HIGHLY POTENT NEWS THAT MIGHT CHANGE YOUR VIEWS

Archive for January 27, 2012

Foreign Syrian intervention and the Russian-Chinese opposition

Nikolai Patrushev (left) and Vladimir Putin (right) (Photo credit: http://www.kremlin.ru)

By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
January 13, 2012

The push for foreign intervention in Syria has been going on for quite a while now and never seems to relent in ferocity. I have been writing about this issue for months now, so if you would like to get a strong background on this topic I highly recommend you scroll down to the end of the article to find a list of related reading materials.

Despite the large conglomeration of Western nations and allied nations in the Arab League’s relentless full-court press, some countries continue to resist this effort.

The most glaring example is, of course, Russia.

Russia has not only been a vocal opponent of sanctions and resolutions in the United Nations Security Council, indeed they have actually backed up their rhetoric with muscle; something which China has yet to do.

I previously reported on Russia moving complete advanced anti-aircraft missile systems and all that is required to operate them into Syria, a move which was likely an attempt to dissuade the West and/or Arab League from moving to establish a no-fly zone over Syria.

Russian warships have also moved into Syrian waters previously, and most recently it was announced that a Russian naval group docked in the Syrian port city of Tartus.

All of these actions make some quite pronounced statements to the United States, NATO and Arab League members who are seeking to topple the Assad regime.

However, it just becomes more heated as the days go by and the statements coming out of Russia just get increasingly unequivocal.

Remarks made by Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev have been some of the strongest to date.

In an interview with Russian newspaper Kommersant, Patrushev stated that NATO member states are planning “direct military intervention” in cooperation with the Arab League, according to RT.

Such an operation would likely be mostly in the blueprint of the foreign intervention in Libya which led to the brutal murder of Qaddafi, the desecration of his corpse, Western puppets being put in power, Western nations reaping the windfall profits of the contracts to rebuild Libya, and of course a massive civilian death toll.

This seems like hardly the course of events anyone would seek to repeat, yet this is exactly what they are apparently planning to do.

However, I must encourage the reader to keep in mind that this is not the first time such a report has been released, but in the previous case no such no-fly zone or so-called “buffer zone” ever emerged.

This operation would likely break from the mold of the Libyan operation in one important way: instead of the United States, France, Italy and the United Kingdom providing most of the firepower and personnel, it very well might be Turkey in this case.

Turkey might turn its back on a former ally due to the Turkish-Iranian rivalry.

Turkey reportedly has “huge ambitions” in the region and the major impediment to the realization of such ambitions is Iran, which continues to maintain close ties with Syria – something which obviously irks the West.

Patrushev has stated that the United States and Turkey are thought to be in the process of negotiating the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria, which obviously would directly benefit the armed insurgent forces in the nation like the Free Syrian Army.

Recently a foreign journalist was killed in Syria, but not by government forces as many in the controlled establishment media immediately assumed.

This became quite obvious when it came out that the journalist was in fact at a pro-government rally, and a government under siege domestically shooting its own citizens who support them makes so little sense that it is surprising that anyone would say otherwise, even in the chronically nonsensical mainstream media.

Events like this have been occurring since day one, but the mentions of the armed opposition and their actions are usually either omitted, marginalized, or strategically buried in articles.

Obviously this is a concerted effort as the presence of opposition gunmen is hardly an insignificant detail and it thoroughly contradicts the mainstream media’s manufactured narrative.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has continued to point to a foreign conspiracy as the cause of the uprising, statements which are routinely derided by the Western media and governments.

Assad’s statements are usually either ignored or brushed off as the insane rantings of some paranoid lunatic, which is a classic diversionary tactic intended to keep people from actually looking into his claims.

When one does, it becomes quite clear that there is, in fact, a Western conspiracy against Syria, and it is hardly unclear when one takes the time to look past the myopic coverage of the establishment media.

Often a news outlet will actually report on the Western backing of opposition groups, funding of anti-government propaganda, etc. while somehow managing to forget to integrate this knowledge into their future coverage.

This is because it wouldn’t look very good for a news outlet to cover the statements of chronic deceiver Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then mention how there is evidence that clearly shows all of her statements to be bold faced lies.

The same State Department has been guilty of pumping anti-government propaganda into Syria via satellite while American ambassadors have met with prominent Syrian opposition figures and Syrian opposition non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have had high-level meetings with the British government as well.

Unsurprisingly, instead of even attempting to address the mounds of evidence that show covert foreign involvement in the Syrian uprising – and the greater “Arab Spring” uprisings in general – Clinton just derided the comments as a whole.

