Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts

Monday, March 3, 2014

Putin holds aces, Obama deuces



By: Finian Cunningham

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/03/03/353101/putin-holds-aces-obama-deuces/

As Russian troops pour into Ukraine consolidating control over the southern Crimea region it looks as if President Putin has finally had enough of playing games according to bent Western rules.

Vladimir Putin knows that world public opinion and a good many nations are on Russia's side in its show of strength against the cabal of rogue Western states led by Washington.

The morally bankrupt Western cabal tried to play its "sanctimonious card" at the weekend after Putin ordered more troops into the southern Ukrainian territory. American President Barack Obama said with tiresome cliché "the US stands with the international community in condemning violation of Ukraine's sovereignty".

Even more absurdly, US Secretary of State John Kerry later lambasted Russia's "brazen aggression". With a ridiculous straight face, probably due to years of botox treatment, Kerry said: "You just don't invade another country on phoney pretext in order to assert your interests. This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped-up in terms of its pretext. It's really 19th century behaviour in the 21st century."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov shot back that US threats of sanctions and veiled military confrontation against Moscow are "completely unacceptable".

And the subsequent increase in Russian troop deployment in the Crimea seems to be a clear sign that Moscow is snubbing Washington's warnings with the contempt that they deserve.

For a start, Russia knows that it is morally and legally right to make its latest moves. With a Russian ethnic population comprising up to 60 per cent of the Ukraine, particularly in the East and South of the country, Moscow has a responsibility to protect its compatriots in a territory with a long shared history and heritage. Russia has real vital national interests at stake in the Ukraine, and it is entitled to exercise this protection - unlike countless American trumped-up interventions around the globe.

Secondly, Russia knows that the phoney American rulers and their European proxies have been making a mockery of international law in Ukraine over many years and especially in the last three months, during which the West has inflamed social and political unrest to the point where the elected authorities in Kiev were ousted two weeks ago in a Western-backed coup d'état. It is only Western rulers and their delusional media who pretend that the events in Ukraine were "a popular uprising".

The American, British, French and German governments have orchestrated a regime change operation, which now sees a rabble of neo-Nazis and fascists in power in Kiev. The rabid anti-Russian politics of this Western-backed junta poses a real and present threat to the pro-Russian population. True to plan, this junta of unelected quislings who came to power on the back of murderous street violence - violence fully supported and encouraged by the Western states – will in short order give the green light to NATO troops being stationed on Russia's borders.

A third factor emboldening Putin to act decisively in a show of strength against these Western powers is that the Russian leader knows that world opinion is on his side. The world has had enough of US-led state terrorism and lawlessness, declaring war on countries on trumped-up pretexts, including Iraq and Afghanistan, where more than one million have been killed by American and British forces with total impunity. These illegal wars of aggression were based on proven outright lies and fabrications with the collusion of Western media.

The world has had it with US-led aggression against Iran with murderous sanctions that, again, are based on wanton and transparent lies that infringe on the legally entitled rights of the Iranian nation to develop nuclear technology.

The world is sickened by American sponsorship of the genocidal Israeli regime against the Palestinian people - a grotesque regime whose illegal stockpile of nuclear weapons is an affront to international law and morality.

And the world is abhorred by the US-led covert war of aggression on Syria for the past three years, conducted with the help of Arab despots and head-choppers, which has resulted in over 130,000 deaths and millions thrown into abject misery.

More than anything perhaps, the world, including many ordinary Americans, is disgusted by the shameless deception, double standards and hypocrisy of Washington and its European acolytes who claim to represent decency, democracy and the "international community".

In a hollow headline, the London Financial Times claimed: "World rounds on Russia over Crimea move". This is typical Western elite vanity that presumes to speak for the world majority.

The New York Times added: "So far, the Kremlin has shown no sign of yielding to international pressure".

What international pressure? The only people that seem to be in a fluster are the elites in Washington and their slavish coterie of European stooges in London, Paris and Berlin.

In actuality, the world has pointedly remained muted on Russia's moves to defend its interests in Ukraine. China, now the world's biggest trading nation, has indeed sided with Russia. India and the other members of the Non-Aligned Movement have made no comment.

This is because the majority of the world knows who the real aggressors are. The latter are the US and its cronies among the financially and morally bankrupt G7 capitalist club of elite mis-rulers.

With Russia supplying up to 35 per cent of Europe's oil and gas, Moscow knows too that it holds an important ace in this new game. If the EU is foolish enough to push Washington's asinine agenda against Russia over the unrest and violence in Ukraine - which the US and the EU instigated in the first place - then Moscow can bring bankrupt Europe to its knees by turning off the fuel taps.

The old game of one-sided, bent rules - long played by Washington and its Western allies - is over. There's a new game in town, and where Putin has a few aces to play, the bankrupt West is holding a bunch of deuces.
------------------------------
 
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is now located in East Africa as a freelance journalist, where he is writing a book on Bahrain and the Arab Spring, based on eyewitness experience working in the Persian Gulf as an editor of a business magazine and subsequently as a freelance news correspondent. The author was deported from Bahrain in June 2011 because of his critical journalism in which he highlighted systematic human rights violations by regime forces. He is now a columnist on international politics for Press TV and the Strategic Culture Foundation.

News Updates on the unfolding events in Ukraine



 

Saturday, March 1, 2014

Ukrainian army put on combat Alert, Ukraine’s Navy flagship Defects

Update: 2014 March 02 
 

Armed servicemen wait near Russian army vehicles in the Crimean town of Balaclava on March 1, 2014

Source: Press TV

The Ukrainian army has been put on a combat alert as the interim president says any Russia’s military intervention will lead to a war in the crisis-hit country.

Ukraine’s acting President Oleksandr Turchynov made the announcement on Saturday after meeting with the country’s security and defense chiefs.

Turchynov warned Russia against military intervention, saying such a move could lead to a war.

He also added that there was no justification for what he called Russian aggression.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s new Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk said he had urged Russia, in a phone call with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, to return its troops to their base in Ukraine’s autonomous region of Crimea.

