Probably as many as 90% of all Americans believe without questioning everything they hear from the so-called mainstream media, known by members of the 10% as “prestitutes” paid by the military/industrial/security complex to lie about the truth or be fired. Here I list a few passages taken from Paul Craig Roberts’ latest post, beginning with “Russian news services are under attack from the EU and Western presstitutes as purveyors of ‘fake news’.” “As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western 'democratic' governments as a hostile act.” And finally “Abiding by its Washington master’s orders, the EU actually passed a resolution against Russian media for not following Washington’s line.” Accordingly, “Russian President Putin said that the resolution is a ‘visible sign of degradation of Western society’s idea of democracy’.” Now the 90% may say “so what”. The answer is that (1) Russia doesn’t want another World War, having lost 20 million civilians and soldiers in the last one, (2) whether or not the US military/industrial complex knows it, Russia has vastly superior weapons, and (3) if Russia is ever forced into a nuclear war, those of us in the west will not survive (though many in Russia may survive due to superior anti-ballistic missiles). Recently, we had a Presidential election and against all bets, Trump was the winner. How did that happen? Well, many are convinced that the elections were rigged ...but by whom? It couldn't have been alleged Russian hacking because such a hack required people with access to every polling place in every State of the Union. Impossible! Personally, I think it was done by members of our own military, who knew that if Hillary had been elected she would have pressed to start a war with Russia, in which case we might all end up dead. Whereas, Trump had made it clear early on that he has no problem working out some kind of a detente with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Apropos, if you should be thinking of leaving the 90% to join the 10%, please meet Putin here: http://impactglassman.blogspot.mx/2014/10/who-is-vladimir-putin-monster-if-thats.html7

---

___________________________________________________________________________________
The Western War On Truth — Paul Craig Roberts

November 27, 2016  ___________________________________________________________________________________

The Western War On Truth

Paul Craig Roberts

The “war on terror” has simultaneously been a war on truth. For fifteen years—from 9/11 to Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” and “al Qaeda connections,” “Iranian nukes,” “Assad’s use of chemical weapons,” endless lies about Gadaffi, “Russian invasion of Ukraine”—the governments of the so-called Western democracies have found it essential to align themselves firmly with lies in order to pursue their agendas. Now these Western governments are attempting to discredit the truthtellers who challenge their lies.

Russian news services are under attack from the EU and Western presstitutes as purveyors of “fake news.” http://www.globalresearch.ca/moscow-accused-of-propagating-fake-news-eu-resolution-on-russian-propaganda/5558835 Abiding by its Washington master’s orders, the EU actually passed a resolution against Russian media for not following Washington’s line. Russian President Putin said that the resolution is a “visible sign of degradation of Western society’s idea of democracy.”

As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western “democratic” governments as a hostile act. A brand new website, propornot.com, has just made its appearance condemning a list of 200 Internet websites that provide news and views at variance with the presstitute media that serves the governments’ agendas.

http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html Does propornot.com’s funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros?

I am proud to say that paulcraigroberts.org is on the list.

What we see here is the West adopting Zionist Israel’s way of dealing with critics. Anyone who objects to Israel’s cruel and inhuman treatment of Palestinians is demonized as “anti-semitic.” In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as “Russian agents.” The president-elect of the United States himself has been designated a “Russian agent.”

This scheme to redefine truthtellers as propagandists has backfired. The effort to discredit truthtellers has instead produced a catalogue of websites where reliable information can be found, and readers are flocking to the sites on the list. Moreover, the effort to discredit truthtellers shows that Western governments and their presstitutes are intolerant of truth and diverse opinion and are committed to forcing people to accept self-serving government lies as truth.

Clearly, Western governments and Western media have no respect for truth, so how can the West possibly be democratic?

The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that “two teams of independent researchers”—none of whom are identified—found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help “an insurgent candidate” (Trump) “claim the White House.”
Note the term applied to Trump—“insurgent candidate.” That tells you all you need to know.
You can read here what passes as “reliable reporting” in the presstitute Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

See also: http://www.alternet.org/media/washington-post-promotes-shadowy-website-accuses-200-publications-russian-propaganda-plants 

Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, which somehow escaped inclusion in The 200, unloads on Timberg and the Washington Post here: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/ 

Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable.

The despicable Washington Post is a prime apologist for these war criminals. The entire Western print and TV media is so heavily implicated in the worst war crimes in human history that, if justice ever happens, the presstitutes will stand in the dock with the Clintons, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Obama and their neocon operatives or handlers as the case may be.

___________________________________________________________________________________

While this title seems to be about Iran's agreement with Obama to stop enriching uranium, Paul Craig Roberts says that "An agreement with Washington is a prelude to treachery. It puts the signer at ease while Washington prepares the signer’s doom. This is the way Washington operates." and "Washington is now in the process of going back on the Medicare and Social Security promises Washington made to the American people. Washington has 'borrowed' the earmarked payroll taxes that finance these programs, putting in their place non-marketable, and thereby worthless, IOUs and spending the money on its wars and handouts to the elites who don’t need Medicare or Social Security."

