change in Syria:

In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly. -page 6, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Turkish leaders have clearly spent much time fabricating various excuses to meet Washington’s demands in this regard by fabricating or taking advantage of violence Turkey itself is fostering along its own border with Syria.

The report would also mention Turkey’s role in helping undermine, subvert, and carve out the ancient northern city of Aleppo:

Because creating a unified national opposition is a long-term project that will probably never fully succeed, the contact group, while not abandoning this effort, may seek more realistic goals. For example, it might concentrate maximum effort on breaking Asad’s hold on, say, the elite of Aleppo, which is the commercial capital and which is also the city where Turkey has the greatest leverage. If Aleppo were to fall to the opposition, the demoralizing effect on the regime would be considerable.

Should this option fail, the United States can simply accept a bad situation in Syria or escalate to one of the military options below. -page 6, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

The military options include everything from perpetuating violence to, in Brookings’ own words, “bleed
it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention,” to Libyan-style “no-fly zones,” to a full military invasion. It is clear, upon reading the Brookings memo, that the conspiracy has indeed begun to unfold since its writing – with various military options being prepared and various co-conspirators positioning themselves to execute them.

The Brookings Institution’s “safe havens” and “humanitarian corridors” are meant to be established by NATO-member Turkey, who has been threatening to partially invade Syria for months in order to accomplish this. And while Turkey claims this is based on “humanitarian concerns,” examining Turkey’s abysmal human rights record in addition to its own ongoing genocidal campaign against the Kurdish people both within and beyond its borders, it is clear they are simply fulfilling the agenda established by their Western patrons on Wall Street and in the city of London.

 
Photo: Turkish tanks entering Iraq to raid Kurdish towns and hunt suspected rebels in 2008. More recently, Turkey has been bombing “suspected” rebel bases in both Turkey and Iraq, as well as conducting mass nationwide arrests. Strangely, as Turkey verifiably does what Libya’s Qaddafi and Syria’s Assad have been accused of doing, in all of their hypocrisy, have been calling for a partial invasion of Syria based on “humanitarian concerns.”

….

This latest exchange between Turkey and Syria is not the first. Turkey has fabricated stories before involving Syrian troops “firing across” the Turkish-Syrian border. The New York Times published these bold accusations before admitting further down that “it was unclear what kind of weapons caused the injuries on Sunday around six miles inside Turkish territory,” and that “there were conflicting accounts about the incident.” As are all the accusations used by NATO, the UN, and individual member states to justify meddling in Syria’s affairs, these tales involve hear-say from the rebels themselves.

It is clear that Turkey, NATO, and the UN are continuously attempting to set a pretext for the establishment of “safe havens” and “humanitarian corridors” intended to circumvent the UN Security Council which has seen attempts to green-light military intervention vetoed multiple times by Russia and China.

That the UN has failed utterly to condemn the combined provocations and meddling in Syria’s affairs illustrates the absolute failure of supranational, let alone, global governance.

Several Syrian soldiers killed in Turkey attack


 
Syrian troops in the capital Damascus carry the coffins of comrades killed during the unrest in the country. (File photo)

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/04/264874/syrian-soldiers-killed-in-turkey-attack/

Reports say several Syrian soldiers have been killed in a new attack by Turkish forces on a military post near the border town of Tel Abyad.

The Turkish forces fired artillery shells at targets in the Syrian territory during the early hours of Thursday.

The exact number of the Syrian soldiers killed in the attack has not been reported.

Turkey’s attack follows a Syrian mortar strike that killed five people in the southeastern Turkish town of Akcakale in Sanliurfa province on Wednesday.

Syria said it had started an investigation into the cause of the mortar attack on the Turkish territory.

Syrian Information Minister Omran Zoabi also sent a message of condolence to the Turkish people and families of the victims.

The minister stated that Syria respects the sovereignty of its neighbors and wants its own sovereignty to be respected in return.

In addition, Zoabi called on some foreign countries, especially Turkey, to stop the flow of weapons and terrorists into Syria.

Meanwhile, the Turkish parliament is scheduled to discuss Thursday a motion for cross-border military operations inside Syria “when deemed necessary.”

Damascus says certain Western and regional countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, are supporting the insurgents fighting against the Syrian government.

On Wednesday, NATO ambassadors held an emergency meeting in Brussels over the Turkish-Syrian border clashes and said in a statement, “The alliance continues to stand by Turkey and demands the immediate cessation of such aggressive acts against an ally.”

In July, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said in an interview with the Turkish Cumhuriyet daily that Turkey “has supplied all logistic support to the terrorists who have killed our people.”

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Israel seeks war on Iran to keep lid on 9/11


 
 

By: Dr. Kevin Barrett
http://www.truthjihad.com/

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/20/262683/israel-seeks-iran-war-to-keep-lid-on-911/

Almost every politically-aware person on the planet is puzzled by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bizarre obsession with Iran. Netanyahu is risking his political career, his reputation, and Israel's future by intervening in the US presidential elections.

He is using all of Zionism's considerable might - including organized crime assets like “Las Vegas Godfather” Sheldon Adelson - to force Obama to attack Iran; or, failing that, to make sure that Obama is defeated by the Zionist puppet Romney. There are even rumors of Israeli-sponsored assassination attempts on Obama.

Even the rabidly pro-Zionist Jewish Daily Forward has editorialized:

“It’s difficult to recall a time when an Israeli prime minister has inserted himself into a presidential election campaign in the way that Benjamin Netanyahu has. It’s even harder to recall a time when a trusted ally openly urged the American president to undertake a questionable, unpopular and highly risky war. We sure hope Netanyahu knows what he’s doing, because the stakes for him - and for the two nations he professes to care about the most - could not be higher.”

The Jewish Daily Forward has good reasons to wonder whether Netanyahu knows what he's doing. The editorialist cites polls showing that the American people strongly oppose attacking Iran, even if war breaks out between Iran and Israel and only US intervention could save Israel! These polls show that American voters no longer give a damn whether Israel, which has chosen to live by the sword, finally dies by the sword. As Dave Lindorff observes, Netanyahu's mad obsession with pushing the US into yet another unwanted war for Israel “may have fundamentally undermined the long-standing 'special relationship' between the US and Israel.”

And still Netanyahu continues on this seemingly suicidal course. He even orders the Mossad and its CIA assets including Gladio veteran Terry Jones to unleash a rabidly anti-Islam film, spammed into the faces of every Muslim on the planet via millions of dollars of computer server time and intelligence agency expertise - an obvious attempt to fan the flames of Islamophobia and pave the way to a US war on Iran for Israel. Obama, who is on record saying he hates Netanyahu and that Netanyahu is a liar, and who knows that Netanyahu manufactured the “Innocence of Muslims” crisis to try to get Romney elected, responded by refusing to meet with Netanyahu in New York, and going on the David Letterman Show instead. A more blatant snub could hardly be imagined.