Earlier in the day, the Russian parliament approved President Vladimir Putin’s request to deploy troops into Crimea.

"The Duma Council adopted an appeal to the president of Russia, in which parliamentarians are calling on the president to take measures to stabilize the situation in Crimea and use all available means to protect the people of the Crimea from tyranny and violence," Lower House Speaker Sergey Naryshkin said.

The developments came after Crimean Prime Minister Sergei Aksenov asked Putin to help restore peace and calm in the region.

The mission in Crimea is necessary to protect ethnic Russians, and the troops in the peninsula known as the Black Sea Fleet, Putin said.

Putin has yet to decide on the troop deployment. But reports emerging from the region show two Russian anti-submarine warships have appeared off the Ukraine coast.

McCain to Obama: Take steps against Putin over Ukraine crisis


 
Source: Press TV

US Republican Senator John McCain has called on the Obama administration to take action against Russian President Vladimir Putin over the crisis in Ukraine.

During a speech on Friday, President Barack Obama said he is “deeply concerned” by reports Moscow had sent troops into Ukraine’s Crimea region and warned that “there will be costs” for any military intervention in Ukraine.

In a statement on Saturday, the US senator said President Obama should "articulate exactly what those costs will be and to take steps urgently to impose them."

"None of us should be under any illusion about what President Putin is capable of doing in Ukraine," McCain said.

"Every moment that the United States and our allies fail to respond sends the signal to President Putin that he can be even more ambitious and aggressive in his military intervention in Ukraine," he added.

"There is a range of serious options at our disposal at this time without the use of military force," the hawkish Arizona senator said.

Earlier on Saturday, the Russian parliament approved Putin’s request to deploy troops into the autonomous region of Crimea.

According to Putin, the mission is necessary to protect ethnic Russians and the military base in Crimea known as the Black Sea Fleet.

The Russian president has yet to decide on the troop deployment, but reports emerging from the region show two Russian anti-submarine warships have appeared off the Ukraine coast.

Meanwhile, US Senator Bob Corker called for immediate sanctions against Russia.

"Vladimir Putin is seizing a neighboring territory — again — so President Obama must lead a meaningful, unified response," Corker said in a statement.

Ukrainian Navy flagship takes Russia’s side – report


 
The Ukrainian Krivak class frigate Hetman Sahaydachny (Reuters / Gleb Garanich)

Source: Russia Today

Ukraine’s Navy flagship, the Hetman Sahaidachny frigate, has reportedly refused to follow orders from Kiev, and come over to Russia’s side and is returning home after taking part in NATO operation in the Gulf of Aden flying the Russian naval flag.

There has been conflicting information on where exactly the vessel is, but a Russian senator has confirmed to Izvestia daily that the frigate defected to the Russian side.

“Ukraine’s Navy flagship the Hetman Sahaidachny has come over to our side today. It has hung out the St Andrew’s flag,” Senator Igor Morozov, a member of the committee on the international affairs, told Izvestia daily.

He said the flagship is on its way back to the Black Sea after drills in the Mediterranean. “The crew has fulfilled the order by the chief commander of Ukraine’s armed forces Viktor Yanukovich,” he added.

The move comes after the Navy command resigned Friday. Self-appointed President Aleksandr Turchinov made Rear Admiral Denis Berezovsky the new Navy Chief, a statement published on the President’s website Saturday said.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the Prime Minister of Ukraine had earlier asked his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan not to let the frigate through the Bosporus strait, according to the Kiev Times. The ship captain and the head of Ukraine’s contingent in the operation, Rear Admiral Andrey Tarasov disobeyed orders from Kiev.

The Hetman Sahaidachny returns to Sevastopol, Crimea after taking part in a joint counter-piracy operation with NATO and the EU off the Horn of Africa, reported UNN on Friday, citing Ukraine’s Defense Ministry. On February 26, after crossing the Suez Canal, the ship entered the Mediterranean Sea and was expected to be in Sevastopol in early March.
 
Udated: 2014 March 02

Ukraine’s Navy Chief Swears Allegiance to Crimea

Source: Russia Today

News Updates on the unfolding events in Ukraine


 

Putin faces down Obama over Ukraine


 
Russian President Vladimir Putin

By: Finian Cunningham
Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/03/01/352833/putin-faces-down-obama-over-ukraine/

American exceptionalism has gone into overdrive with stern warnings from US President Barack Obama to Russia to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and to not destabilize the region.

By "American exceptionalism" we mean Washington's seemingly unlimited capacity for exceptional arrogance and double think.

Obama has not yet accused Russia outright of "military invasion" in the crisis-torn country, but that was the clear inference from his weekend press conference. In a veiled threat of military confrontation, the American president warned that there would be "costs" for Moscow.

"Any violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity will be deeply destabilizing and the US stands with the international community to affirm that there will be costs [for this violation]," said Obama in a hastily arranged media statement in Washington on Friday.

The White House is obviously rattled by reports of Russian troop movements across Ukraine's southern Crimean Peninsula. Moscow says that its military presence in the autonomous Crimean republic of Ukraine is fully in accord with a long-standing legal agreement to have its soldiers stationed there as part of its Black Sea naval base.

That agreement was renewed in 2010 between Moscow and Kiev for a further 20 years, affording Russian military presence in the Crimea, particularly the naval base at Sevastopol, which is headquarters for Russia's Black Sea fleet.

Russian ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin denied that Russia had invaded Ukraine's territory and said, "We are operating under this agreement [with Ukraine]."

Events in Crimea took on a chaotic twist in recent days when unknown armed men took over the local parliament and the Russian flag was hoisted. There were also other reports of large troop deployments at the main civilian airport and other facilities. Soldiers were not wearing identifiable uniforms, but there were unconfirmed reports that armored vehicles bore Russian military insignia.

Under the existing military lease of the naval base at Crimea's Sevastopol, Russia is permitted to station thousands of troops on the Peninsula, and Moscow has in the past routinely engaged in maneuvers there.