---

The Iran Nuclear Energy Agreement: Force Again Prevails Over Law — Paul Craig Roberts

---

April 7, 2015 | Original Here                                                 Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

The Iran Nuclear Energy Agreement: Force Again Prevails Over Law

Paul Craig Roberts

The Israel Lobby and its associated neocon war criminals will block if they can the nuclear energy agreement, worked out by Putin, Iran, and Obama, which has the promise of bringing to an end the US orchestrated crisis over Iran’s development of nuclear energy.

As a signatory to the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty, which Israel is not, Iran has the right under the treaty to develop nuclear energy. Iran, alone of all the signatories to the treaty, has had its rights under the treaty cancelled by economic sanctions imposed by the US and by the threat of a US military attack.

Neither US intelligence nor the International Atomic Energy Agency, which inspects Iran’s enrichment sites, has reported any sign of an Iranian nuclear weapons program for the past decade. Despite the absence of any evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, the crazed Israeli government and its neoconservative agents, who represent Israel’s interests, not America’s, have almost driven the US to war with Iran over nuclear weapons as non-existent as Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

The nuclear energy agreement that has been reached eliminates any possibility of Iran diverting enriched uranium to a weapons program. Nevertheless Washington warmongers and the Israel Lobby are attempting to block the agreement with the argument that “Iran’s leaders cannot be trusted.”

The real question, however, is on what basis can Iran possibly trust Washington?

Iran should ask former Soviet president Gorbachev what Washington’s word is worth. In exchange for Gorbachev’s agreement to the reunification of Germany, Washington promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch to the East and promptly took NATO to Russia’s border and is now working to incorporate former parts of the Russian empire into NATO.

Iran should ask current Russian president Putin what Washington’s word is worth. Sensing Russian strategic weakness, the George W. Bush regime broke the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that Washington had signed with Moscow. Pulling out of the treaty, Washington quickly put anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia’s borders, hoping to degrade Russia’s strategic missile forces that serve as a guardian against Washington’s first nuclear strike, a policy now permissible under Washington’s revised war doctrine.

Iran should ask Germany, which was coerced into the Versailles Treaty in violation of every promise President Woodrow Wilson made to Germany in exchange for ending World War I. The extensive loss of Germany territory and crippling reparations greedily and thoughtlessly imposed on Germany, whose government most certainly did not start the war, led directly to World War II, also blamed on Germany despite the fact that the war began with Britain’s and France’s declaration of war on Germany.

Iran should ask the American Indians–the Iroquois, the Cherokee, the Sioux, Cheyenne, Comanche, the Nez Perce, and every other indigenous American people how many treaties Washington kept. In case you don’t know the answer, it is zero. Washington did not keep a single treaty it made with Indian tribes. To fully comprehend the total worthlessness of Washington’s word, read Ralph K. Andrist’s book, The Long Death: The Last Days Of The Plains Indian. No one who reads this book would sign any agreement with Washington.

An agreement with Washington is a prelude to treachery. It puts the signer at ease while Washington prepares the signer’s doom. This is the way Washington operates.

Washington is now in the process of going back on the Medicare and Social Security promises Washington made to the American people. Washington has “borrowed” the earmarked payroll taxes that finance these programs, putting in their place non-marketable, and thereby worthless, IOUs and spending the money on its wars and handouts to the elites who don’t need Medicare or Social Security. As Washington has robbed Social Security and Medicare of its earmarked revenues, Washington has begun the process of abolishing health and old age security for the American population. The world has never experienced robber capitalism as unleashed as it is today.

Washington already has put in place age limits on forms of health care, and Washington has robbed retirees of their cost-of-living adjustments by concocting a fraudulent measure of the consumer price index. Washington’s goal is to privatize the programs, thus producing profits for its financial supporters and prohibitive costs for the elderly, disposable people whom Washington is throwing away.

No one can trust Washington. Least of all the American people.

Throughout history Washington has proven conclusively that its word is not worth the paper it is written on.

Everyone who ever trusted Washington has been betrayed. Possibly there is an exception somewhere, but the betrayals are vast and are sufficient in number to define Washington as the least trusted entity on the earth. No extant entity has broken more agreements than Washington.

Iran should put no trust in an agreement with a government that has never kept its word.

Moreover, in order to get the agreement, Iran had to give up many of its rights that are granted to Iran by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Alone among the signatories, Iran is discriminated against. Iran had to agree to this humiliation in order to avoid military attack and in order to have economic sanctions removed.

The real importance of the nuclear energy agreement is that Washington was able successfully to use coercion to force Iran to forego its treaty rights in order to avoid military and economic assault.

In other words, the agreement is yet another example of the world accepting Washington’s use of force to require sovereign countries to give up their rights. Washington’s hegemony has again prevailed.

Judging from the real outcome, the Iran nuclear energy agreement is another defeat for mankind.