So, what in the world is Netanyahu really up to? Does he actually believe that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, even though the CIA has certified that it does not?

Of course, he doesn't really believe such nonsense. Even hard-line Israeli strategists admit that Iran appears to be only developing nuclear expertise, not actual weapons. Furthermore, Iran has not attacked another nation in centuries.

Since the “nuclear crisis” is a hoax (like alleged Iraqi WMD in 2003), then what is the real reason for Netanyahu's Iran obsession? Is it the Iranian government's support for anti-Zionist resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and its calls for an end to Zionism through free and fair elections?

Perhaps. Iran's open commitment to principled anti-Zionism represents the nearly unanimous position of the people of the Middle East, who have never accepted the genocidal Zionist entity as a legitimate state. Israel has been able to bully every other government in the region into shameful silence. The Islamic Republic of Iran will not be silenced. Threats to level Iran with bombs seeks to send a message to future Middle Eastern governments: Do not give a voice to your people's resistance to Zionism, or else!

But while starting a war might seek to punish Iran for its anti-Zionism, such a war would carry terrible risks for Israel. In the impossible event that all goes well for Israel on the battlefield, the suffering of the people of Iran would probably shame the world into turning against Zionism even more sharply than the world turned against apartheid in the 1980s.

But there is no guarantee that things would go well for Israel on the battlefield. Iran has the capability to riddle Israel with rocket attacks, or even to take out Israel's Dimona nuclear facility and perhaps render Israel and much of the surrounding region permanently uninhabitable. And Israel does not have the capability to seriously damage Iran's nuclear energy program without US help. If the US intervened on the side of Israel, Iran could shut the Straits of Hormuz, and possibly sink many, if not all, of the ships there with Sunburn missiles, driving gasoline prices over USD 10 a gallon and paralyzing the world economy. Additionally, Iran has the capability to massively attack the US bases that surround it, killing thousands, if not tens of thousands, of US soldiers. A US president, especially one who dislikes Netanyahu and puts America's interests ahead of Israel's, would be very unlikely to help Netanyahu attack Iran.

Given that a war on Iran is an all-loss proposition for Israel, why is Netanyahu fanatically fanning the flames of war, to the extent that even his American Zionist cheering section is baffled and embarrassed by his behavior?

Some question Netanyahu's intelligence, arguing that he is just a furniture salesman who has been promoted far beyond his level of competence. While there may be some truth to this - I certainly wouldn't want to overestimate Netanyahu's intelligence - I don't think he's quite that stupid. I think Netanyahu has a very good reason to prefer war with Iran, despite all its risks, to peace. I think he does know what he's doing.

Netanyahu needs the 9/11-triggered 100-years-war on Islam to continue for the very good reason that if it does not, the State of Emergency still in place in the US will be lifted, and Americans, unencumbered by the National Security restrictions of wartime, will quickly learn what really happened on September 11th, 2001. That possibility poses a very real existential threat to Israel - and to Netanyahu.

As Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Strategic Studies at the US Army War College, told Press TV: “I have had long conversations over the past two weeks with contacts at the Army War College, at the Headquarters Marine Corps, and I have made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100 percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period. If Americans ever know that Israel did this, they are going to scrub them off the earth.” And even if Israel were “scrubbed off the earth” peacefully through a one-state solution, Netanyahu would certainly hang for his role in the 9/11 attacks.

Unfortunately for Netanyahu and Zionism, Dr. Sabrosky isn't the only US National Security insider leaking the truth about 9/11. A very large number of military and intelligence people have come forward.The two biggest recent leaks are revelations by CIA asset Susan Lindauer that the CIA had detailed foreknowledge of 9/11 and attributed the controlled demolitions of the three NYC skyscrapers to “those goddamned Israelis”; and the assertion by Gwenyth Todd, who worked beside Richard Clarke on the National Security Council, that Clarke (who was publicly fired from an earlier job for being an Israeli spy) is the top suspect as hands-on controller of 9/11 from the US end. Yes, you heard that right: Richard Clarke's colleague on the National Security Council, Gwenyth Todd, suspects Clarke of masterminding and running the 9/11 attacks. If Todd and other high-level sources are right about this, Clarke's book title Your Government Failed You is an understatement.

Some of the same high-level sources who point to Richard Clarke as the US boss of the Israeli-instigated 9/11 false flag operation also claim that President Obama, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dempsey, and other powerful Americans are considering exposing the truth about 9/11 during a second Obama term. In other words, Obama's re-election could put Israel out of business, and get Netanyahu hanged from the nearest lamp-post.

No wonder Netanyahu is “overplaying his hand” by doing everything he can to get rid of Obama. And no wonder Netanyahu is desperately trying to throw gasoline on the “clash of civilizations” fire and trigger war with Iran. A huge Middle East war, no matter how destructive, would maintain the wartime State of Emergency in the US and impeded the inexorable revelation of America's biggest state secret: That American traitors, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Richard Myers, and others, helped Israel blow up the World Trade Center, bomb the Pentagon, and kill 3000 Americans on 9/11.

--------------
 
Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009). His website is http://www.truthjihad.com/

 

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Turkey deploys ground to air missiles on Syria border: Report


Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/07/22/252241/turkey-deploys-missiles-on-syria-border/

Turkey has deployed ground-to-air missiles on its border with Syria, a report says.

According to a Sunday report by the Turkish Anadolu Agency, Ankara also deployed troop carriers along the border with Syria.
A train convoy transporting several missile batteries arrived in the southeastern province of Mardin on Sunday.
The report comes at a time when relations between Ankara and Damascus have deteriorated.

On June 22, Syria said its air defense forces shot down a Turkish F-4 Phantom in the Syrian airspace “according to the laws that govern such situations.” The aircraft crashed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told TRT television on June 24, “According to our conclusions, our plane was shot down in international airspace, 13 nautical miles from Syria.”
However, Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi said in a press conference in Damascus a day later that the Turkish warplane “violated Syrian airspace, and in turn Syrian air defenses fired back and the plane crashed inside Syrian territorial waters.”

On June 26, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in an address to the parliament that Ankara would retaliate “with determination” and take the “necessary steps by determining the time, place and method by itself.”

The Turkish Hurriyet Daily reported on the same day that Ankara had deployed a “large number of military vehicles to the Syrian border,” including “15 armored tanks, in addition to long-distance guns and other military vehicles.”
Turkish state media also reported on June 28 that Ankara had sent a convoy of about 30 military vehicles, including trucks loaded with missile batteries, to the Syrian border.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told the Turkish Cumhuriyet daily in an interview in early July that Turkey “has supplied all logistic support to the terrorists who have killed our people.”