However, it is stretching naivety to believe Moscow's claims that the recent surge in military movements is merely "routine". The Crimean activity coincides with other large-scale mobilization of Russian troops as well as military aircraft on Russia's broader border with Ukraine.

But here's the laughable irony of Obama's protestations. The latest apparent Russian military moves follow months of US-sponsored destabilization in Ukraine. This illegal and covert American interference has trampled all over Ukrainian sovereignty, which ironically Obama is now accusing his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin of doing.

Since Ukraine spurned a tentative trade agreement with the European Union at the end of last November, street protests have escalated in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev. Washington and its European allies, including Britain, France and Germany, have done everything to escalate these protests, from high-profile political statements to clandestine military infiltration through the organs of the CIA. The demonstrations in Kiev quickly took on a quasi-military character with sinister fascist elements using firearms and other forms of violence to seize and occupy government buildings. That rapidity betrays the pre-meditated external nature of the "protests".

There are reliable reports that many of the deaths in clashes between Ukrainian police and protesters were actually caused by Western-backed provocateurs and snipers in a deliberate attempt to inflame the crisis. Washington has infiltrated Ukraine with the CIA and a myriad other so-called "non-governmental organizations" since the early 1990s - with the objective of agitating regime change in the former Soviet Republic.

US State Department official Victoria Nuland recently disclosed that Washington has "invested" some $5 billion in "promoting democracy" (that is, subversion and sedition) in Ukraine over the past two decades.

The crisis came to a head when the embattled elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fled suddenly from his office last week and went into exile in Russia. The Ukrainian parliament has since been taken over by his Western-backed opponents and a new interim government installed. Washington and Brussels swiftly moved to recognize this so-called new authority in Kiev, but Russia, with sound legal reasoning, has denounced the sacking of the elected Yanukovych and his government as a coup d'état.

The turmoil in Ukraine has therefore all the hallmarks of a Washington-led regime-change operation. Needless to say that is a wholly criminal interference that makes a mockery of international law. The ultimate target of this meddling, as has been brazenly stated over many years since the early 1990s by Zbigniew Brzezinski and other US imperial planners, is the destabilization of Russia itself.

Risibly, Washington's new puppet president in Kiev, Oleksandr Turchynov, has now accused Russian forces of "seizing and capturing" the regional parliament and other government buildings in Ukraine's southern Crimea. This complaint comes from political agitators who used violence and other crimes, including the murder of policemen, to seize government buildings in Kiev, culminating in the ousting of an elected president.

In all this, Russian President Vladimir Putin has maintained a cagey silence. But the Russian leader knows only too well the depth of American deception and hypocrisy, and Washington's covert agenda for regime change - an agenda which is being ruthlessly pursued against Russia's Arab ally, Syria.

For now, Moscow seems to be effecting an air of calm legality and playing by the rules, citing that its troops in Crimea are part of its bilateral military agreement with the Ukraine.

But, off the record, the Americans know that what Putin is really saying is this: "You want to break the law, well, OK, we can break it too. Now back off!"

Rules of sovereignty and international law are out the window, and it is Washington and its European puppets who threw all norms out that window with their incessant, illegal interference in Ukraine. Ukrainian territory, and its centuries of shared history, is a vital interest for Russia.

Putin is entirely right to lay down an unspoken military marker to Washington over Ukraine, just like he did when the Americans tried to mess militarily with South Ossetia in 2008 through its NATO proxy, Georgia.

American exceptionalism of arrogance and lawlessness does not understand the language of diplomacy. The only language it responds to is blunt force talking back to force.
--------------------------------
 
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is now located in East Africa as a freelance journalist, where he is writing a book on Bahrain and the Arab Spring, based on eyewitness experience working in the Persian Gulf as an editor of a business magazine and subsequently as a freelance news correspondent. The author was deported from Bahrain in June 2011 because of his critical journalism in which he highlighted systematic human rights violations by regime forces. He is now a columnist on international politics for Press TV and the Strategic Culture Foundation

News Updates on the unfolding events in Ukraine

 

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Obama threatens Syrian president with more Terrorist Attacks


UPDATE: 2014, Feb. 16th


Source: Press TV

US President Barack Obama has threatened that he will step up pressure on the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Obama’s threat came after he hosted King Abdullah II of Jordan at the Sunnylands retreat in Palm Springs, California, where the two discussed, among other things, the unrest in Syria.

The US president said on Friday that he and his royal guest had decided they should take steps “to apply more pressure to the Assad regime.”

“We are going to need a political transition in that region,” Obama said in what sounded like a veiled reference to the announced goal of removing President Assad.

"There will be some intermediate steps that we can take to apply more pressure to the Assad regime, and we’re going to be continuing to work with all the parties concerned to try to move forward on a diplomatic solution,” he said, without specifying what those steps might be.

Several reports have shown over the past year that the US has been covertly training insurgents in Jordan to fight against the Syrian government.

Reports have also revealed that the US shipped weapons to Jordan in order to arm the foreign-backed militant groups.

During the meeting with Jordan’s king, Obama also pledged $1 billion in loan guarantees to Jordan and a renewal of a five-year aid package, which is worth $660 million a year and expires in September.

Shortly after the Geneva II talks between representatives of the Syrian government and the foreign-backed opposition ended with no deals on February 1, insurgents said that Washington had increased direct funding to their commanders in Jordan in order to ramp up pressure on Assad’s government before the next round of talks.

“From now until the next round of talks in Geneva, Assad will be under real pressure — he will feel more pressure from opposition forces,” a militant commander cited a US official as saying.

The “next round of talks in Geneva,” to which the US official had referred, broke off without any results on Saturday as both the Syrian opposition and government officials confirmed that they have been unable to make any progress, with each side sticking to its own position.

---------------------

End arms supply to Syria militants: Iran Envoy


Foreign-backed militants in Syria (file photo)

Source: Press TV

Iranian ambassador to Lebanon has renewed call for an end to foreign arms and financial aid to foreign-sponsored militants fighting against the Syrian government.

“If there is really a political will in the UN and the international community for the settlement of the Syria crisis, the flow of money and arms to terrorists in Syria from outside must be stopped so that there will be a possibility for an end to violence and the start of true negotiations,” Ghazanfar Roknabadi said in a meeting with UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon Derek Plumbly.