---

Paul Craig Roberts considers Vladimir Putin to be the top world leader because he is willing compromise with other world powers in order to avoid conflicts (particularly nuclear war). By contrast, the U.S. has recently changed its nuclear war model from "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) to the notion that the U.S. can win a war by "first strike" (INSANE). PCR regards today's U.S. government to be "the greatest collection of dangeous fools in world history."

---

Downloading MP3 / Broadcast Interviews Are For Individual Listening Use And NOT For Reproduction Or Redistribution And Are The Sole Property Of ©King World News.  However, Linking Directly To The Desired Interview Page Is Permitted and Encouraged.

Blogger's Note: Following the instructions above, I commend the reader to go to the original, where this very germane on-radio interview will play shortly after you click the link below:
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2014/6/12_Dr._Paul_Craig_Roberts.html

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts - Former US Treasury Official, Co-Founder of Reaganomics, Economist & Acclaimed Author - Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is an American economist, a columnist and recent author of “The Failure Of Laissez Faire Capitalism”. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. Dr. Roberts has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy. He has also written extensively that during the 21st century the Bush and Obama administrations have destroyed the US Constitution's protections of Americans' civil liberties and has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations.

---

Biography from Wikipedia.com
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts - Economist, Co-Founder of Reaganomics & Acclaimed Author

Roberts is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley and at Merton College, Oxford University. His first scholarly article (Classica et Mediaevalia) was a reformulation of "The Pirenne Thesis."

In Alienation and the Soviet Economy (1971), Roberts explained the Soviet economy as the outcome of a struggle between inordinate aspirations and a refractory reality. He argued that the Soviet economy was not centrally planned, but that its institutions, such as material supply, reflected the original Marxist aspirations to establish a non-market mode of production. In Marx's Theory of Exchange (1973), Roberts argued that Marx was an organizational theorist whose materialist conception of history ruled out good will as an effective force for change.

From 1975 to 1978, Roberts served on the congressional staff. As economic counsel to Congressman Jack Kemp he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill (which became the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy. His influential 1978 article for Harper's, while economic counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch, had Wall Street Journal editor Robert L. Bartley give him an editorial slot, which he had until 1980. He was a senior fellow in political economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, then part of Georgetown University.

From early 1981 to January 1982 he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Ronald Reagan and Treasury Secretary Donald Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy." Roberts resigned in January 1982 to become the first occupant of the William E. Simon Chair for Economic Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, then part of Georgetown University. He held this position until 1993. He went on to write The Supply-Side Revolution (1984), in which he explained the reformulation of macroeconomic theory and policy that he had helped to create.

He was a Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. He was a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

In The New Color Line (1995), Roberts argued that the Civil Rights Act was subverted by the bureaucrats who applied it and, by being used to create status-based privileges, became a threat to the Fourteenth Amendment in whose name it was passed. In The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), Roberts documented what he saw as the erosion of the Blackstonian legal principles that ensure that law is a shield of the innocent and not a weapon in the hands of government.

Here Paul Craig Roberts shows us that Americas wars have never been to protect us from foreign powers and that the main results of these wars have been millions of dead civilians and thousands of new American millionaires and billionaires. Finally he remarks that with about 17,300 nuclear weapons deployed in at least 9 countries it would take only "one fool – and Washington has thousands of fools – and all life on earth terminates in 45 minutes."

---

Militarist Bunkum — Paul Craig Roberts

---

May 19, 2014 | Original Here                                              Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

Militarist Bunkum
Paul Craig Roberts

Did you know that 85 to 90 percent of war’s casualties are non-combatant civilians? That is the conclusion reached by a nine-person research team in the June 2014 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. The deaths of soldiers who are fighting the war are a small part of the human and economic cost. Clearly, wars do not protect the lives of civilians. The notion that soldiers are dying for us is false. Non-combatants are the main victims of war.

Keep that in mind for July 4th, which is arriving in six weeks.

July 4th is America’s most important national holiday celebrating American independence from Great Britain. On July 4th, 1776, America’s Founding Fathers declared that the Thirteen Colonies were no longer colonies but an independent country in which the Rights of Englishmen would prevail for all citizens and not only for King George’s administrators. (Actually, the Second Continental Congress voted in favor of independence on July 2, and historians debate whether the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4 or August 2.)

In this American assertion of self-determination citizens of Great Britain were not allowed to vote. Therefore, according to Washington’s position on the votes in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine–the former Russian territories of Donetsk and Luhansk–America’s Declaration of Independence was “illegitimate and illegal.”

On July 4th all across America there will be patriotic speeches about our soldiers who gave their lives for their country. To an informed person these speeches are curious. I am hard pressed to think of any examples of our soldiers giving their lives for our country. US Marine General Smedley Butler had the same problem. He said that his Marines gave their lives for United Fruit Company’s control of Central America. “War is a racket,” said General Butler, pointing out that US participation in World War I produced 21,000 new American millionaires and billionaires.