Clinton made her typically laughably baseless statements during a joint press-conference with the Prime Minister of Qatar, calling Assad’s speech “chillingly cynical” adding that America “cannot permit President Assad and his regime to have impunity.”

The presence of the Qatari PM is quite ironic given their heavy involvement in the Libyan intervention, including running all of the major ground operations for the NATO-backed rebel forces.

We must keep in mind that al Jazeera is a Qatari state-funded propaganda arm, thus the news they publish must be viewed with the necessary skepticism, like all media but especially the controlled establishment media.

It is also worth noting that the Clinton just stated that the Arab League’s monitoring mission should be brought to an end because they have so far totally failed to “deter the government’s 10-month campaign of violence against dissidents,” according to Bloomberg.

The timing of Clinton’s remarks is quite interesting as well, not only because she had just met with Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al Thani, but also because American President Barack Obama also recently met with the Saudi Foreign Minister, Saud al-Faisal at the White House.

Saudi Arabia has been a key partner in the Western growth in the region, especially in the effort to encircle and isolate Syria and Iran.

As I have previously covered, the United States is also arming these allied states in the Persian Gulf, in the case of Saudi Arabia it is with new and renovated fighter jets.

A Middle East analyst at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, Irina Zvyagelskaya, said that Russia is concerned that if Assad’s government is toppled, Islamic radicals may come to power.

This is hardly a baseless claim given that we have seen the  heavy involvement of Islamic forces throughout the so-called Arab Spring uprisings, especially in Libya and Egypt.

Zvyagelskaya stated that while Russia would continue to block any attempt at approval of a no-fly zone in the United Nations Security Council, Western nations and their allies very well might take an approach similar to that in 2003 in the case of Iraq.

This would be an independent coalition, outside of the United Nations, which could then engage in anything and everything without concern over operating outside of a UN mandate or a UNSC resolution.

“Syria has not become an object of interest for a new coalition of the willing itself,” Patrushev said. “The plan is to punish Damascus not so much for repressing the opposition as for its unwillingness to sever friendly relations with Tehran.”

Then again, as we saw in Libya, the West and others have absolutely no problem with breaching a United States Security Council Resolution if they decide to do so.

“We have seen before what a no-fly zone means, it will be used to overthrow the regime,” Zvyagelskaya said.

This is quite right, as we have seen in Libya where the no-fly zone actually killed civilians instead of protecting them as it was intended to do.

Instead, it was used to advance the NATO-backed and Qatari-controlled rebel ground forces in their effort to kill Qaddafi and enact regime change.

As I have previously reported, the Free Syrian Army – comprised mostly of military defectors – has been pushing for a “buffer zone” (a less intimidating term for a no-fly zone) in the north on the Turkish-Syrian border and the South on the Syrian-Jordanian border.

The Jordanian aspect of this equation becomes more important when one considers the reports of American troop buildups on the Syrian-Jordanian border in the recent past.

There is the real possibility that this force (if it is actually still there, which is unconfirmed as far as I know) could be used to create or assist in the establishment of this so-called buffer zone.

Fyodor Lukyanov, an analyst at the Council on Foreign and Defense policy in Moscow, said that these statements from Russia are likely due to either intelligence regarding Western military plans in Syria or perhaps it may just be an effort to make it clear that they will actively oppose any efforts made by the West or its allies to intervene.

However, I would argue that this has been quite clear with the instances of Russian warship presence and the delivery of advanced missile systems that Russia has always intended to take an active role in opposing any foreign efforts.

“After the Libyan experience, Russia will do everything to stop this scenario from happening,” Lukyanov told Bloomberg, adding, “Syria is much more important than Libya from Russia’s point of view.”

I think that it is quite obvious at this point that Syria is more important to Russia given that Russia never docked naval vessels on the coast of Libya or delivered weapons systems.

All of these statements from the Russians only serve to make it even more obvious that they will not stand for yet another Western intervention under the guise of humanitarianism.

Wu Sike, China’s Special Envoy to the Middle East said that China rejected the internationalization of the Syrian crisis while showing their support for the Arab League’s efforts to resolve the situation, according to Syria’s SANA via Azerbaijani Trend News Agency.

Sike stated that the situation should be addressed within the Arab framework, clearly implying that the Western companies trying to meddle in Syria’s domestic affairs need to mind their own business.

Interestingly, Sike’s statements conflicted with those of Clinton most significantly in that the Chinese Envoy said that the Arab League’s monitors should be assisted by the Syrian government and the other sides involved in hopes that they will succeed.

On the other hand, Clinton seems to believe that it has been a total failure which should be chalked up as a loss, indicating that the next option they will be pursuing will likely involve some kind of military action.