Monday, May 28, 2012

Laying the Foundations for Preemptive Nuclear War Against Iran



By: Nile Bowie

Nile Bowie’s Blog

Source: Global Research

As prospects for a preemptive strike on Iran remain ever present, the recent round of talks between the P5+1 and Iran in Baghdad on May 23rd, 2012 have resulted in a familiar stalemate. As a precondition for any deal to stop higher-grade uranium enrichment, Tehran requested immediate relief from economic sanctions as a show of reciprocity [1].

Iranian chief negotiator Saeed Jalili emphasized Tehran’s right to develop peaceful nuclear energy as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while the P5+1 refused to scale back economic sanctions, insisting Iran suspend its 20% uranium enrichment program [2].

As leaders in Tel Aviv assert that Israel may conduct military strikes against Iran before the US Presidential elections in November [2], Major General Hassan Firouzabadi of the Iranian Armed Forces reiterated Iran’s commitment to the full annihilation of the Zionist regime and the continual support of Palestinian autonomy [3]. Even if Tehran reaches an agreement with the IAEA, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak refused to rule out a military strike against Iranian facilities, demanding that Iran dismantle its uranium enrichment sites and use only imported fuel [4].

Although the recent conference in Baghdad failed to meet the expectations of its participants, Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have agreed to hold another round of talks in Moscow on June 18th [5]. As a further indication of division between P5+1 participants, Germany has pledged to work toward a political and diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear energy issues by providing Tehran with technical assistance in developing a peaceful nuclear program [6], while the US Senate recently approved a new round of sanctions against Iran aimed at any country or company that provides technology or resources to develop Tehran’s oil and uranium resources [7]. The new legislation targets Iran’s national oil and tanker firms and widens sanctions on Iran’s energy sector to any international joint venture where Tehran is a substantial partner or investor. As the US continually pressures Beijing to join its oil embargo, the Chinese Foreign Ministry remains vocally opposed to the new package of economic sanctions against Iran [8].

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich blasted the US for imposing new unilateral sanctions against Iran, describing the move as an irrational measure intended to the harm pace of negotiations [9]. India has remained adamant against expanding sanctions on Iran [10], as New Delhi and Tehran agree to increase annual bilateral trade two thirds to $25 billion by 2015, confirming their intent to bypass US sanctions by making payments for a significant portion of its oil purchases from Iran in rupees [11]. As further cooperation between the US and the Persian Gulf monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) remains evident through their unanimous support of Syria’s armed opposition, Saudi Arabia remains a major beneficiary under the continued imposition of sanctions on Tehran from Washington. Japan and South Korea once accounted for 26% of Iran's oil exports [12], now both Seoul [13] and Tokyo [14] have sought stable supplies of crude oil from Saudi Arabia. As South Africa turns to Saudi Arabia after halting business with Iran [15], the kingdom’s crude output is at a thirty-year high [16], as shipments to the United States quietly rise to 25% [17].

As a result of sanctions on Iran, Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund predicts that oil prices could spike as much as 30% and hover around $160 per barrel if Iran's crude oil exports fell sharply [18]. As Iranian production hits a ten-year low as of March 2012, industry-wide fears of a recession-fueled fall in demand have prompted the reduction of total world oil production through the imposition of embargoes on Iranian oil; higher prices triggered by a supply squeeze from the sanctions work to further benefit international oil companies and producers like Saudi Arabia [19]. In March 2012, the US granted Japan and 10 EU nations a six-month reprieve to gradually cut their imports of Iranian oil, lest they be subjected to their own financial sanctions and cut off from the US financial system [20]. Under the 2012 US National Defense Authorization Act, Barack Obama can impose financial sanctions on foreign banks that carry out financial transactions with Iran's central bank "for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran" [21].




Given the fragile state of the European economy, the further implementation of financial sanctions on nations who fail to comply with the oil embargo on Iran is thoroughly unreasonable, with entirely negative implications for the European Union. Any further escalation of tensions with Iran would likely trigger inflated oil prices, which could further cripple the unstable economies of Greece and Portugal and potentially lead to those nations leaving the European Union. Despite Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qassemi downplaying the negative effects of sanctions [22], inflation is soaring within Iran as the cost of food increases between 25% to 125%, with 60% of the population relying on cash subsidies handed out by Tehran [23]. Iran’s budget deficit for the 2011/2012 fiscal year is expected to be between $30 to $50 billion, as the Iranian rial continues to plunge after the imposition of the oil embargo, causing widespread panic buying of gold among the Iranian public [24].

As commodity prices in Iran continue to skyrocket, former Mossad director Efraim Halevy remarked, “The rial is going down, it's gone down by over 50 percent. It's almost impossible to describe the damage done," while former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami forewarns, "When a national currency loses 50% of its value in a matter of weeks, economic collapse is at hand.” [25][26]. As Iran struggled to replace it’s client base following the imposition of US-led economic sanctions, Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz spoke before the Israeli cabinet predicting the collapse of the Iranian economy [27]. Haaretz reports the remarks of an unnamed senior official in the Israeli Foreign Ministry, "These aren't sanctions against Iran. Instead, they are sanctions imposed by the West to curb Israel's attack plans, had Israel not spoken out about its intention to attack, none of this would be happening. The Iranians are frightened. You have to understand what's going on there in stores; citizens grab food off the shelves because they are worried about an impending attack. Inflation is soaring and the currency has lost half its value. All this attests to fear." [28]

As the black market in Iran expands amid an increasing lack of public confidence in the rial, the role of the state is indirectly strengthened because smuggling imports requires strong connections within the regime, leaving the poor and lower middle class susceptible to poverty while the officials being targeted by sanctions themselves benefit from the embargo [29]. The fact that Obama administration chose to preemptively impose sanctions on Iran before the P5+1 meeting in Baghdad even took place indicates that the objective of US-Israeli policy toward Iran seeks not mutual agreement and reconciliation, but the further perpetuation of conflict to ensure that the question of Iran’s nuclear energy issue remains unsolved. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the scope for sanctions over Iran's nuclear program had been exhausted and any additional measures were intended to provoke discontent in the Iranian population [30].