The UN official, for his part, underlined the need for addressing issues related to the Syrian refugees, urging that practical measures should be taken to find a political solution to Syria crisis.

Syria has been plagued by deadly crisis since March 2011.

Saudi Arabia has been the main supplier of weapons and funds to foreign-backed militants inside Syria. The United States is also said to have stepped up its financial support for the militants.

This comes as the second round of negotiations between the Syrian government and the foreign-backed opposition in the Swiss city of Geneva hit a deadlock due to sharp differences between the two sides.

UN-Arab League Special Envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi said on Saturday that talks to resolve the Syrian crisis broke off without any result and no date has been yet set for another round.

The Syrian delegation says fighting terrorism should be the top priority. But the opposition insists that formation of a transitional government and resignation of President Bashar al-Assad must come first.
--------------------------------
UPDATE: 2014 Feb 16

McCain urges Syria military intervention


Source: Press TV

Hawkish US Senator John McCain has called on the Obama administration to employ its already-devised plan of military intervention against the Syrian government.

“The only way to achieve success at Geneva is to change the balance of power on the ground,” McCain said in a statement on Saturday, referring to the failure of the so-called Syria peace talks in Geneva.

“There are options far short of an Iraq-style invasion that can, and should, be employed to change the calculation of the Syrian regime, stem the violence, and ultimately achieve a negotiated political solution,” he added.

The second round of negotiations ended on Saturday without any concrete results about the unrest in Syria.

“The second round of Syria peace talks ended today with no progress toward a negotiated political settlement to the conflict and UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi recognizing that failure is looming,” McCain said.

“After three weeks of talks, we are moving further and further away from a peaceful political solution,” he argued.

The Arizona Republican senator also criticized President Barack Obama for allowing Russia to put pressure on him.

“Russia has recently prevented the passage of a much-needed UN resolution on bringing aid to desperate Syrian civilians,” he said. “Such actions indicate that the Russian government is simply not a partner for peace in Syria and cannot be relied on to help secure a successful outcome.”

During a press conference on Friday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said there is no military solution for the crisis in Syria.

“The crisis in Syria is a crisis. The circumstances on the ground are horrific that is why we have to bring the parties together to try to compel them towards a negotiated political settlement because there isn’t a military solution here,” Carney said.
-----------------------------------------

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Congress cites 9/11 Bush cover-up, demands Obama act


 
People walk amongst US national flags in Malibu, California, hoisted by students and staff from Pepperdine University to honor victims of the 9/11 attacks, September 11, 2013

By: Gordon Duff
Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/12/18/340605/congress-cites-911-bush-coverup/

Two members of Congress, specially authorized to view documents on 9/11 censored under the personal authority of President Bush (43), have come away “absolutely shocked,” demanding immediate action.

However, the full story, told for the first time below, explains “why now” and who is really being targeted by revelations of cover-up and conspiracy.

In accusations published yesterday by the leading Tea Party publication, Family Security Matters, Saudi Defense Minister and Intelligence chief Prince Bandar referred to as “Bandar Bush” in his Wikipedia biography for his close relationship with that family, was said to be the planner of 9/11.

In an article by Paul Sperry of the Hoover Institute, Bandar was cited with fleeing the US to avoid prosecution. Here, Sperry quotes a government source: “Our investigations contributed to the ambassador’s departure,” an investigator who worked with the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington told me, though Bandar says he left for “personal reasons.”

Despite these pronouncements, these accusations may well be unfounded speculation. What we have to ask is why are they being made now and why by political groups long close to the Saudi government. Why has Saudi Arabia failed to respond to these very public accusations coming from some of the highest authorities in Washington? “Why are the rats turning on each other?”

Startling disclosures?

This week, Congressional representatives Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) have officially requested a congressional resolution demanding President Obama declassify the heavily redacted Congressional Investigative Report on 9/11.

The two representatives had just been given authority under penalty of “national security secrecy” to read the censored 28 pages of the 800-page report that had not been seen.

For nearly a decade, the US has maintained security policies, both domestic and international, based on threats now known to have been totally fabricated. The cost, trillions of dollars, thousands of Americans dead in wars against “enemies” long known to have never been involved in terror attacks on America, the phony “hunt for bin Laden,” all of it, nothing but utter hogwash.

Bush cited as conspirator

What has been made clear is that President Bush was fully aware that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were involved in 9/11 and that military action against those two nations was done to cover involvement of his administration in 9/11, involvement that included support from foreign intelligence agencies.

The representatives, while reviewing the report, came to the portion titled “Specific Sources of Foreign Support.” A 28-page section here had been “butchered” by the White House on the personal orders of President Bush. On the original report given to Congress, an estimated 5-10,000 words were omitted from this section with page after page of dotted lines replacing text.

The full report carries a tale of not only broad complicity of foreign intelligence agencies but, in the use of the term “complicity,” indications of full knowledge of the funding and planning of 9/11 by the Bush administration.

However, the lawmakers, without the support of a resolution, are under a “gag order” and unable to name the nation or nations that supplied.

Israel, Saudi Arabia or both

Recent revelations tied to events in Syria and Egypt have exposed an unimagined level of cooperation between the intelligence services of Israel and Saudi Arabia. For years, Israel has cited Saudi Arabia as the greatest threat to their security, much greater than Iraq under Saddam or their claims of a “nuclear Iran.” This and much else of what Israel has publicly claimed as part of their “mythology of victimization” is now recognized as falsehood. Though both Israel and Saudi Arabia are known as allies of the US, their partnerships with America have been with specific groups, extremists within government and the military willing to back the plots now plainly evident even when US interests are sacrificed or even American lives are lost.

Telling, today, is the relationship between Al-Nusra and other al-Qaeda “franchises” and the Israeli/Saudi alliance, a relationship that has provided both financial support and weapons, used against Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.

