Nuclear Agreement With Iran -- Paul Craig Roberts. The Iran Nuclear Energy Agreement: Force Again Prevails Over Law -- Paul Craig Roberts. It Is Time For Iran To Tell The West ‘Goodbye’ -- Paul Craig Roberts. Was The Iranian "Threat" Fabricated By Israel And The U.S.? In a new book and in a conversation with Haaretz, U.S. historian Gareth Porter charges that U.S. and Israeli policies on Iran have been based on fabricated evidence. By Shemuel Meir May 31 2014 "ICH" - "Haaretz" - - A narrative is a story that we tell ourselves, and not necessarily what happened in reality. For example, the “Iranian threat” narrative, which has become the common wisdom in Israeli public discourse. A new book by Gareth Porter, an American historian and researcher specializing in U.S. national security, shows how the actual state of the Iranian nuclear program does not match the Iranian threat narrative.
The book’s title, “Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Nuclear Scare” (Just World Books), already tells us that it is going against the current. According to Porter, it was a hidden political agenda of U.S. decision makers (from long before Israel entered the picture) that gave rise to the Iranian nuclear crisis. . © Haaretz Daily Newspaper Ltd. ÍRÁN: Atomová smlouva. Írán bere vážně stále více těžkých vah v geopolitickém ringu. Maximální rating mu přisuzoval minulý perský prezident Ahmadínežád, který se měl domnívat, že zastupuje supertěžkou váhu.
Přecenil se, ale není sporu o tom, že teheránské svaly rostou. Pikantním je, že výživnou stravu, takřka "steroidy", jim poskytli hlavně úhlavní nepřátelé. USA, čili "Velký Satan", nikdy neakceptovaly záhy po Vietnamu vyhlášenou islámskou revoluci. Pořádně zahýbala kuželkami Blízkého a Středního východu a znamenala novou porážku jejich zájmům. Jedna z posledních, usnadněná zpackanou okupací převážně šíitského Iráku, poskytla Íráncům několikanásobný prospěch. Írán má dnes mezi řekami Eufratem a Tigridem stokrát větší slovo než za Saddáma. Také čerstvá, "zkusmo", půl roku platící smlouva o jistém umenšení íránských jaderných ambicí je pro ajatolláhy druhem vítězství. Článek vychází z textů zveřejněných v Revue Politika a deníku E15. The Iranian Nuclear Programme. The Abdication of Iran | "Before our eyes" President Sheikh Hassan Rohani announces to his people the agreement reached in Geneva. The signing of the agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme on Nov. 24 in Geneva, was, with the exception of Israel, unanimously hailed as the end of a misunderstanding.
All signatories have tried to persuade us that this agreement would have been arrived at much earlier had it not been for the excessive manners of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Thus, Iran’s international trade would have been wrecked and the world nearly plunged into World War inadvertently. The reality is obviously very different: Westerners have conceded nothing but Iran has abdicated all. Even if the signed text is only transitory, Iran has given up the construction of the Arak plant, its 20% enriched uranium and its enrichment technique [1] .
In 2005, the election of President Ahmadinejad was to reinvigorate the Khomeini Revolution. One cannot emphasize enough the opposition between Iranian parties. A Saudi-Israeli Defeat on Iran Deal. Source: Consortium News Secretary of State John Kerry (third from right) with other diplomats who negotiated an interim agreement with Iran on its nuclear program. (image by (Photo credit: State Department)) The interim agreement restraining Iran's nuclear program represents a stern international rebuke to the new Saudi-Israeli alliance which sought to thwart the deal and maneuver the United States into another military confrontation in the Middle East. Despite increasingly hysterical rhetoric from Saudi Arabia, Israel and their many media and political allies, the world's leading powers -- the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany -- hammered out an agreement that increases chances for a peaceful settlement with Iran.