When General Butler said “war is a racket,” he meant that war is a racket for a few people getting rich on the backs of millions of dead people. According to the article in the American Journal of Public Health, during the 20th century 190 million deaths could be directly and indirectly related to war.

190 million is 60 million more than the entire US population in the year that I was born.

The only war fought on US territory was the war against Southern Secession. In this war Irish immigrants fresh off the boat gave their lives for American Empire. As soon as the South was conquered, the Union forces were set loose on the Plains Indians and destroyed them as well.
Empire over life. That has always been Washington’s guiding principle.

America’s wars have always been fought elsewhere–Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, Philippines, Japan, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Somalia. Washington even attacks countries with which the US is not at war, such as Pakistan and Yemen, and engages in proxy wars. The article cited above reports: “The United States launched 201 overseas military operations between the end of World War II and 2001, and since then, others, including Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Not a single one of these wars and military operations had anything whatsoever to do with defending the US population from foreign threats.

Not even Japan and Germany posed a threat to the US. Neither country had any prospect of invading the US and neither country had any such war plans.

Let’s assume Japan had conquered China, Burma, and Indonesia. With such a vast territory to occupy, Japan could not have spared a single division with which to invade the US, and, of course, any invasion fleet would never have made it across the Pacific. Just as was the fate of the Japanese fleet at Midway, an invasion fleet would have been sitting ducks for the US Navy.

Assume Germany had extended its conquests over Europe to Great Britain, Russia and North Africa. Germany would have been unable to successfully occupy such a vast territory and could not have spared a single soldier to send to invade America. Even the US superpower was unable to successfully occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, countries with small land areas and populations in comparison.

Except for its wars against the South, the Plains Indians, Haiti, Spain, Panama, Grenada, and Mexico, the US has never won a war. The Southern Confederates, usually outnumbered, often defeated the Union generals. Japan was defeated by its own lack of military resources. Germany was defeated by the Soviet Union. The allied invasion of Normandy did not occur until June 6, 1944, by which time the Red Army had ground up the Wehrmacht.

When the allies landed in Normandy, three-fourths of the German Army was on the Russian front. The allied invasion was greatly helped by Germany’s shortage of fuel for mobilized units. If Hitler had not allowed hubris to lead him into invading the Soviet Union and, instead, just sat on his European conquests, no allied invasion would have been possible. Today Germany would rule all of Europe, including the UK. The US would have no European Empire with which to threaten Russia, China, and the Middle East.

In Korea in the 1950s, General Douglas MacArthur, victorious over Japan, was fought to a standstill by third world China. In Vietnam American technological superiority was defeated by a third world army. The US rolled up mighty Grenada in the 1980s, but lost its proxy war against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

Is there anyone so foolish as to think that Grenada or the Sandinistas were a threat to the United States, that North Korea or North Vietnam comprised threats to the United States? Yet, the Korean and Vietnam wars were treated as if the fate of the United States hung in the balance. The conflicts produced voluminous dire predictions and strategic debates. The communist threat replaced the Hitler threat. The American Empire was at risk from third world peoples. Dominoes would fall everywhere.

Currently Washington is at work overturning President Reagan’s accomplishment of ending the Cold War. Washington orchestrated a coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and installed a stooge government. Washington’s stooges began issuing threats against Russia and the Russian speaking population in Ukraine. These threats resulted in those parts of Ukraine that were formerly part of Russia declaring their independence. Washington blames Russia, not itself, and is stirring the pot, demonizing Russia and recreating the Cold War with military deployments in the Baltics and Eastern Europe. Washington needs to reinvent the Cold War in order to justify the hundreds of billions of dollars that Washington annually feeds the military/security complex, some of which recycles in political campaign donations. In contrast to Washington’s propaganda, an honest view of the events in Ukraine can be found here: http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

In the United States patriotism and militarism have become synonyms. This July 4th find the courage to remind the militarists that Independence Day celebrates the Declaration of Independence, not the American Empire. The Declaration of Independence was not only a declaration of independence from King George III but also a declaration of independence from unaccountable tyrannical government. The oath of office commits the US officeholder to the defense of the US Constitution from enemies ”foreign and domestic.”

In the 21st century Americans’ worst enemies are not al Qaeda, Iran, Russia, and China. America’s worst enemies are our own presidents who have declared repeatedly that the orchestrated “war on terror” gives them the right to set aside the civil liberties guaranteed to every citizen by the US Constitution. Presidential disrespect for the US Constitution is so extreme that Obama has nominated David Barron to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Barron is the Justice (sic) Department official who wrote the memos fabricating a legal justification for the Office of President to murder US citizens without due process of law. http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/tell-the-senate-keep-assassination-memo-nominee-david-barron-off-the-federal-bench?akid=10688.1090360.wP_x-8&rd=1&suppress_one_click=true&t=3

Having stripped US citizens of their civil liberties, executive branch agencies are now stocking up vast amounts of ammunition, and the Department of Agriculture has placed an order for submachine guns. The Department for Homeland Security has acquired 2,717 mine-resistant armored personnel carriers. Congress and the media are not interested in why the executive branch is arming itself so heavily against the American people.