The sections of the 9/11 report that were censored by President Bush may well include reference to that al-Qaeda/Israel/Saudi nexus. What is clear is that not only did the Bush administration wrongly blame bin Laden or “al-Qaeda,” a spurious and illusory group at best, but that those cited, Israel, Saudi Arabia or both, though named for funding and supporting the 9/11 attack, were always under the full control of the Bush administration.

What does exist is proof that the war on terror was, in reality as confirmed by General Wesley Clark, a plan to invade and occupy 7 oil- and gas-rich nations.

Israel put the blame on Saudi Arabia

In an article released yesterday on www.familysecuritymatters.org , Paul Sperry of the Hoover Institute cited, not just the Saudi government as having been behind 9/11 but set the relationship between George W. Bush and Prince Bandar at the crux of the conspiracy.

After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al-Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors. “But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.

It was kept secret and remains so today. President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report.”

Sperry goes on: “Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers - Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi - as they arrived at LAX in 2000.”

Sperry goes on citing instance after instance where Saudi intelligence directly aided al-Qaeda every step of the way.

What is important is that we understand who Sperry represents. Family Security Matters isn’t a simple blog. It is the voice of not just the extreme right but AIPAC as well. Their editors include Senator Ted Cruz, top GOP domestic policy maker and former UN Ambassador John Bolton, Islamophobe extremist, “Israel Firster” and a man who never saw a war he didn’t love.

“Family Matters” is the power center for everything pro-money, pro-hate and pro-Israel. Self-proclaimed “investigative journalist Paul Sperry serves with the Hoover Institute, along with former Secretary of State Condi Rice. The critical aspect of yesterday’s article is that it represents the first time the Israel lobby has been willing to throw former President Bush “under a bus” in order to distance themselves from accusations of complicity in 9/11.

Prior to the exposure of Israel’s role as “mentor” for al-Qaeda in Syria, America’s media was able to suppress not just “conspiracy theories” but accusations backed by evidence and testimony that placed Israel at the center of the 9/11 attacks.

Prince Bandar accused of planning 9/11

Though there is no reason to assume Saudi Arabia is mentioned whatsoever in the redacted Congressional report, Sperry cites payments by Bandar to the alleged 9/11 hijackers and other funding to al-Qaeda.

“Other al Qaeda funding was traced back to Bandar and his embassy - so much so that by 2004 Riggs Bank of Washington had dropped the Saudis as a client. The next year, as a number of embassy employees popped up in terror probes, Riyadh recalled Bandar.”

Real from conjecture

Members of Congress have openly admitted that they have seen documentation that would support an immediate criminal investigation against President Bush (43) and his closest advisors. Further, those agencies involved in compiling this report, key portions of which have remained secret, were also responsible for lying to the 9/11 Commission, not just through omission. All the intelligence that sent America into two wars is now not just suspect, it is proven false.

Recognizing that the nations responsible have not yet been named, though attempts by Family Security Matters to subvert this process are underway, what does stand is evidence of the same conspiracy.

From a CIA transcript dated September 24, 2001, Osama bin Laden is quoted: “The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive.”

Family Security Matters celebrates the death of Osama bin Laden as a terrorist fanatic. They also celebrate the death of Nelson Mandela as a terrorist fanatic. Mandela was right, as history has shown.

----------------------------- 

Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts. Gordon Duff has traveled to over 80 nations. His articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest .

 

Sunday, September 1, 2013

CALL TO ACTION! NO War on Syria!!


John Kerry is planning to appear on NBC's "Meet the Press," ABC's "This Week," CBS's "Face the Nation," CNN's "State of the Union" and "Fox News Sunday. Jam the phone lines of these Presstitutes! Email them, phone them, tweet to them, comment on their YouTube Page, and bombard their facebook page!! Voice your displeasure with them for being the voice of war! Then Call your Government Rep and tell them ““NO Military intervention or Attack on SYRIA!”

Sunday September 1st, 2013

“Fox News Sunday”


Twitter - https://twitter.com/FoxNews Hashtag = @FoxNewsSunday - ADD THIS #Syria




“NBC – Meet the Press”


Twitter – https://twitter.com/meetthepress Hashtag = @meetthepress - ADD THIS #Syria

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/MeetThePress

YouTube – http://www.youtube.com/user/NBC

News Website – http://www.nbcnews.com/

“ABC - This Week”

Twitter – https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC - HashTag = @ThisWeekABC - ADD THIS #Syria




“CBS - Face the Nation”


Twitter – https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation - HashTag = @FaceTheNation - ADD THIS #Syria




“CNN - State of the Union"


Twitter – https://twitter.com/CNNsotu - HashTag = @CNNsotu - ADD THIS #Syria




IMPORTANT!


Contact your Congress Person and tell them “NO Military intervention or Attack on SYRIA!”

Find Your US House Representative here - http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

Find Your US Senator here - http://www.senate.gov/



 

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Obama NOT to reduce spying


 
Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/11/318206/obama-not-to-reduce-spying/

We’ve spent much of the afternoon detailing some of President Obama’s statements concerning his response to the NSA surveillance revelations, combined with some of the documents released by the administration. But a key point in all of this is highlighted in the Associated Press’s coverage of the press conference: President Obama flat out admitted that this was about appeasing a public that doesn’t trust the administration, not about reducing the surveillance.

President Barack Obama made it clear Friday he has no intention of stopping the daily collection of American phone records. And while he offered “appropriate reforms,” he blamed government leaks for creating distrust of his domestic spying program.

In an afternoon news conference, the president acknowledged the domestic spying has troubled Americans and hurt the country’s image abroad. But he called it a critical counterterrorism tool.

Even more to the point, his comments represent a fundamental misunderstanding of why the public doesn’t trust the government. That’s because he keeps insisting that the program isn’t being abused and that all of this collection is legal. But, really, that’s not what the concern is about. Even though we actually know that the NSA has a history of abuse (and other parts of the intelligence community before that), a major concern is that scooping up so much data is considered legal in the first place. So, when President Obama says that we should blindly trust the government not to abuse the data, that’s missing the point:

“Understandably, people would be concerned,” the president said. “I would be, too, if I weren’t inside the government.”