As the United States and its allies offer unflinching support to armed opposition groups under cover of “democratic activism” in non-acquiescent countries in the region, any popular revolution in Iran would unquestionably be supported and used to pressure the government from within, even using the opportunity to launch an armed opposition insurrection. An articled published in The New Yorker by Seymour M. Hersh entitled, “Our Men in Iran?,” documents how members of Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian dissident group and US State Department-listed terrorist organization, were trained in communications, cryptography, small-unit tactics and weaponry by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) at a base in Nevada starting in 2005 [31]. JSOC instructed MEK operatives on how to penetrate major Iranian communications systems, allowing the group to intercept telephone calls and text messages inside Iran for the purpose of sharing them with American intelligence. The group has been implicated in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists [32] and the planting of the Stuxnet malware that sabotaged Iran’s nuclear facility in Natanz [33].

MEK was founded in 1965 as a Marxist Islamic mass political movement aimed at agitating the monarchy of the US-backed Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The group initially sided with revolutionary clerics led by Ayatollah Khomeini following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but eventually turned away from the regime during a power struggle that resulted in the group waging urban guerilla warfare against Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in 1981. The organization was later given refuge by Saddam Hussein and mounted attacks on Iran from within Iraqi territory, killing an estimated 17,000 Iranian nationals in the process [34]. MEK exists as the main component of the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a “coalition of democratic Iranian organizations, groups and personalities,” calling itself a "parliament-in-exile” seeking to “establish a democratic, secular and coalition government” in Iran [35]. Following the toppling of Saddam Hussein, UN special representative in Iraq Martin Kobler organized efforts to relocate MEK insurgents to a former US military base near the Baghdad airport, with the full support of the US Embassy in Iraq and the State Department to avoid violent clashes between the MEK and the Shiite-led Iraqi government [36].

MEK has long received material assistance from Israel, who assisted the organization with broadcasting into Iran from their political base in Paris, while the MEK and NCRI have reportedly provided the United States with intelligence on Iran's nuclear program. Despite the documented cases of atrocities committed by MEK forces, elder statesmen such as former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley K. Clark, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former 9/11 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton were paid $20,000 to $30,000 per engagement to endorse the removal of the Mujahideen-e Khalq from the US State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations [37]. NBC News reports that Israel provided financing, training and arms to Mujahideen-e Khalq, who are responsible for killing five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 using motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars [38]. A recent investigation by the US Treasury Department has indicated that Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization is financially sponsored by the Israeli regime and Saudi Arabia [39].

Upon launching a war against Iran, aggressor nations would likely utilize MEK forces as opposition insurgents and could even recognize the touted “parliament-in-exile”, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, as Iran’s legitimate representative, much like how the Friends of Syria group has recognized the opposition Syrian National Council [40]. From her political base in Paris, exiled NCRI leader Maryam Rajavi is a strong candidate for Western support in contrast to internal opposition figures such as Mir-Hossein Mousavi, former Iranian Prime Minister turned political reformist and figurehead of the Green Movement demonstrations in 2009 following the victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in elections widely perceived as a fraudulent [41]. Although Mousavi has advocated greater personal freedoms in Iran and the disbanding of religious police enforcers, he is a strong advocate of Iran’s nuclear energy program and would likely never yield the kind of acquiescence to Western policy that exiled figures such as Maryam Rajavi would uphold in exchange for political support and material assistance [42]. It is widely believed that Mousavi is currently held under house arrest without an arrest warrant, charge or trial [43].

While figures such as Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi publically renounce nuclear weapons [44], Iranian scientists claim to be enriching uranium to 20% to develop radiopharmaceuticals and industrial isotopes under the supervision of the IAEA inspectors [45]. On October 1, 2010, the IAEA proposed a deal according to which Iran would send 3.5% enriched uranium abroad and receive 20% enriched uranium from potential suppliers in return, namely France and the United States, who Tehran accused of stalling negotiations from the start [46]. Tehran was offered a deal at a time when its supplies of 20% enriched uranium were nearly depleted, however Iranian lawmakers rejected the deal after technical studies showed that it would only take two to three months for any country to further enrich the nuclear stockpile and turn it into metal nuclear plates for the Tehran Research Reactor, while suppliers had announced that they would not return fuel to Iran in any time less than seven months [47].

Iran has made efforts to ensure the transparency of its nuclear program by allowing IAEA probes to inspect Iranian sites such as the Parchin military complex where the agency has reported suspicious activities in the past [48]. The IAEA’s recent discovery of traces of uranium enriched up to 27% at Iran's Fordo enrichment plant sparked controversy, although the enrichment figure is still substantially below the 90% level needed to make the fissile core required in nuclear arms; officials conceded that the likely explanation for the increased level of enrichment was attributed to centrifuges initially over-enriching at the start as technicians adjusted their output [49]. It should be noted that former chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Hans Blix has challenged the IAEA’s own reports on Iran’s nuclear activities, accusing the agency of relying on unverified intelligence from the US and Israel [50]; the IAEA’s most recent report cited Tehran's progress toward enrichment technology with complete cooperation with the agency and confirms the non-weaponized status of Iranian nuclear activities [51].

Clinton Bastin, former director of US nuclear weapons production programs, has sent an open letter to President Obama regarding the status of Iran’s capacity to produce nuclear weapons [52]. Bastin reiterates, “The ultimate product of Iran's gas centrifuge facilities would be highly enriched uranium hexafluoride, a gas that cannot be used to make a weapon. Converting the gas to metal, fabricating components and assembling them with high explosives using dangerous and difficult technology that has never been used in Iran would take many years after a diversion of three tons of low enriched uranium gas from fully safeguarded inventories. The resulting weapon, if intended for delivery by missile, would have a yield equivalent to that of a kiloton of conventional high explosives” [53]. The US-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) has recently released claims that Iran’s total production of enriched uranium over the past five years would be enough for at least five nuclear weapons stating, "This total amount of 3.5 percent low enriched uranium hexafluoride, if further enriched to weapon grade, is enough to make over five nuclear weapons." [54]

Bastin’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear program further emphasizes the impracticality of weaponizing the hexafluoride product of Tehran’s gas-centrifuges, as the resulting deterrent would yield the equivalent explosive capacity equal to a kiloton of conventional explosives, producing a highly inefficient nuclear weapon. If Iran chose to produce nuclear weapons in this way, it would take several years to reach the 90% enrichment levels needed for a nuclear deterrent; Iran has complied with the IAEA and the United Nations on this issue and there is no substantial evidence indicating that Tehran has any intention of enriching uranium to 90% for the purpose of creating nuclear weapons. On March 23rd, 2012, Reuters released a special report entitled, “Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent”, concluding that the United States, its European allies and even Israel agree that Tehran does not have a bomb, it has not decided to build one, and it is years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead [55]. As the West continually implements an unyielding regime of sanctions against Iran when they themselves acknowledge the civilian nature of the Iranian nuclear program, the overwhelming motive behind their actions to pressure Iran into full-scale war on an unprecedented scale is self-evident.