During the entirely of the 21st century–indeed, dating from the Clinton regime at the end of the 20th century–the executive branch has declared its independence from law (both domestic and international) and from the Constitution, Congress, and the Judiciary. The executive branch, with the help of the Republican Federalist Society, has established that the office of the executive is a tyranny unaccountable to law, domestic or international, as long as the executive declares a state of war, even a war that is not conducted against another country or countries but a vague, undefined or ill-defined war against a vague stateless enemy such as al Qaeda, with which the US is currently allied against Syria.

Al Qaeda now has a dual role. Al Qaeda is Washington’s agent for overthrowing the elected Assad government in Syria and al Qaeda is the evil force against which US civil liberties must be sacrificed.

The illegitimate power asserted by the Office of the President is not only a threat to every American but also to every living being on planet earth. As the article cited above reports: “Approximately 17,300 nuclear weapons are presently deployed in at least 9 countries, many of which can be launched and reach their targets within 45 minutes.”

It only takes one fool–and Washington has thousands of fools–and all life on earth terminates in 45 minutes. The neoconservative belief that the United States is the exceptional, indispensable country chosen by history to rule the earth is a belief full of the arrogance and hubris that lead to war.

Keep your likely fate in mind as you watch the military bands and marches on July 4th and listen to the hot air of militarism.

---

NO ONE WHO WATCHES THE U.S. EVENING NEWS CAN BE UNAWARE OF THE CONSTANT DRUMBEAT FOR ATTACKING IRAN. WHAT YOU DON'T HEAR IS WHAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN GOING ON IN IRAN. HERE, PEPE ESCOBAR EXPERTLY REVIEWS THE RECENT HISTORY OF IRAN (AND WASHINGTON'S INTRANSIGENT RELATIONSHIP WITH IT) UP TO THE PRESENT DAY.

---

August 22, 2012 at 00:02:56

Permalink

War fever as seen from Iran

By Pepe Escobar (about the author)

opednews.com

Cross-posted from Asia Times

Absent the possibility of joining the Curiosity rover on Mars, there's nowhere to hide from the "Bomb Iran" hysteria relentlessly emanating from Tel Aviv and its Washington outposts. Now that even includes third-rate hacks suggesting US President Barack Obama should go in person to Israel to appease the warmongering duo Bibi-Barak[1].

So it's time for something completely different -- and totally absent from Western corporate media; sound Iranian minds rationally analyzing what's really going on behind the drums of war -- regarding Iran, Turkey, the Arab world and across Eurasia.

Let's start with ambassador Hossein Mousavian, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, a former spokesperson for the Iranian nuclear negotiating team from 2003 to 2005, and the author of The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir.

Writing at the Arms Control Association website[2], Mousavian goes straight to the point; "The history of Iran's nuclear program suggests that the West is inadvertently pushing Iran toward nuclear weapons."

In seven key steps, he outlines how this happened -- starting with Iran's "entrance into the nuclear field," owed largely, by the way, to Washington; "In the 1970s, the Shah [of Iran] had ambitious plans for expanding the nuclear program, envisioning 23 nuclear power plants by 1994, with support from the United States."

Mousavian stresses how, from 2003 to 2005, during the first Bush administration...

"Iran submitted different [nuclear] proposals, which included a declaration to cap enrichment at the 5% level; export all low-enriched uranium (LEU) or fabricate it into fuel rods; commit to an additional protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement and to Code 3.1 of the subsidiary arrangements to the agreement, which would provide the maximum level of transparency; and allow the IAEA to make snap inspections of undeclared facilities. This offer was intended to address the West's concerns regarding the nature of Iran's nuclear program by ensuring that no enriched uranium would be diverted to a nuclear weapons program. It also would have facilitated the recognition of Iran's right to enrichment under the NPT. In exchange for these Iranian commitments, the Iranian nuclear file at the IAEA would be normalized, and Iran would have broader political, economic, and security cooperation with the European Union. Furthermore, Iran was interested in securing fuel for the research reactor in Tehran and was ready to ship its enriched uranium to another country for fabrication into fuel rods."

The Bush administration refused everything. Mousavian recalls "a meeting I had at the time with French Ambassador to Iran Francois Nicoullaud, he told me, "For the US, the enrichment in Iran is a red line which the European Union cannot cross."

So "the West was not interested in solving the nuclear issue. Rather, the West wanted to compel Iran to forgo its enrichment program completely." This could only lead Tehran to "change its nuclear diplomacy and accelerate its enrichment program, as it sought self-sufficiency in nuclear fuel."

"Zero stockpile," anyone?

Fast forward to February 2010. Tehran proposed, "keeping its enrichment activities below 5% in return for the West providing fuel rods for the Tehran reactor. The West refused this offer."