That’s not particularly comforting.

 

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Obama secretly signs the most aggressive cybersecurity directive ever


Photo: Reuters/Rick Wilking

Source: Russia Today

Six years after the White House first started running amok on the computer networks of its adversaries, US President Barack Obama has signed off on a top-secret order that finally offers blueprints for the Pentagon’s cyberwars.

Pres. Obama has autographed an executive order outlining protocol and procedures for the US military to take in the name of preventing cyberattacks from foreign countries, the Washington Post reports, once and for all providing instructions from the Oval Office on how to manage the hush-hush assaults against opposing nation-states that have all been confirmed by the White House while at the same time defending America from any possible harm from abroad.

According to Post’s sources, namely “officials who have seen the classified document and are not authorized to speak on the record,” Pres. Obama signed the paperwork in mid-October. Those authorities explain to the paper that the initiative in question, Presidential Policy Directive 20, “establishes a broad and strict set of standards to guide the operations of federal agencies in confronting threats in cyberspace.”

Confronting a threat may sound harmless, but begs to introduce a chicken-and-the-egg scenario that could have some very serious implications. The Post describes the directive as being “the most extensive White House effort to date to wrestle with what constitutes an ‘offensive’ and a ‘defensive’ action in the rapidly evolving world of cyberwar and cyberterrorism,” but the ambiguous order may very well allow the US to continue assaulting the networks of other nations, now with a given go-ahead from the commander-in-chief. Next in line, the Post says, will be rules of engagement straight from the Pentagon that will provide guidelines for when to carry out assaults outside the realm of what is considered ‘American’ in terms of cyberspace.

“What it does, really for the first time, is it explicitly talks about how we will use cyber operations,” one senior administration official tells the paper of the policy directive. “Network defense is what you’re doing inside your own networks. . . . Cyber operations is stuff outside that space, and recognizing that you could be doing that for what might be called defensive purposes.”

When The New York Times published an exposé on the White House’s so-called Olympics Games program earlier this year, the world became fully aware for once of America’s involvement in international cyberwar, but much to the chagrin of Washington. Officials including members of Pres. Obama’s national security team spoke on condition of anonymity to tell the Times that his predecessor, then-Pres. George W. Bush, began the program in 2006 to target Iran’s nuclear facilities and then passed it along to the current administration to continue under the leadership of the current commander-in-chief.

“From his first months in office,” David Sanger wrote for the Times, Pres. Obama “secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons.”

Congress has fought tooth-and-nail in the months since to plug any leaks that could potentially spill the beans regarding any further secrets with the potential of effecting national security, but those efforts appear unsuccessful given this week’s Post report on Presidential Police Directive 20.

Now take the example of Iran: according to the Post, Pres. Obama’s signature on last month’s directive means the US now has rules and regulations when it comes to protecting its own infrastructure from cyberattack, and can do so by means of launching what appear to be pre-emptive assaults of their own.

“It should enable people to arrive at more effective decisions,” a second senior administration official tells the Post. “In that sense, it’s an enormous step forward.”

That comment echoes US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s insistence earlier this year that “defense alone is not enough” in terms of keeping the country safe. But what it also seems to do is put on the books a presidential policy that equates an overzealous offense with a solid defense. While the US has cited Iranian hackers as the key players behind a recent attack on the websites of Capital One Financial Corp. and BB&T Corp., two of the biggest names in the American banking industry, the US has done little — on the record — to reveal any similar assaults from abroad. Instead, rather, it’s relied on fear-mongering to try and convince the country to accept a cybersecurity legislation that will assure American’s safety from foreign hackers, all for the small price of sacrificing their digital-age privacy.

While the Obama White House has failed to acknowledge the Olympic Games program or any involvement in the Stuxnet or Flames viruses linked to the initiative, computer researchers in both the US and Russia have tied Washington to the cripplingly malicious coding. Earlier this month, California-based Chevron, one of the world’s leaders in the oil sector, went public with claims that Stuxnet had infected — but not affected — their computers after the virus was unleashed.

The ability to slow down or speed up centrifuges in nuclear facilities from thousands of miles away made Stuxnet a virus that had very substantial powers. Refusing to speak of the Olympic Games program specifically, former CIA chief Michael Hayden told the Times, “This is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyberattack was used to effect physical destruction.”

According to the Post’s latest, though, future assaults by way of Stuxnet or similar worms could be considered by Washington as defense mechanisms to make sure Iran doesn’t retaliate for what America has long-been lashing out with. One source tells the Times that, before last month’s directive, severing any link between a US-computer and an overseas server by any means possible would be an act that would put America on the offensive. Now even a preemptive attack that disconnects other countries could be considered a defensive ploy according to the president.

“That was seen as something that was aggressive…particularly by some at the State Department,” one defense official tells the Post. With the signing of Pres. Obama’s latest order, though, the paper writes that the directive “effectively enables the military to act more aggressively to thwart cyberattacks on the nation’s web of government and private computer networks.”

It is thought that, through the directive, any systems linked even remotely with America’s can be fair game for an assault. Given the expansion of cloud computing and the ever-expanding interconnection of communities across the globe on the Web, though, that could essentially enable Uncle Sam’s cybersquad to get away with a whole new slew of tricks to try and topple adversaries of any kind that threaten the American way of life. When and where those actions are necessary, of course, remains another topic of discussion. Will those orders be signed in secrecy as well, though?

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Koch brothers threaten to fire employees if Obama wins


 
David H. Koch (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images / AFP)

Source: Russia Today
http://rt.com/usa/news/koch-brothers-obama-vote-501/

The billionaire Koch brothers this month threatened to fire many of their more than 50,000 employees if they dare to vote for President Obama or any other Democrats in the 2012 elections.

The Kansas-based Koch brothers, who run a multi-national group of companies called the Koch Industries, sent a voter information packet to 45,000 of its Georgia Pacific subsidiary this month, threatening that “many of our more than 50,000 US employees and contractors may suffer the consequences” if they vote for Democrats. The packet also included an op-ed by David Koch endorsing Mitt Romney and one by Charles Koch slamming Obama, reported the monthly magazine, In These Times.