The United States has produced more than 70,000 nuclear weapons between 1951 and 1998 [56], while Israel possess a nuclear weapons stockpile ranging from 75 to 400 warheads [57]. While the hazardous ramifications of Iran’s nuclear development pervade public consciousness, the fact that US legal doctrine has worked to further blur the line between conventional and nuclear warfare remains rarely acknowledged. The March 2005 Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations released by the Joint Chiefs of Staff envisages “contingency plans” for an offensive first strike use of nuclear weapons against both Iran and North Korea, providing the legal mandate to carry out pre-emptive nuclear war, both in terms of military planning as well as defense procurement and production [58] The 2002 adoption of the Pentagon’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review by the US Congress marked the cease of prohibition on low yield nuclear weapons and provided funding allocations to pursue the development of tactical nuclear weapons, such as bunker buster (earth penetrator) mini-nukes [59].

The revised Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (March 2005) envisaged five scenarios where “the use of nuclear weapons might be requested,” namely, “to attack adversary installations including weapons of mass destruction, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons, or the command and control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies” and “to counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces”. The doctrine further cites, “Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use” [60].

The possibility of nuclear strikes against Iran pose staggeringly frightening implications for the human family, as the very nations crying foul about the danger of nuclear weapons have prepared the legal infrastructure to use them against others, preemptively. While trust towards the Iranian regime remains questionable among segments of the Iranian population and the international community, Tehran has complied with the IAEA and no evidence exists to implicate Iran with constructing a nuclear weapon. While the fiery rhetoric of Iranian and Israeli officials remains entirely counterproductive, Tel Aviv has shown the least initiative to constructively partake in diplomacy with Iran, as top Israeli officials refuse to even meet with US envoy to the P5+1, Wendy Sherman, who reportedly was sent to Tel Aviv to "reaffirm our unshakable commitment to Israel's security" [61]. As Israel aggressively employs an apartheid policy domestically, nuclear-armed Tel Aviv boasts its right to strike Iran without consent from any other nation [62]. As our species approaches the increasingly dangerous crossroads of the 21st Century, nations such as Germany, Russia, India and China must utilize their collective influence and technology to mediate this impending security crisis in the Middle East.

Although Iran has asserted its right to develop peaceful nuclear technology as a signatory to the nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, its uranium-based fuel has wrought negative and inaccurate accusations regarding Tehran’s intentions to weaponize. To ensure the further deflection of erroneous accusations, Iran can truly make an example of itself by phasing out uranium-based nuclear technology and shifting to a liquid fuel based on molten-fluoride salts used in Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) nuclear technology powered by thorium, an obscure, mildly radioactive metal produced as a waste product from the mining of rare earth minerals. Thorium is plentiful, easily accessible and energy dense, a metric ton produces as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3,500,000 ton of coal [63]. Thorium-based reactors consume their own hazardous waste and would serve Iran’s internal needs far more effectively than its current technology. As a nuclear fuel, thorium is both cleaner and safer than uranium and produces benign alpha radiation, unable to even penetrate skin [64].

The governments of China [65] and India [66] have expressed great interest in further developing thorium molten-salt reactor technology. Iran holds 9% of the world’s oil reserves and 17% of its natural gas reserves; the abundant supply of fossil fuel resources has indirectly discouraged the pursuit of alternative renewable energy sources [67]. Iran has enormous potential as a producer of geothermal energy, particularly in the provinces of Azerbaijan and Tehran [68]. There is no shortage of solutions to the current problems faced by the international community in its efforts to oversee peaceful energy technology in Iran. China, Germany and India could share their growing technical expertise with Iran to develop energy solutions that can never be used as a pretext for external military strikes. No credible basis exists to warrant the implementation of economic sanctions against Iran, which are ostensibly in place to coax social unrest and collapse the Iranian economy.

For all the belligerence exuded by the current Iranian regime, the unwavering aggressive it receives from outside forces does nothing to offer the people of Iran any tangible solutions to better themselves and their standard of living. Although the further application of sanctions will inevitably have damaging effects on Tehran, inflated oil price fluctuations have the potential to fracture the fledging austerity-states of the European Union. The failure of emerging markets to adhere to full embargoes on Iran once they come into effect would send a strong message to the architects of such disastrous policy. As nations such as China and Russia acknowledge the imbalanced nature of power in the Security Council and the aggressive stance of the United States and Israel, these nations can best utilize their power by offering technological and diplomatic solutions to avert the detrimental social, economic and spiritual consequences of war.



Video Source: Russia Today

Nile Bowie is an independent writer and photojournalist based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Notes