Then, in May 2010, "Iran reached a deal with Brazil and Turkey to swap its stockpile of LEU for research reactor fuel. The deal was based on a proposal first drafted by the Obama administration with Brazilian and Turkish officials under the impression that they had the blessing of Washington to negotiate with Iran. Regrettably, the United States trampled on their success by rejecting the plan; the UN Security Council subsequently passed additional sanctions against Iran."

Every unbiased observer following the Iranian nuclear dossier knows these facts. Another flash forward, to September 2011, "when Iran had completely mastered 20% enrichment and had a growing stockpile, it proposed stopping its 20%-enrichment activities and accepting Western-provided fuel rods for the Tehran reactor. Once again, the West declined and made it necessary for the Iranians to move toward producing their own fuel rods."

Moving on to this year's talks in Istanbul and Baghdad, Mousavian stresses, "with each blockage and punitive Western action, Iran further advances its nuclear program."

And it gets worse; "A comparison of the June 19 statement in Moscow by Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief and lead negotiator for the P5+1, with her April 14 Istanbul statement reveals a major difference. The P5+1 is now giving more emphasis to Iran's compliance with its international obligations, namely, UN Security Council resolutions, rather than focusing on the country's obligations under the NPT. This is a clear setback from the Istanbul position. It indicates a focus on suspension of Iran's enrichment activities, a demand that has been a deal breaker since 2003."

The bottom line is "not only has the West pushed Iran to seek self-sufficiency, but at every juncture, it has tried to deprive Iran of its inalienable right to enrichment. This has simply propelled Iran to proceed full throttle toward mastering nuclear technology." 

The conclusion is inevitable; "The progress of Iran's nuclear program is the product of Western efforts to pressure and isolate Iran while refusing to recognize Iran's rights."

Washington and its European followers simply can't understand that "sanctions, isolation, and threats would not bring Iran to its knees. On the contrary, these policies have led only to the advancement of Iran's nuclear program." With even more devastating sanctions and the "Bomb Iran" fever turning into an attack, one consequence, says Mousavian, is assured; "Iran would be likely to withdraw from the NPT and pursue nuclear weapons."

What makes it even more absurd is that there is a solution to all this madness:

"To satisfy the concerns of the West regarding Iran's 20% stockpile, a mutually acceptable solution for the long term would entail a 'zero stockpile.' Under this approach, a joint committee of the P5+1 and Iran would quantify the domestic needs of Iran for use of 20% enriched uranium, and any quantity beyond that amount would be sold in the international market or immediately converted back to an enrichment level of 3.5%. This would ensure that Iran does not possess excess 20% enriched uranium forever, satisfying the international concerns that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. It would be a face-saving solution for all parties as it would recognize Iran's right to enrichment and would help to negate concerns that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons."

Will Washington -- and Tel Aviv -- ever accept it? Of course not. The dogs of war will keep on barking.

A new security game

It's also quite refreshing to examine Iranian analysts' take on Syria.

Mehdi Mohammadi, writing at the IranNuc.IR website[3] notes "the fear that the Sunni majority has of a Salafi minority is a very important, and often censored, reality about the situation on the ground in Syria. It is the same reality which has prevented the opposition to accept any form of negotiations or even free elections." This fact is absolutely anathema in Western corporate media's coverage of Syria.

Mohammadi correctly evaluates the discrepancies among different Muslim Brotherhood (MB) factions inside Syria; one hardline faction wants Sharia law; another is convinced the future of the whole region is essentially at the hands of the MB anyway, so they are on a mission from God; but the majority wants to extract as much money as they can from Saudi Arabia while allied with France, the US, Sunnis in Lebanon and Jordan; "this part forms the spine of the armed opposition in Syria."

The bottom line is that even in the best-case scenario, the MB "is making a dire strategic mistake ... Even if Assad's government falls, the Americans will not allow the Syrian government to fall into the hands of that part of the Muslim Brotherhood which seeks to continue and even give more depth to the existing conflict with Israel."

Mohammadi also observes, right on the money, how the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey "reached the conclusion that the best way for preventing Arab Spring developments to serve Iran's increasing power in the region was to turn the whole situation into a conflict between Shi'ites and Sunnis."

Essentially, how does Tehran see it? According to Mohammadi, "there is a high degree of confidence that the Syrian government will not fall in medium term." On top of it, "it is very unlikely that Russia and China will reach an agreement with the West over Syria," and "even on Iran's nuclear dossier."

So Tehran is betting on the strategic achievement of a "reliable anti-West front consisting of Russia and China." His conclusion; "The strategic equation of the region as a result of the ongoing developments in Syria has by no means changed to the detriment of Iran."

In an interview to the Iranian Diplomacy (IRD) website[4] former ambassador and strategic analyst Mohammad Farhad Koleini comments on how "some Arab countries, which have very bleak records in the field of human rights, have joined hands with the United States in the current equation in Syria in order to define a new security game. This security game, however, has been so mismanaged that it will certainly taint the international image of the United States."

Koleini notes that as the West goes for a new security arrangement in the Mediterranean, Moscow is trying "not to allow the West to impose its geopolitical monopoly." So the Russian approach to Syria "is not necessarily focused on what is actually going on inside the country, but it stems from a regional package and how Moscow aims to regulate that package in relation to its interactions with the West."

