Obama Echoes Bush To Test Iran

Source: PressTV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=122378§ionid=3510303

By Anoush Maleki

On Friday only hours after President Barack Obama of the United States conferred with his Chinese counterpart, in a rare hour long telephone call, how to approach Iran and its nuclear program; he said the campaign to impose United Nations Security Council sanctions against Tehran would pivot on unified international backing.

For years, the Bush administration accused Iran of seeking to develop atomic bombs to use them against Israel and endanger American interests in the region. The claim was refuted by the UN nuclear watchdog whose inspectors have closely monitored the country's activities and said they have witnessed no diversion in the civilian purpose of the program.

World powers then were forced to alter strategy and accuse the Islamic Republic of seeking to develop the "capacity" to build nuclear weapons. The charge is rather ridiculous as any country running a uranium enrichment program possesses, technically, the ability to produce weapons-grade nuclear material, to the level of above 90 percent purity.

As the enrichment capability should be integrated with a sophisticated military program which enjoys advanced missile know-how, before an atomic bomb is developed, the White House claimed that Iran was seeking blueprints to combine the nuclear program with its conventional missile program.

However, any country, even those which are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) such as Iran, can, in theory, have the 'capacity' to build nuclear weapons.

Toady, the White House is spearheading a campaign to rally international support to further punish Iran for its pursuit of developing 'the capacity'.

After talking to President Hu Jintao of China on Friday, Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS news, "The idea is to keep turning up the pressure" on Iran — which is already under three rounds of sanctions resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council.

He also argued that the existence of a nuclear armed power in the volatile Middle East would have "huge destabilizing effects" in the oil rich region. He, however, ignored the fact that a major factor in destabilizing the region is the very existence of Israel's undeclared, un-accessed, and growing nuclear arsenal.

The new Obama push, meanwhile, has been praised in Tel Aviv.

A Friday editorial in Israel's Haaretz newspaper said the anti-Iran campaign, "even if its results are significantly lower than what [the Israeli regime] had hoped," pleases the Zionist leaders.

It said the efforts are "significant" as Mr. Obama is "incorporating both Russia and China among those nations which see an Iranian nuclear weapon as a threat."

While anti-Iran efforts, led by US administrations and advocated by Israeli hawks, are nothing new, the timing of Mr. Obama's tough talk has drawn my attention.

Next week Mr. Obama hosts more than 40 heads of state to Washington to examine measures for preventing terrorists and radical groups from acquiring weapons grade uranium and plutonium — stockpiles of which are produced by the very countries which accuse Iran of seeking nuclear arms.

Then, he will welcome the parties to the NPT to New York, in May, for a pentennial review on a treaty which has sidetracked from its objectives: thwarting the expansion of the world's nuclear club by disarming those countries which already own atomic bombs.

The focus on Iran at this time — and pressuring the Russians and the Chinese to support the White House plan to impose sanctions on Iran's economy and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), blacklist Iranian shipping companies, and freeze Iran's international assets — will pave the ground for failure in the upcoming conferences on American soil.

Disappointment is anticipated as no one in the right mind expects the super powers, naming the United States and Russia, to slow the production of weapons grade nuclear fissile, let alone to begin abandoning their nuclear arsenals.

Although Mr. Obama, on the international scene, is having a difficult time courting the support of Russia and China — which both have veto power in the Security Council — he is cruising at home pushing an anti-Iran agenda.

Congress is preparing measures to hit the world's second largest oil producer where it hurts as it seeks to punish the companies that supply petroleum to Iran.

Tehran, however, is not concerned. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says his government could easily cope with any new sanctions on gasoline imports, warning that Washington will be further isolating itself over the escalation of a more than three decade long hostility with Tehran.

Mr. Ahmadinejad also said there is little difference between the administrations of Mr. Obama and his predecessor.

"They say 'we have extended our hands to the people of Iran but the government of Iran and the people of Iran pushed it back'. What hand did you extend towards us?" he said Saturday after inaugurating a factory in Sirjan.

"Did you lift the sanctions? Did you stop the adverse propaganda machine? Did you ease the pressure? Did you change your attitude in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine?"

Iran has always welcomed negotiations with the West, but it remains steadfast in safeguarding its national interests. The country says even international sanctions will not deter its pursuit of nuclear energy.

"You should know that the more hostile you are, the stronger an incentive our people will have, it will double," he said. "They said 'we want sanctions on petroleum'. Why don't you do it? The sooner the better."

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, is having none of it. After securing the passage of the healthcare reform plan, he is in need of a foreign policy win to strengthen its shaky presidency.