[1] Iran accuses world powers of creating 'difficult atmosphere' in nuclear talks, Haaretz, May 24, 2012
[2] Iran claims ‘undeniable right’ to enrich Uranium: new talks, same deadlock, Russia Today, May 25, 2012
[3] Israel takes back promise to Obama not to attack Iran before the election, Russia Today, May 24, 2012
[4] Top Commander Reiterates Iran's Commitment to Full Annihilation of Israel, FARS, May 20, 2012
[5] Deal or no deal, Iran may be bombed – Israeli minister, Russia Today, May 23, 2012
[6] Germany Ready to Find Diplomatic Solution to Iran's N. Issue, FARS, May 25, 2012
[7] US Senate approves sanctions against Iran, New Straits Times, May 22, 2012
[8] China slams new US sanctions against Iran, PressTV, May 23, 2012
[9] Moscow Raps US New Sanctions against Iran as Irrational Move, FARS, May 25, 2012
[10] India against more sanctions on Iran, The Hindu, February 11, 2012
[11] India, Iran look at $25 billion trade by 2015, The Economic Times, March 12, 2012
[12] Japan to reduce oil imports, BBC, January 12, 2012
[13] Saudi oil minister pledges Seoul stable crude supply, The Korea Herald, February 3, 2012
[14] Japan to seek stable oil supply from Saudi Arabia, Reuters, May 7, 2012
[15] South Africa Engen buys Saudi crude to replace Iranian supplies, Al Arabiya, May 9, 2012
[16] Saudi Arabia says kingdom pumping 10 million bpd, the most in 5 months, Al Arabiya, May 8, 2012
[17] Exclusive: Iran sanctions seen spurring more Saudi oil sales to U.S. Reuters, March 16, 2012
[18] Iran: Meetings with IAEA Head Paves Way for Negotiations with 5+1, FARS, May 24, 2012
[19] Turkey cuts 20% of oil purchases from Iran, Financial Times, March 30, 2012
[20] U.S. exempts 11 states from Iran sanctions; China, India exposed, Reuters, March 21, 2012
[21] Ibid
[22] Iranian Minister Blames EU Sanctions for Hike in Oil Prices, FARS, March 25, 2012
[23] No One Can Afford Another Round of Iran Sanctions, OilPrice, May 21, 2012
[24] Iran raises interest rate on bank deposits, Financial Times, January 27, 2012
[25] Warning Iran, and lacerating Mitt Romney, a former Mossad chief steps out of the shadows, The Times of Israel, March 28, 2012
[26] Iran’s Nuclear Grass Eaters, Project Syndicate, April 4, 2012
[27] Steinitz: SWIFT sanctions may lead to Iran's economic collapse, YNET News, March 18, 2012
[28] Israeli threats of attack sparked new wave of Iran sanctions, officials say, Haaretz, March 16, 2012
[29] Iran’s Middle Class on Edge as World Presses In, The New York Times, February 6, 2012
[30] Q&A: Iran sanctions, BBC, February 6, 2012
[31] Our Men in Iran? The New Yorker, April 6, 2012
[32] Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News, MSNBC, February 9, 2012
[33] Stuxnet Loaded by Iran Double Agents, ISSSource, April 11, 2012
[34] Moqtada Sadr Reiterates Iraqis' Demand for Expulsion of MKO Terrorists, Fars News Agency, September 19, 2011
[35] About the National Council of Resistance of Iran, The National Council of Resistance of Iran, 2010
[36] Are the MEK’s U.S. friends its worst enemies? Foreign Policy, March 8, 2012
[37] Mujahideen-e Khalq: Former U.S. Officials Make Millions Advocating For Terrorist Organization, Huffington Post, August 8, 2011
[38] Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News, MSNBC, February 9, 2012
[39] Israel funds terrorist MKO: Investigation, PressTV, May 24, 2012
[40] Friends of Syria recognize SNC as 'legitimate representative', Russia Today, April 1, 2012
[41] Iran's supreme leader orders investigation into claims of vote fraud, Xinhua, June 15, 2009
[42] Iran's presidential candidates, BBC, June 12, 2009
[43] Iran: Further information: Opposition leaders arbitrarily held, Amnesty International, 2011
[44] Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons, The Washington Post, April 13, 2012
[45] Iranian Experts Place Fuel Plates into Heart of Tehran Research Reactor, FARS, May 23, 2012
[46] Ibid
[47] Ibid
[48] UN nuclear chief: Deal reached on Iran probe, Russia Today, May 22, 2012
[49] Traces of uranium enriched to higher than previous levels found at Iran site, Haaretz, May 25, 2012
[50] Blix: US, Israel source most of IAEA allegations, PressTV, March 25, 2012
[51] Envoy: UN Atomic Report Endorses Peaceful Nature of Iran's N. Activities, FARS, May 26, 2012
[52] Iran has a Nuclear Power, Not a Weapons Program, 21st Century & Technology, December 2, 2011
[53] Top US Nuclear Expert Tells Obama: There Is No Weapons Threat From Iran, LaRouche Pac, February 25, 2012
[54] 'Iran has enough enriched uranium for 5 nuclear bombs' The Times of India, May 26, 2012
[55] SPECIAL REPORT-Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent, Reuters, March 23, 2012
[56] 50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Brookings Institute, August 1998
[57] Nuclear Weapons - Israel, Federation of American Scientists, January 8, 2007
[58] Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, March 2005
[59] Ibid
[60] Ibid
[61] U.S. sends senior envoy to Israel to brief government on Iran nuclear talks, Haaretz, May 25, 2012
[62] Bad news unwelcome: Israel refuses to listen to US envoy’s report on Iran, Russia Today, May 26, 2012
[63] How Iran can have nuclear power and the world can have peace, Russia Today, May 07, 2012
[64] Thorium: How to save Europe’s nuclear revival, Centre for European Reform, June 2011
[65] India plans 'safer' nuclear plant powered by thorium, The Guardian, November 1, 2011
[67] Renewable energy in Iran: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development, International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, Spring 2004
[68] Status of Geothermal Energy in Iran, 19th World Energy Congress, September 2004


Biden vows to confront rising power of China


US Vice President Joe Biden speaks at West Point during the graduation ceremony for the class of 2012 in New York, May 26, 2012

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/05/27/243310/china-rise-poses-challenge--us/

The US Vice President Joe Biden says Washington has devised a new policy in a bid to counter the rising power and influence of China.

Joe Biden on Saturday addressing cadets of the US Military Academy during a graduation ceremony in West Point, New York, spoke about the United States’ shift in policy-making.

Biden said the United States will continue to take charge internationally and focus on Asia, particularly China which he called ‘the most critical relationship to get right.’

His remarks were in line with President Barack Obama’s newly announced military strategy that would focus US attention on Asia. Obama delivered the speech at the US Air Force Academy last Wednesday.

The US vice president focused said US combat troops have returned home from Iraq, the conflict in Afghanistan is winding down and American commandos killed al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

Obama earlier this year unveiled a new military strategy that would "pivot" US attention to Asia.

Biden’s remarks come nearly ten days after the Pentagon said it believes China spent up to $180 billion on its military buildup last year, a far higher figure than acknowledged by Beijing, and it accused "Chinese actors" of being the world's biggest perpetrators of economic espionage.

"Chinese actors are the world's most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage," the report said.

"Chinese attempts to collect US technological and economic information will continue at a high level and will represent a growing and persistent threat to US economic security."

The report was the first by the Pentagon since President Barack Obama last year launched a policy "pivot" to reinforce US influence across the Asia-Pacific, even as planned belt-tightening shrinks the size of the US military in many other parts of the world.


Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Will China Make the Yuan a Gold-Backed Currency?


Source: Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30978

If China Backs Its Currency with Gold, It Could Have Profound Effects for Investors … and Consumers. - Larry Edelson – writes today:

I know for a fact that Beijing wants its yuan to eventually become a gold-backed currency, much like the Swiss franc was originally. Backing the yuan with some gold will certainly help it become a major international currency.

Edelson is a financial adviser who travels frequently to Asia, a former high-volume gold trader who is interviewed a lot in the mainstream financial media.

I have no idea whether Edelson is right or not. But he’s not the first to make the claim.

Doug Casey says that if one country – such as China – switches to a gold-backed currency, the dollar will be toast:

All it will take for the world to realize that U.S. dollars are nothing more than hot potatoes is for one country (Doug postulated that maybe China would be first) to introduce a gold-backed currency. If China introduced a gold-backed yuan, for example, who on earth would want anything to do with U.S. dollars?