The brothers also warned that electing Democrats would also lead to other consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation and “other ills.”

“This is true regardless of what your political affiliation might be,” reads the cover letter to the packet, written by Koch Industries President and Chief Operating Officer Dave Robertson.

The brothers have already donated millions to Republican candidates and conservative causes, including an $18 million fundraiser for Romney at a beachfront home this summer.

Their threat has created a culture of fear among their employees, who worry they could lose their jobs for expressing their opinions. In September, a group of unionized employees at Georgia Pacific posed for a photograph with Democratic state Senate candidate Arnie Roblan. After the packet arrived in the mail, they grew worried that if the picture fell into the hands of the Koch brothers, it could cost them their jobs – especially since the Georgia Pacific plant is in the background.

But Koch Industries is not the only company seeking to control the votes of its employees. Florida billionaire David Siegel, CEO of Westgate Resorts, recently sent out an e-mail to 7,000 employees describing possible consequences of an Obama win.

“I can’t tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn’t interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose,” Siegel wrote in an e-mail first published by Gawker. But the billionaire CEO then warned that Obama’s reelection would cost some of his employees their jobs.

“So where am I going with all this?” he asked. “It’s quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.”

This e-mail is not the first attempt Siegel has made to keep Republicans in power. Earlier this year he claimed to have been “personally responsible” for former President George W. Bush’s 2000 win, even though his methods may “not necessarily have been legal.”

The largest privately held US coal company, Murray Energy, was also found to have pressured its employees to donate money to Republican candidates, The New Republic found.

“We have been insulted by every salaried employee who does not support our efforts,” CEO Robert Murray wrote in a letter to employees, which listed names of those who had not yet attended fundraisers.

And last year, Delta Airlines offered free Washington, DC-bound flights to flight attendants who agreed to lobby for a Federal Aviation Administration bill that would make it more difficult for employees to unionize.

The Koch brothers threats are just the latest in a series of intimidation tactics by billionaire employers trying to encourage their large number of employees to vote like them.

 

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Obama signs order implementing tougher sanctions on Iran


Source: Press TV

President Obama on Tuesday signed an executive order tightening sanctions on Iran over its nuclear-enrichment program. The order implements a new Iran sanctions law enacted in August.

The White House said the administration’s actions “have created unprecedented pressure on Iran’s economy.”

Iran policy has become a focus of the presidential election this year. During a speech Monday at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Va., GOP candidate Mitt Romney repeated accusations that Obama is too soft on Iran and too distant from Israel, which views Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to its existence.

Romney has called on Obama to draw a clearer red line for Iran. Critics of this view warn that it could bind the U.S. and force an armed intervention.

The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act expands the list of those targeted by Iran sanctions, closes loopholes and enhances penalties.

Those targeted include anyone who works in Iran's petroleum sectors or provides goods, services, infrastructure, or technology to Iran's oil and natural gas sector, those who insure or re-insure investments in Iran's oil sector and those who transport refined petroleum to Iran.

This law also tries to stop Iran from repatriating revenue from oil. The Hill

FACTS and FIGURES

The United States has long barred U.S. firms from doing business with Iran, but last December adopted measures that forced international buyers of Iranian oil to cut their purchases. Economic Times

In August, a second package of sanctions added further restrictions for international banks, insurance companies and oil traders. Economic Times

The United States and Israel accuse Iran of having a secret nuclear weapons program and have threatened the country with military action.

Iran insists that its nuclear energy program pursues peaceful purposes only and has warned that it will harshly respond to any foreign attack. Iranian officials say they will reply to U.S. aggression by bombing all American bases throughout the Middle East.

A recent report by the Iran Project, a group of U.S. diplomats and military officials, concluded that U.S. strikes would provoke a war that would last years and cost the U.S. at the very least hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

Iran, as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says the nation is entitled to develop nuclear technology for civilian use.
------------------------------------------

Panetta threatens 'most serious sanctions' against Iran


US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (file photo)

Source: Press TV

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has threatened Iran with new, stronger economic sanctions over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear energy program.

Speaking at a media conference in Peru on Saturday, Panetta said Washington and its allies have reached an agreement “to impose probably the most serious sanctions, economic sanctions, that have been imposed on a nation.”

He said Iran should engage with the international community to try to resolve the West's standoff with the country and address their alleged concerns or face additional sanctions.

Panetta said the US and its allies are united in their efforts to stop Tehran’s uranium enrichment activities.

Washington’s sanction threats against Tehran are escalating despite the UN warning against the humanitarian ramifications of the embargoes.

On Friday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that the West’s embargoes against Iran have significantly targeted the livelihood of the ordinary Iranian population and led to shortage of necessary items, including medicine.

At the beginning of 2012, the United States and the European Union imposed new sanctions on Iran’s oil and financial sectors with the goal of preventing other countries from purchasing Iranian oil and conducting transactions with the Central Bank of Iran.

The sanctions came into force in early summer 2012.

The illegal US-engineered sanctions were imposed based on the unfounded accusation that Iran is pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.

Iran rejects the allegations, arguing that as a committed signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

In addition, the IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities but has never found any evidence showing that Iran's civilian nuclear program has been diverted to nuclear weapons production.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Financial Warfare: Destabilizing Iran’s Monetary System


By: Nile Bowie


Dramatic fluctuations of the Iranian rial triggered small protests among merchants in Tehran’s grand bazaar on October 3rd, 2012. In an attempt by authorities to prevent further devaluation, Iran’s central bank recently issued new limits on the amount of USD available for purchase at a subsidized rate, leading many to panic as the rial fell 40% against the dollar since the start of October. Although the demonstrations were economic in nature, many took advantage of the moment to voice their grievances against the political system, with many crediting President Ahmadinejad with overseeing fiscal mismanagement that has exacerbated Washington’s unceasing barrage of economic sanctions. Ahmadinejad’s political opponents also blame his administration for economic mismanagement, sentiment that is appearing more frequently among Iranian society.