That explains why Russia "will never allow Western states to impose a no-fly zone region over Syria." Is this confrontation? Not really; "Russia is doing its best to avoid outright confrontation by any means. China has also shown all along the way that it is following the same policy."

Mehdi Sanaei, the director of the Russia Studies Group at the University of Tehran and the director of the Iran and Eurasia Research Center (IRAS), writing at the Tabnak News website[5] goes way deeper; Moscow is now working under "unprecedented suspicion of the United States' goals and intentions in the Middle East and Eurasia."

So forget about the famous "reset" between Washington and Moscow.

Sanaei refers to the famous foreign policy article[6] published by Putin on the eve of the Russian presidential election: "Putin took a direct shot at the United States by accusing Washington of deception and abuse of the UN structure and resolutions, applying double standards to various global issues in different countries, as well as seeking its own interests under the cover of advocating democracy."

Sanaei also correctly describes how Russian analysts see the Obama administration's foreign policy as "based on two theories: 'ultimate realism,' and 'new liberalism.' As a result, the Americans actually believe that world countries are simply divided into the United States' friends and enemies. Hostile countries, therefore, should be weakened and their presence in global and regional strategic arenas should be limited and even suppressed in political, economic and cultural terms."

So, for Moscow, "a new wave of the world order has been initiated by the United States in order to create a new version of the past unipolar world system. The main targets of this wave, Moscow maintains, include North Africa, the Middle East, Iran, Eurasia, and finally China and Russia."

Koleini, this time writing for the Tehran Emrooz daily[7], introduces the Pipelineistan theme in the Iran-Russia relationship; "Despite its cooperation with Iran's nuclear energy program, Russia has been always willing to cut Iran's hand in the European natural gas market. Therefore, Russia has been interacting with Turkey and certain Eastern European countries on the Blue Stream project. This proves beyond any doubt that Russia is trying to take the lead in engineering security structure in Europe through its energy policy and reduce Europe's reliance on other energy sources."

All this while "trying to play a balancing role in Iran's nuclear case."

Koleini also outlines the main challenge to the "Eurasian policy" laid out by Putin before his election; "The point is that the West is designing new political games, especially in Central Asia to give new problems to Russia and divert Moscow's attention from Eurasia to traditional spheres of the former Soviet Union."

Egypt and Iran kiss and make up

Iranian intellectuals are carefully monitoring neighboring Turkey. Turkey and Caucasus expert Elyas Vahedi observes how "the Turkish government came up with such concepts as 'neither state religion, nor religious state,' 'secular government, not secular man,' 'civilizing the constitution,' 'democratic openness/Kurdish openness/Alawite openness,' and 'civil control and supervision over the army' and has been using them to strengthen and maintain the political clout of the Justice and Development Party."

And of course, before the Arab Spring, all talk was about "zero problems with our neighbors" and Turkey's "strategic depth" doctrine.

But now that Turkey is stuck in Syria, the AKP government is "trying to justify its failure by claiming that the policy of minimizing problems with neighboring countries has just entered is second phase ... Turkey believes that the main feature of the second version of this policy is interaction with people in neighboring countries rather than interaction with their governments."

It simply doesn't hold, says Vahedi: "This viewpoint, despite some shortcomings, was somehow justifiable in some countries like Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, but this is not the case in Syria." Besides, Ankara "remained silent toward the predicament of people in Bahrain, under the pretext that political protests in Bahrain are not popular."

Moreover, Turkey's foreign policy "has also nurtured speculations that Ankara has joined the Shi'ite-Sunni conflict which has been fostered by the West. The damage that this notion will do to Turkey's regional and international standing and prestige will be too costly for Ankara."

Vahedi sees Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as just following the West, which is leading from behind, Obama-style. Turkey "has apparently read the West's mind and is trying to accept that role on behalf of the West in return for certain concessions." But it won't work -- as, for instance, facilitating Turkey's accession to the EU over immense French and German objections.

Not to mention that Ankara "is facing scathing criticism from nationalist figures. They allege that while the rights of Turks are being ignored in Karabakh as well as in the Balkans through the oversight of the Western powers, the government of Turkey has made defending the rights of the Syrian people its first and foremost priority."

Ali Akbar Asadi, from the International Relations Dept at the University of Allameh Tabatabaei, expands on the key event of the next few weeks: the renewed diplomatic relationship between Iran and Egypt -- which is drawing Washington's unmitigated wrath; the State Department, in a childish move, is even saying that Iran "does not deserve" to host the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran, which will be attended by Egypt's President Mohamed Morsi.[8]

Asadi goes to the jugular -- the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) petro-monarchies are terrified that "Egypt may renew relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran or even enter into strategic relations with Turkey, thus working to undermine the influence and clout of the GCC in the new balance of regional power." 

So the GCC is doing what it usually does; showering a bit of cash. "They want to keep Egypt, as a big and important Arab political player, on their own side."