And despite his recent offering of engagement with Iran, in a symbolic Persian New Year message, that win, in the eyes of Congress and hawks in Israel, is defined as forcing the country to halt what it is entitled to — its enrichment work — or as escalating the confrontation and paving the way for an eventual military showdown with the country.

"I have said before that we don't take any options off the table, and we're going to continue to ratchet up the pressure and examine how they respond," said the president, repeating warnings that were first raised by former President George W. Bush.

As the war of words continues, Mr. Obama is missing a unique opportunity, as he prepares to face down Republican contenders in the 2012 presidential election, to sit down and engage Iran — the country which more than 70 percent of Americans think, incorrectly, already possess nuclear weapons.

Rapprochement with the Islamic Republic could overshadow the healthcare reform's victory and become his presidency's signature.


Obama, Bush, no difference, warmongers, Towards, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, War, escalation

Ahmadinejad says Israel inching toward annihilation

Source: PressTV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=118385§ionid=351020101


As Israel maintains its anti-Palestinian policies and threatens regional countries, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday that the regime would perish as it has "come to its end."

Addressing a huge crowd in Tehran's Azadi Square on the 31st anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution, Ahmadinejad said Israel was on the verge of annihilation.

He also criticized the United States' support for Israel, which, he said, went counter to President Barack Obama's oft-stated promises of bringing change.

“We do not want Mr. Obama to act under the pressure from a bunch of Zionists … unfortunately he is missing opportunities … he is not acting properly,” he said.

“He is moving in a direction that is against the interests of the American people and it is to the benefit of Israel.”

Earlier, in a telephone conversation with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Ahmadinejad warned Israel against a new military campaign in the region.

He said that Israel was seeking for an opportunity to make up for its military mistakes during last year's Gaza offensive and the 2006 Lebanon war.

"Should Israel repeat its past mistakes and initiate a military operation," the president said, "the regional countries have to stand united in repelling the attack and finish it once and for all."

US Army to 'protect' Pakistan's nuclear sites

Source: PressTV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116374§ionid=351020401


In face of a growing anti-Americanism among the Pakistan military, the US army moves to train a 'crack unit' to thwart possible attacks on the country's nuclear facilities.

The unit would be responsible to take back Pakistani nuclear weapons in the event the militants gain access to the strategic devices and materials, the Pakistani daily The Nation reported Sunday.

The measure is taken as the US military fears the possibility of an attack "from inside the country's security apparatus," added the report.

The daily notes that the rising anti-Americanism among the Pakistani military personnel, as well as a series of attacks on sensitive installations over the past two years, has prompted the US officials to take the action.

“There have been attacks on (Pakistani) army bases which stored nuclear weapons and there have been breaches and infiltrations by terrorists into military facilities," Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a former CIA officer who used to run the US energy department's intelligence unit, was quoted as saying.

Larssen claimed the nuclear Pakistan houses "the highest density of extremists in the world," declaring that the US has the right to be concerned over the issue.

Heated debate has been going on between the US and Pakistani officials over the security of its nuclear facilities over the past two weeks.

There have been reports that US officials' primary goal is to gain access to and disable or neutralize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, which they consider as a possible threat to US and Israeli security.

Pakistani nuclear arms have also been referred to as an “Islamic Bomb” in the American and Israeli press and political circles, highlighting their mindset regarding the country's atomic weapons, which was meant to rival India's. India's nuclear arms, however, have never been raised as a concern in western circles.

In 2007, militants attacked military facilities at Sargodha, in Punjab, and at Kamra, in Attock district, which are thought to house nuclear weapons.

In August 2008, militants blew up the gates to the Wah weapons complex in Punjab. The attack left 63 people dead.

What the Gaza war meant for Israel

Source: Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/gazaoneyearon/2010/2010/01/201011392050370701.html

By: Orly Halpern

Omri Buson says his "blood boils" every time he hears about the negotiations between Hamas and Israel over the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

From his point of view, Israel should have never ended last year's military offensive on Gaza without Shalit's return.

"We needed to hurt them and not have mercy ... to destroy every house till [we] found that soldier," says Buson, who dropped out of law school to open clothing shops in Jerusalem.


He admits that his views have become "very extreme in the last year because of the war".


But he is not alone. Israeli Knesset members have expressed similar views.

Operation devastation

The Israeli military offensive named Operation Defensive Shield killed more than 1,400 Palestinians, more than 1,000 of them civilians, including 400 children.

Thirteen Israelis were also killed, three of them civilians.