Similarly, Safe Haven points out:

Suppose a large exporter, such as China, which undervalues its currency and runs a large trade surplus as a result, takes a huge radical step and goes all the way to a 100%-reserve gold currency. The ultimate hard currency. If this succeeds, China is the new England – the financial capital of the world, forever. Everyone else’s money? In a word: pesos. Hard currency is Chinese currency. China’s natural supremacy over the barbarian kingdoms of the West is restored.

Goldcore argues:

China is clearly trying to position the yuan or renminbi as the alternative global reserve currency. The Chinese likely realize that they will need to surpass the Federal Reserve’s official, but unaudited, gold holding of 8,133.5 tones.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick recently mooted the possibility of a return to some form of gold standard. It seems extremely likely that senior and influential Chinese policy makers, bankers and government officials may be having similar thoughts.

Simit Patel writes:

China’s central bank continues to aggressively accumulate gold. Is this a setup for making the renminbi a gold-backed currency? Many have speculated that this is the game plan. Certainly a currency that is gold-backed will have appeal as a reserve currency capable of storing wealth; indeed, the reason why the US was able to position itself as a reserve currency is largely because it was once pegged to gold.

MaxKeiser says:

China is clearly trying to position the yuan or renminbi as the alternative global reserve currency. The Chinese likely realize that they will need to surpass the Federal Reserve’s official, but unaudited, gold holding of 8,133.5 tones. China is the sixth largest holder of gold reserves in the world today and officially has reserves of 1054.1 tones which is less than half those of even Euro debtor nations France and Italy who are believed to have 2,435.4 and 2,451.8 tones respectively.

[This] game theory article is great because it points out that China does not need to amass a gold stock similar to the US, it can simply go to a gold standard now and effect a simultaneous devaluation against the dollar (as game theory dictates that the US and all other CB’s would be forced to follow China’s lead, or risk losing all their capital as investors buy the only gold backed currency in the world).

And Wikileaks noted several reasons for China’s stocking up on gold. ZeroHedge summarizes:

As the following leaked cable explains, gold is, to China at least, nothing but the opportunity cost of destroying the dollar’s reserve status. Putting that into dollar terms is, therefore, impractical at best, and illogical at worst. We have a suspicion that the following cable from the US embassy in China is about to go not viral but very much global, and prompt all those mutual fund managers who are on the golden sidelines to dip a toe in the 24-karat pool. The only thing that matters from China’s perspective is that “suppressing the price of gold is very beneficial for the U.S. in maintaining the U.S. dollar’s role as the international reserve currency. China’s increased gold reserves will thus act as a model and lead other countries towards reserving more gold. Large gold reserves are also beneficial in promoting the internationalization of the RMB.” Now, what would happen if mutual and pension funds finally comprehend they are massively under invested in the one asset which China is without a trace of doubt massively accumulating behind the scenes is nothing short of a worldwide scramble, not so much for paper, but every last ounce of physical gold…

From Wikileaks:

3. CHINA’S GOLD RESERVES

“China increases its gold reserves in order to kill two birds with one stone”

“The China Radio International sponsored newspaper World News Journal (Shijie Xinwenbao)(04/28): “According to China’s National Foreign Exchanges Administration China ‘s gold reserves have recently increased. Currently, the majority of its gold reserves have been located in the U.S. and European countries. The U.S. and Europe have always suppressed the rising price of gold. They intend to weaken gold’s function as an international reserve currency. They don’t want to see other countries turning to gold reserves instead of the U.S. dollar or Euro. Therefore, suppressing the price of gold is very beneficial for the U.S. in maintaining the U.S. dollar’s role as the international reserve currency. China’s increased gold reserves will thus act as a model and lead other countries towards reserving more gold. Large gold reserves are also beneficial in promoting the internationalization of the RMB”.


Thursday, May 17, 2012

Infringing national sovereignty could lead to nuclear apocalypse - Medvedev


Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, right, addresses the 2nd St Petersburg International Legal Forum, 17 May 2012. (RIA Novosti / Dmitry Astakhov)

Source: Russia Today
http://rt.com/politics/infringing-sovereignty-nuclear-apocalypse-482/

Diminishing the principle of state sovereignty is fraught with the destruction of the world order and a full-scale war, even with the use of nuclear weapons, warns Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

“We have seen many examples of infringements on sovereignty in the recent years. Just remember military operations against foreign countries in violation of UN resolutions, statements that this or that regime has lost legitimacy – by the way, from the point of view of a foreign state rather than the people in question – as well as introduction of sanctions bypassing international organizations,” Medvedev stated at the International Legal Forum in St. Petersburg.

He specifically stressed that United Nations, although not perfect, is the only tool in the settlement of conflicts for the international community.

“We have no other platform, even though some may not like it. It is the UN Charter that calls for respecting the supremacy of law and sovereignty of states,” Medvedev pointed out.

He went on to say that hasty military operations usually end up with radicals coming to power.

The premier added that those issues, including the situation around Syria and nuclear security, will be discussed at the G8 summit in Camp David on May 18-19.


Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi freezes Iran transactions


By Ayai Tomisawa

Source: Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/ny-court-mufg-iran-idUSL4E8GGB5E20120517

May 17 (Reuters) - Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, which handles most of Japan's payments for oil imports from Iran, said on Thursday it had frozen transactions with Iranian banks after being ordered to do so by the New York District Court earlier this month.

The head of the Japan's banking lobby group said the action could affect crude imports, although the country's biggest refiner said it was not facing a problem paying for Iranian oil.

The move stems from a U.S. court decision in 2007 that ordered Iran to pay more than $2.6 billion to survivors and victims' family members of the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, a bank spokesman said.

The bank filed an objection to the court ruling on Wednesday, another spokesman said.

Among Japan's three biggest banks only Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ received the order, banking sources in Tokyo said on Thursday. Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ was targeted because it accounts for almost all Iranian assets handled by Japanese banks, they said.

Banking sources said the rest of the trade was handled by Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp.

"Iranian oil accounts for more than 10 percent of Japan's oil imports. If banks can't make settlements for Iranian oil, this will affect the nation's energy policy," Yasuhiro Sato, president of Mizuho Financial Group and chairman of the Japanese Bankers Association, said on Thursday at a monthly press briefing.

"The issue needs to be addressed by concerned parties including the government," Sato said.

The banking unit of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group did not comment on the amount of assets it has frozen. A spokeswoman at rival Mizuho said the bank had not received a freezing order.

Although the court case is unrelated, the development comes as western governments are imposing further sanctions on Iran to stop the country from pursuing what they say is a nuclear weapons program, a claim the Islamic republic denies.

TIGHTENING SANCTIONS

An EU ban on importing Iranian oil, which takes effect on July 1, will also prevent European insurers and re-insurers from covering tankers carrying its crude anywhere in the world.