Besides, they are demanding from Morsi and the MB that "they do not take any step to export their revolution and activate affiliates" of the MB in the GCC. And they "expect Cairo to avoid adopting a new approach to strengthening Hamas against Fatah, helping Gaza and the Palestinian population there, and taking an adamant stance against the Israeli regime."

The GCC policy, supported by the West and Israel, is "to keep Egypt entangled in its domestic challenges" and thus unable to exercise its "historical claim to leadership of the Arab world."

This is just a sample of the level of intellectual discussion going on in Iran. Compared to the bombing hysteria in Tel Aviv and Washington, it does look like it's coming from Mars.

Notes:
1. An Obama Visit to Israel Could Stall Iran Attack, Bloomberg, August 21.
2. See armscontrol.org/
3. See www.irannuc.ir/
4. See www.irdiplomacy.ir/
5. See www.tabnak.ir/
6. See Russia and the changing world, RIANOVOSTI
7. See www.tehrooz.com
8. US says Iran doesn't deserve to host summit of Non Aligned Movement, Washington Post, August 21.

---

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times. His regular column, "The Roving Eye," is widely read. He is an analyst for the online news channel Real News. He argues that the world has become fragmented into "stans" -- we are now living an intestinal war, an undeclared global civil war. He has published three books on geopolitics, including the spectacularly-titled “Globalistan: How the Globalised World Is Dissolving Into Liquid War”.  His latest book is "Obama Does Globalistan."

THE PUSH TO BOMB IRAN COMES FROM THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT NOT FROM THE ISRAELI PEOPLE, WHO OPPOSE IT. HERE AN AMERICAN RABBI EXPLAINS THE COMMON-SENSE REASONS WHY WE SHOULD *NOT* BOMB IRAN!

---

  theREALnews                                                                               Permalink

"No First Strike Against Iran" Says NYT Ad

Rabbi Michael Lerner: Obama is wrong to reject a policy of containment

Bio

Rabbi Michael Lerner is the author of eleven books, including the bestseller, The Left Hand of God. He is the editor of Tikkun magazine and the rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue Without Walls in Berkeley, California. He is also the chair of the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives. He is currently touring the country to promote his 2012 book, Embracing Israel/Palestine, which has received rave reviews from Avrum Burg, Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, Keith Ellison and many other religious leaders, scholars, and peace activists.

THERE IS A HUE AND CRY TO BOMB IRAN BEFORE THEY NUKE US. BUT IRAN IS FAR FROM MAKING A SINGLE WARHEAD. BY CONTRAST, PAKISTAN HAS MANY NUCLEAR WARHEADS. WHAT DO WE DO? SEND DRONES TO KILL 2,400 INNOCENT PAKISTANIS IN ORDER TO KNOCK OFF 68 SUSPECTED TERRORISTS. IT'S LIKE POKING A NEST OF WASPS. WITH A FOREIGN POLICY LIKE THIS, THEY SURELY WON'T HATE US FOR OUR "FREEDOM"...

---

  theREALnews                                                                               Permalink

US Drone Strikes Destabilize Pakistan

Fred Branfman: US policy should be to help develop Pakistan



Bio

Fred Branfman is an American anti-war activist and author of a number of books about the Indochina War. Once working as the Director of Project Air War in 1969, he wrote about the U.S. bombing in Indochina. He also worked as a policy advisor for former California governors Jerry Brown, Gary Hart and Tom Hayden. He currently writes for TrulyALive.org, a web based community about death awareness. His work has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Harper's and the New Republic.

Greg Mello on US Nuclear Weapons Renaissance & Wildfire Threatens Los Alamos Nuclear Lab

democracynow


Uploaded by democracynow on Jun 28, 2011

DemocracyNow.org - In New Mexico, an out-of-control wildfire that began Sunday has already burned nearly 80-square miles and is a mile or less from Los Alamos National Laboratory, home to a nuclear weapons plutonium facility. Pieces of ash from the fire have dropped onto the laboratory grounds, sparking "spot" fires. A senior investigator with the Project on Government Oversight said a fire at the facility would be a "disaster" that could result in large and lethal releases of radiation. Officials insist explosive materials on the laboratory's grounds are safely stored in underground bunkers made of concrete and steel. But the group, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, told the Associated Press that the fire appeared to be about 3.5 miles from a dumpsite where as many as 30,000 55-gallon drums of plutonium-contaminated waste were stored in fabric tents above ground. The group said the drums were awaiting transport to a low-level radiation dump site in southern New Mexico. Democracy Now! interviews Greg Mello, the director of the Los Alamos Study Group, a citizen-led nuclear disarmament group based in New Mexico. "Los Alamos National Laboratory is becoming the center of plutonium manufacturing for the country," Mello says, even though "it is a place with a lot of natural hazards, not just fires, but also earthquakes."

To download the podcast, read the transcript, and for more information about Democracy Now!, visit http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/28/as_obama_quietly_pushes_for_a