Hopefully the significant opposition from Russia – backed up with the threat of military action – coupled with China’s more diplomatic approach will serve to dissuade the West and the regional allies from engaging in another imperialistic regime change.

Unfortunately the wild brazenness with which the West has been operating as of late does nothing to reassure me that this will not occur.

Recommended related reading (in chronological order, oldest to latest):

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

January 27, 2012 | Categories: co-opting and/or destabilization, news, Syria, tyranny, war | Leave a comment

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part VII

The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65) underway in the Atlantic Ocean (Photo credit: US Navy)

By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
January 23, 2012

With the European Union passing new sanctions on Iranian oil exports and freezing the assets of the Iranian central bank and the suspicious murder of yet another Iranian military figure, the grim situation in Iran does not seem to be letting up.

Ramin Mehmanparast, the spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry called the EU’s new sanctions “psychological warfare” aimed at trying to halt Iran’s nuclear program, an assessment which I think is hardly inaccurate.

Russia has already come out against the new EU sanctions, saying in a statement, “Under pressure of this sort, Iran will not make any concessions or any corrections to its policies.”

Seeing as Iran is doing nothing more than pursuing the same civilian nuclear technology as every other Western nation, I do not think this statement is out of line in any way.

However, as the weeks and months have passed, it has become clear that the United States and the West in general will not be satisfied with the fact that Iran is not pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, something which United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had to admit himself.

It appears that they will not give up until Iran has given up all hopes of a domestic nuclear program for energy or research purposes, something which is hardly fair or justified.

The European Union’s sanctions are arguably the harshest that have been passed thus far.

They include an immediate halt to any and all new contracts for Iranian crude oil and other petroleum products.

However, existing contracts are allowed to run until July, meaning that Iran will not feel the full force of these sanctions for some time.

The 27 nation European Union also froze all assets belonging to the Iranian central bank, something which will likely end up hurting the average Iranian citizen more than anyone else, just like the rest of the sanctions.

Currently it seems that the Iranian currency is being hurt most by the sanctions, with the value dropping to record lows compared to the US dollar.

Seeing how roughly 80% of Iranian oil revenue is derived from their exports, these latest sanctions coming from the EU could severely damage the Iranian economy and skyrocket the cost of living for average Iranians due to the devalued currency.

Whereas a year ago the Iranian rial was trading roughly 10,500 to the US dollar, it is now trading around 21,000 to the dollar.

Obviously this is a massive devaluation and in just the short period from Friday to Monday, the rial dropped around 14% in value.

We must keep in mind who these sanctions are hurting: working Iranians and others who do not have access to foreign currencies or the assets to absorb such an immense devaluation of their currency.

For those unfortunate Iranians that are just scraping by and do not have some kind of foreign investments to protect their assets, these sanctions could very well be a matter of life and death.

With the European sanctions on Iranian oil exports, Iran will likely be forced to turn East and sell at a discount to those operating outside of the Western markets.

However, the United States has been pressuring Asian nations to move away from Iran as well, something which has the potential to be quite devastating if the US manages to get Japan, South Korea and India to cut off Iranian crude.

With these latest sanctions, Iran has renewed their threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, something which led the United States to make some remarkably pointed statements about what they would do if Iran decides to close off the strait.

Many analysts, myself included, believe the chances of Iran actually following through with their threats to close the strait are quite slim.

This is because it is likely the case that Iran is well aware of the fact that the West is getting “an itchy trigger finger” as it were, and thus any remotely aggressive move would be exploited and used to justify an attack on Iran.

The United States’ Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, stated that international navies will work together to keep the Strait of Hormuz open amidst renewed Iranian threats to close the channel through which an estimated 20-40% of the world’s oil passes (estimates are chronically unreliable and the same publications will routinely publish the 20% number and the 40% number without reconciling the massive difference).

“I have not looked at the exact military contingency plannings that there are and how long that would take,” Daalder said on BBC Radio 4′s “Today” program, according to Bloomberg.

“But of this I am certain: the international waterways that go through the Strait of Hormuz are to be sailed by international navies including ours, the British and the French and any other navy that needs to go through the Gulf; and second, we will make sure that happens under every circumstance,” he added.

It is important to note here that the British have already deployed their most advanced warship to the region and the United States appears to be increasing their presence there with the USS Abraham Lincoln moving into the 5th Fleet’s area of responsibility (AOR) which includes the Persian Gulf region.

Furthermore, the United Kingdom’s defense ministry said in an e-mailed statement that American, British, and French warships sailed as a group through the Strait of Hormuz.

According to the statement, this was done not in an attempt to provoke the Iranians as I suspect it was intended to do, but instead “to underline the unwavering commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law.”