Its declared goals were to 'Bring Gilad Home' and to stop Qassam rocket attacks on Israel. It ended after 22 days due to international pressure on Israel.

Despite the high number of civilian Palestinian casualties, most Israelis consider the operation a success because, although Shalit did not 'come home', the rockets stopped.

War against protests

Now, one year since Operation Cast Lead, not only have the so-called red lines for what you can do to your enemy moved dangerously forward, but so have the lines of what the government can do its own people.

Israeli polls and surveys reveal that Israeli society and government are less tolerant than ever of views that oppose the government stance, which is held by the mainstream.

Last month the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) revealed an alarming trend in its annual survey on the protection of human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories - the conditioning of rights.

"The realisation of the entire spectrum of rights is now more than ever dependent on what we say or believe, what ethnic group we belong to, how much money we have, and more," says the ACRI.

"We have the freedom to express ourselves and demonstrate - only if we don't say anything displeasing; we have the right to equal treatment and opportunities - only if we are "loyal" to the state."

In the streets, the Israeli security forces are waging a war against protests by Jewish left wing and human rights activists, who non-violently protest against Israel's separation barrier or against Jewish settlers taking over Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.

Many have been arrested and some were attacked by the security forces.


However, right-wingers protesting against the government's decision to temporarily freeze building in settlements are accorded much more leniency by Israeli law enforcement agencies.

During Operation Cast Lead about 800 Israeli citizens, most of them Arab, were arrested, with criminal charges brought against most of them.

In a recent editorial, the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz called the arrests "an evil omen regarding the state's attitude toward protesters" and said that as a result, "concern is growing over Israel's image as a free and democratic country".

'Moral bankruptcy'

The infringement on the rights of Jewish Israelis comes as no surprise to Neve Gordon, an Israeli political science professor at Ben-Gurion University in the Negev.

"The war itself revealed the moral bankruptcy of Israel because if we look back we see the vast majority killed were citizens including hundreds of children," said Gordon, who has been under attack for his criticism of Israel and most recently for his call for an international boycott on his country until it ends the occupation of the Palestinian Territories.


"I don't think it's good for the morality of the country to kill children."

Buson disagrees: "If it were up to me I would close the water and electricity [to Gaza] until they return Gilad. Let them starve and die."

He says he opposes a prisoner exchange deal with Hamas. "I'd rather Shalit die there than do a deal with Hamas.


"It's not about one soldier's life. It's about deterrence. They need to understand with whom they are dealing. Our deterrence was damaged after the second Lebanon war. Now we got it back."

'Lesson through force'

Indeed many Israelis were more concerned about 'teaching the other side a lesson' by using overwhelming force, than with the hundreds of dead civilians and the devastating destruction of infrastructure.

For the Israeli political leadership, military and much of the Israeli public, the Gaza war, as Israelis refer to it, was about scaring the other side into submission, so that it will not dare to hurt Israel again. And, many believe, that was what Israel succeeded in doing.


Yehuda Shaul, the co-director of Breaking the Silence, the Israeli human rights organisation that collects the testimonies of soldiers about abuses committed while serving in the Occupied Territories, says: "What I find most disturbing is that the military and most Israelis perceive [the war on Gaza] as a great success. They don't recognise the price tag."


"And the fact that the military sees it as a great success means that the second round will be similar," Shaul adds.


Shaul's organisation was attacked by the office of the Israeli military spokesperson, but he nevertheless hopes that some Israelis recognise the gravity of their actions.

He points to the poll by Tel Aviv University's War and Peace Index.


When testimonies from soldiers were published soon after the war, few Israelis believed them, according to the index. But when Breaking the Silence published its report of chilling testimonies in July, the War and Peace Index found that the numbers who believed the testimonies rose from about 20 per cent to 43 per cent.

'Cast Lead II'

Still, the overwhelming majority of Israelis (76 per cent) saw no need to reinvestigate the operation in light of the testimonies. The pollsters believe that because of the prevailing view that the campaign was moderately or very successful (79 per cent), "the Israeli Jewish public is reluctant to deal with the question of its moral and human cost".

Some Israelis who supported the war see it very differently.


Marek Glezerman, the director of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department at Rabin Medical Center, says: "I thought it should be a short operation to stop the rockets."


"But it turned it to be a full blown war without concern for the other side and that leaves a very bad feeling," adds the doctor who is a friend and colleague of the Gaza doctor Ezzedin Abouelaish.

Glezerman believes that the quiet from the Gaza Strip is temporary: "The violence will come back. But at what price? It has not brought us closer to peace."


Meanwhile, some Israelis are talking about when Operation Cast Lead II will begin.