While combating the challenges that economic sanctions represent is an arduous task for any government, it is important to recognize that these sanctions are not aimed against Iran’s government, but at its poor and merchant population. An unnamed US intelligence source cited by the Washington Post claims:

”In addition to the direct pressure sanctions exert on the regime’s ability to finance its priorities, another option here is that they will create hate and discontent at the street level so that the Iranian leaders realize that they need to change their ways.”

Washington has long engaged in psychological operations that aim to foment the kind of “hate and discontent” among Iran’s factory workers, merchants, shopkeepers, students, and manufacturers – as part of a series of measures taken to coax widespread social discontent and unrest throughout the country to topple the government.

For the average Iranian business owner and worker, US-led sanctions and currency devaluation have affected everyday transactions that provide paychecks and economic viability for millions of people. From urban shopkeepers to rural restaurant owners, many have been forced to close their businesses because they are unable profit from reselling imported goods purchased with dollars. Isolation from the global banking system has made it increasingly more difficult for Iranian students studying abroad to receive money from their families. Sanctions targeting Iran’s central bank aim to devastate the Iranian export economy, affecting everyone from oil exporters to carpet weavers and pistachio cultivators. By crippling people’s livelihoods and hindering their ability to pursue education and afford necessities such as food and medication, the Obama administration believes such measures will erode public confidence in the government and challenge its legitimacy.

Such policy is not only immoral, but exhibits the fraudulence and dishonesty of the United States toward the values of liberty and the pursuit of happiness it claims to represent. Although western media has gone to great lengths to depict Obama as being reluctant to endorse a tough stance on Iran, it is clear that Washington is quietly pursuing belligerent policy against Tehran – one that has alienated Iranians that seek reconciliation with the United States and greatly escalated tensions and the possibility of war. As demonstrated by the covert measures being taken against Tehran – including sabotage, cyber warfare, and targeted assassinations – Washington is fully committed to preventing Tehran’s independent technological, economic and political development. While US-led sanctions are intended to target all mechanisms necessary for international oil transactions, Iran continues to show defiance by pursuing diplomacy and mutually beneficial economic development with its energy hungry allies across Asia.

China has continued to purchase larger amounts of Iranian oil despite the sanctions regime. While the fledging European Union cuts its ties with Tehran, Beijing has moved closer with Iran to provide credit lines and consumer goods. Additionally, nations such as India, Malaysia and Japan have continued their energy imports from Iran – making efforts to internationally isolate Tehran increasing more difficult. Iran has actively engaged in the modernization of its energy infrastructure, including the construction of fifteen domestic pipelines throughout the country. Furthermore, Iranian firms are planning to construct an electrical power plant and a pipeline to provide energy to Pakistan. In the interest of pursuing mutually beneficially economic development, Tehran has sought further cooperation with its neighbors in Pakistan and Turkmenistan. Iran’s domestic investments emphasize the importance of developing the kind of trade and energy infrastructure needed to continue resistance to hegemony without being internationally isolated.

Tehran has pledged $25 billion to develop its Chabahar port, and an additional $4 billion of investment into several different ports around the country. The expanded trade and energy capabilities that would result from such investment would solidify Iran’s place in the global economy, and its seat among world powers. It is for this reason that “the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons” is used as a stale pretext to enforce economic sanctions, despite a complete lack of evidence to implicate Iran with weaponizing its nuclear energy program. Tehran must be diligent in finding ways to manage its currency devaluation and economic growth – because of its natural resources and abundant energy wealth, the country is in a unique position to deflect international sanctions and use them to its advantage. By partnering with its international allies, Iran can bolster its domestic manufacturing industries and secure international markets for its products. Policy makers in Washington and Tel Aviv should remember that chess is an Iranian game.

Nile Bowie is a Kuala Lumpur-based American writer, video producer and frequent contributor to Global Research. He explores issues of terrorism, economics and geopolitics.
--------------------------------

Iran fighting economic, psychological war against West: Ahmadinejad


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks to journalists at a press conference in Tehran, Tuesday, October 2, 2012.

Source: Press TV

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed rumors of economic downturn in the Islamic Republic, saying the country is facing a tough economic and psychological war waged by the West.

“A clandestine, vast and heavy war has been waged [against Iran] on the global scale … and our colleagues in the Central Bank [of Iran] and other relevant bodies are working hard to find solutions … and this is a [real] battle,” Ahmadinejad told a press conference attended by domestic and foreign reporters in Tehran on Tuesday.

Pointing to the fluctuations in the currency markets in Iran, the president said, “Fluctuations [in the Iranian foreign exchange market] have not begun today. The market has been fluctuating for some time and these fluctuations have only gathered steam recently,” he said.

Ahmadinejad stated that the enemies have imposed embargos on Iran’s crude oil exports and banking transactions to make it difficult for the Islamic Republic to sell oil, as the country’s most important revenues source, or transfer the proceeds once oil is sold.

The Iranian chief executive emphasized that Iran would soon make up for a short decline caused by enemies in its oil exports.

“Keep in mind that it’s a battle. The enemy imagines that it can shatter the [will of] Iranian nation by [applying] such pressures and they may even make new decisions.”

He noted that the Iranian nation would overcome these pressures although the enemy continues to ratchet up the pressure.

“The pressures are not exerted on the governments alone, but are [exerted] on the nations too. All these [measures] constitute a psychological warfare and of course certain decisions have been taken. Of course, our people are calm. The enemy has thrown a stone at us, we have to lift it and throw it back at them.”

Ahmadinejad also played down the threats of military strike against the Islamic Republic, adding that such threats mostly represent a war of nerves rather than real intention to attack.

“The Zionist regime [of Israel] is after adventurism in a bid to win a chance. It wrongly imagines that it can acquire that chance by threatening Iran, but they are mistaken. Their time is over and they have to go away,” the Iranian chief executive said.

Ahmadinejad also pointed to relations between Iran and the US, saying that any talks between Tehran and Washington must be based on equal terms and mutual respect and the US must first correct its behavior toward Iran.





ICJ delivers ruling in favour of South Africa

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