Thus, what we have seen over the past several months -- though mostly missed by the mainstream U.S. news media -- is a dramatic shift in the polarity of geopolitics, especially in the Middle East. But President Obama did not back down. Iran: It’s Not about Nuclear Weapons. Iran: It’s Not about Nuclear Weapons By Sheldon Richman November 28, 2013 "Information Clearing House - If you want to understand the U.S. -Iran controversy, know this: It is not about nuclear weapons. You’re thinking: Of course it’s about nuclear weapons. Everyone says so. Well, not everyone does. But it isn’t a numbers game. There is a strange irony in President Obama’s announcement of the temporary agreement. Ironically, when critics of the interim agreement say Iran gave up little, they are right. In return for agreeing to stop doing what it had no intention of doing, Iran will get the slightest relief from the economic sanctions that inflict so much suffering on the people.
There’s another irony. Look at the leading opponents of the agreement: Israel and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, which is well-equipped militarily by the United States, is an Arab Sunni Muslim kingdom. The Iranian people, which includes a large, educated middle class, would welcome friendship with America. Iran - Curiyo.com. Iran's Nuclear Talks: Theater Of The Absurd By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich. Iran's Nuclear Talks: Theater Of The Absurd By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich 10 November, 2013Countercurrents.org For the umpteenth time, Iran and the P5+1 are holding talks to ‘resolve’ the impasse in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. And for the umpteenth time, the absurdity of these meetings is reflected in the futile, repetitious, meaningless dialogue amidst threats and ultimatums.
Feigned smiles and optimism add to the theatrics. The current negotiations, as with past talks, place a great deal of emphasis on Iran’s enrichment activities giving the impression that enrichment is at the crux of the matter. Leading up to the latest round of negotiations, Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman claimed that “"... it has always been the U.S. position that that article IV of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty does not speak about the right of enrichment at all [and] doesn't speak to enrichment, period.” However, the 1979 Iranian Revolution put an end to American plans and aspirations. Reported Iranian Nuclear Deal: Hold the Cheers. November 7 and 8 nuclear talks at most may offer Iran modest temporary relief in return for major concessions.
How they’re presented remains to be seen. How they’re implemented is another matter. Longstanding anti-Iranian hostility remains unresolved. Washington wants it that way. So does Israel. Netanyahu wants no concessions offered. Temporary modest relief, if offered, is too little. In return, reports say stiff demands require Iran to halt uranium enrichment to 20%, render most of its nuclear fuel unusable, agree not to use high speed IR-2 centrifuges, and not activate its Arak facility when completed. Details aren’t finalized. John Kerry, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, Britain’s William Hague and Germany’s Guido Westerwelle arrived in Geneva.
A November 8 State Department statement said: On arrival, Fabius said “(t)here has been progress, but nothing is hard and fast yet.” “I want to emphasize there is not an agreement at this point. Precisely what emerges remains to be seen. Iran deal a failure, says ex-national security chief. The former head of the Israeli National Security Council took to the pages of The New York Times to rail against the nuclear deal between world powers and Iran, calling the accord a diplomatic failure that missed the mark in diverting Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.
Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign up! In an opinion piece published Thursday, Yaakov Amidror listed the reasons the agreement, signed in Geneva at the beginning of the week, had failed to achieve anything significant. “Iran made only cosmetic concessions to preserve its primary goal, which is to continue enriching uranium,” he wrote. “The agreement represents a failure, not a triumph, of diplomacy.” According to the terms of the agreement, some of the international sanctions currently imposed on Iran are to be eased, a move Amidror said would bring a rush of foreign business to Iran leading to the collapse of all the economic restrictions against the Islamic Republic. Nuclear Deal Catastrophic For Iran By Garikai Chengu. Nuclear Deal Catastrophic For Iran By Garikai Chengu 29 November, 2013Countercurrents.org The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738.
The U.S. has engaged in over 50 military invasions and interventions since their independence in 1776. The recent denuclearization deal is catastrophic for Iran, simply because it paves the way for yet another U.S. military intervention against Iran. History proves that America conducts regime change in Middle Eastern nations, which refuse to obey Washington, using a three-tiered strategy: sanctions, denuclearization, and military intervention. Iraq and Libya provide the most recent examples of nations that have signed nuclear disarmament deals with the West, only to then be invaded by the West.
In 1945, President Truman's bombers dropped “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 140,000 people instantly. The truth is that sanctions are far more deadly than nuclear weapons. In fact, the U.S. Mr. As president, Mr. Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not "Breakthrough" Tony CartalucciActivist Post "...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it.
The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.
" - Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia? " report, page 52.