Sanctions imposed by the United States earlier and the measures being introduced by the EU have cut oil shipments to Japan, one of the biggest buyers of crude from the Islamic republic.

The move against Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ has not affected payments for Iranian oil at the moment, Japan's top oil refiner, JX Nippon Oil & Energy Corp. said on Thursday.

A JX Nippon Oil spokesman declined to discuss other details, including whether it was considering an alternative payment mechanism.

There have been hundreds of billions of dollars in default judgments against Iran levied by U.S. courts in favor of Americans, and in most cases Iran has ignored the legal proceedings in the United States.

This case was brought by relatives and survivors of the 1983 attack on a barracks in Beirut housing U.S. and French members of a multinational peacekeeping force.

A judge in Washington ruled in 2007 that Tehran had provided financial and logistical support to the militant group Hezbollah in carrying out the suicide bombing that killed 241 soldiers.

The U.S. Senate will consider new Iran sanctions on Thursday with the chamber's Democratic leader, Harry Reid, set to seek approval of a new package of oil and economic sanctions aimed at further pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear program, a Democratic leadership aide told Reuters


AMERICA SHIFTS GEAR FOR WAR ON IRAN


The covert war on Syria is an integral part of the US-led covert war on Iran

By: Finian Cunningham
Source: Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30875

America’s war plans for full spectrum dominance in the oil-rich Middle East and Central Asian region shifted up a gear this week with three significant and inter-related developments.

Forget about viewing events in countries as separate incidents. Syria, Iran and the Gulf monarchies are closely bound up in US-led war plans in the Middle East that are aimed at projecting American political, economic and military power across this vital region and beyond. Events today are but a continuum with US wars of conquest in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Libya as part of an unfolding agenda for hegemony.

First, this week it emerged that the purported Kofi Annan Peace Plan is all but dead. For the past four weeks, the US-led foreign powers have done everything to make sure the supposed peace plan would fail, from Western governments and media constantly excoriating Syrian President Bashar Al Assad for allegedly not abiding by the ceasefire, while these same powers have assiduously supported mercenary groups to go on a full terror assault involving no-warning car bombs and shootings.

US officials are not yet declaring the Annan ceasefire over, but actions on the ground speak volumes. An influx of more powerful weaponry is reported to now have reached the so-called Syrian rebels. The mercenaries trying to topple the Assad government are largely foreign jihadist elements from Libya, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In weeks prior to the 12 April ceasefire, the Syrian government forces were gaining the upperhand, routing these armed groups from their base in the city of Homs.

Under the strictures of the ceasefire, which were tightly and unilaterally applied by Western governments and media to the conduct of the Syrian army, the armed opposition groups appear to have taken advantage of the respite to inflict their worse and to reorganise. Two massive car bombs in the capital, Damascus, on 10 May killed 55 and injured more than 400. The blasts were so powerful they left two large craters in the roads.

This week the foreign-backed mercenaries were reported to have killed 23 Syrian army troops in the town of Rastan, near Homs. The surge in deaths among civilians and security forces reflects the increased firepower that is now making its way into the hands of the mercenaries.

According to the Washington Post, the Gulf monarchies, mainly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are financing the new shipments of weapons. This is drawn from the war-chest of $100 million that was pledged by the US-backed Arab autocrats at the conference in Istanbul at the beginning of April. Officially, the Obama administration is maintaining a cynical fiction that it is only supplying “non-lethal material” to the Syrian armed groups. But it is the US that is now assuming the crucial lead role of overseeing the distribution and deployment of new weapons flowing into Syria.

“The US contacts with the rebel military and the information-sharing with Gulf nations mark a shift in Obama administration policy as hopes [sic] dim for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. Many officials now consider an expanding military confrontation to be inevitable,” reports the Washington Post on the 16 May.

The intensified US-led assault on Syria is not merely aimed at taking out the Assad government. It is an integral part of a long-held Washington plan for imperial dominance across the entire region that has been conducted under the pretexts of “war on terror” and “responsibility to protect”. That is why two other developments this week bear wider significance. Claims disseminated in the Western media that Iran has been using a blast chamber to test nuclear explosions are aimed at elevating again the “rogue spectre” of Iran and criminalizing the government of Tehran. The latest accusations of nuclear weaponisation by Iran come ahead of the second round of P5+1 negotiations next week, which the US-led Western powers have relentlessly used to browbeat Tehran over its legitimate right to develop civilian nuclear energy.

Of course, “nuclear ambitions” – so often said in pejorative tones by the Western powers and their subservient media – have got little to do with the real agenda, which is all about trying to engineer regime change in Tehran to one that will be pliable to Western imperialist interests.

The fatuous Western media coverage on events in Syria over the past year has tried in vain to portray them as part of an heroic Arab Spring revolt by the masses seeking democratic rights. In truth, the Western powers and their Arab/Israeli/Turkish proxies have been inflaming violence in Syria with callous disregard for human rights and democracy, with the immediate goal of achieving pliable regime change in Damascus and ultimately likewise in its regional ally, Tehran.

The covert US-led war on Syria is an integral part of its covert war on Iran. When this war on Syria moves up a gear as signalled by the influx of heavy weapons now flowing into that country, then the corollary is a stepwise aggression towards Iran.

The poisoning of P5+1 negotiations, before they have even resumed, with lurid, baseless claims about Iran testing nuclear weapons is a signal of stepped-up aggression.

Finally, the third development this week pertaining to America’s permanent war ambitions in the oil-rich region was the unveiling of plans for a closer political and military union between the US-backed Gulf monarchs, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. These autocratic Sunni regimes have grown increasingly hostile towards Iran under Washington’s tutelage in recent years.

Provocatively, the Gulf union plans cited the “threat of Iran” without providing an iota of evidence to support such a tendentious allegation. Significantly, when Iran objected to the proposed hostile Sunni bloc, it was met with fiery denunciations from its Persian Gulf neighbours of “flagrantly violating” their sovereignty in what sounded like a choreographed collision course.

The idea for a closer Gulf union was previously promoted by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton when she visited the Saudi capital Riyadh at the of March on her way to the weapons fundraiser in Istanbul to support the Syrian mercenaries. On the agenda in her meeting with the Gulf dictators in Riyadh was the setting up of a joint missile system for the Persian Gulf shaihkdoms.

Taken together, the escalation of war in Syria, the imputing of casus belli against Iran, and the lining up of hostile Gulf Arab states, represent more than a sinister pattern of coincidences. It’s a plan of war.

Finian Cunningham is Global Research’s Middle East and East Africa Correspondent cunninghamfinian@gmail.com



ICJ delivers ruling in favour of South Africa

South Africa's Closing Argument Against Israel for Genocide at the ICJ