“I am convinced that the Straits of Hormuz need to remain open and that we need to maintain this as an international passageway and we will do what needs to be done to ensure that is the case,” Daalder said to the BBC.

While this statement is somewhat cryptic, what is clear is that a military strike is not only on the table but a viable and quite possibly imminent option.

In my analysis of this situation, which has now stretched into a seven part series (see the end of the article for a list of links to previous articles in this series) with more to come and many other materials outside of this series to be read on End the Lie (click here to see a list of articles related to Iran), it has become clear to me that the West wants to attack Iran but will not do so without having some justification which would not be politically and diplomatically unpopular.

This justification could be real, or could very well be contrived through the use of a false flag attack in the blueprint of the now infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident which brought the United States into Vietnam.

Indeed I believe that the chances of a false flag attack are growing with the presence of the USS Enterprise in the region.

The USS Enterprise would be the perfect target for a false flag attack, because like the World Trade Centers which were plagued by asbestos, the Enterprise would cost a great deal to decommission.

The USS Enterprise, or CVN-65, was launched all the way back in 1960 and originally ordered in 1957 and is scheduled to be decommissioned next year.

The Enterprise has actually been in operation since 1962 and boasts a whopping 8 Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors, meaning that all of this would have to be disposed of in the costly manner in which nuclear waste is supposed to be dealt with.

The Enterprise, or “Big E,” is an incredibly symbolic vessel due to the fact that she is the longest naval vessel on the planet, and is the second oldest commissioned vessel in the US Navy.

The Big E has also been in operation for the longest of any aircraft carrier at 51 consecutive years.

Originally, she was slated to be decommissioned in 2014 or 2015, but the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 changed this to 2013.

If a false flag attack was carried out on the USS Enterprise and then blamed on Iran to justify an attack, it would be hitting two birds with one stone.

Firstly, it would save the military a great deal of money dealing with the process of decommissioning the vessel and handling the eight nuclear reactors.

Secondly, it would give the West the justification they have sought to attack Iran while keeping the international community on their side.

It would also make it harder for Russia and China to come to Iran’s aid in a politically popular manner as it would just appear that they are helping the aggressor.

The sad fact is that we know our military and intelligence establishment is capable of such an operation as evidenced by the Gulf of Tonkin incident and other false flag attack plans like Operation Northwoods.

Hopefully our so-called leaders are not psychopathic enough to carry out such an operation but given the historical precedent and the current situation in the region, it is hardly possible to rule it out entirely.

Previous installments in this series:

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part II

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part III

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part IV

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part V

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part VI

January 27, 2012 | Categories: Iran, news, sovereignty, tyranny, war | Leave a comment

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part VI

By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
January 18, 2012

I truly wish that this situation would fizzle out and I could stop writing these articles, but unfortunately it only seems to be getting more heated and I feel increasingly obligated to continue this in-depth series.

I have also been converting these articles to audio, so if you would like to listen to these articles or share them with your friends and family please do check them out on YouTube here and here (this article will be up in the near future as well).

I am doing this for you, the reader, so please do let me know if you appreciate these articles or if I have missed anything by contacting me directly at admin@EndtheLie.com. I look forward to hearing from you.

Now let’s move on to the latest developments in this worrisome war of words which very well might be leading to a real war.

Some troubling statements were published recently by the Iranian Fars News Agency (FNA) coming directly from Iran’s military.

Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian Army’s Self-Sufficiency Jihad Rear Admiral Farhad Amiri stated that one of the United States’ largest concerns should be Iranian subsurface naval vehicles, “since Iranian submarines are noiseless and can easily evade detection as they are equipped with the sonar-evading technology” and can fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously, according to FNA.

This statement was made even more pointed by adding that “When the submarine sits on the seabed it can easily target and hit an aircraft carrier traversing in the nearby regions.”

This is clearly a statement which is directed towards the United States given that the US has not only been moving aircraft carriers through the region in spite of Iran’s concerns but even more importantly have actually been dispatching more aircraft carriers like the USS Abraham Lincoln to the region, as I outlined in the previous installment of this series.

Similarly, Iranian Army Commander Major General Ataollah Salehi called for the US to avoid sending back military vessels to the Persian Gulf earlier this month.

This came after the massive Iranian naval drills pushed Washington into moving an aircraft carrier out of the region, according to FNA.

Of course, the United States would insist that this was purely routine transport and has nothing to do with Iran whatsoever, as they repeatedly assert regarding the military movements in the region.

Salehi stated that the United States moved the carrier out of the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz into the Sea of Oman before the Iranian naval drills began.

“We advise, warn and recommend them [the US Navy] not to return this carrier to its previous location in the Persian Gulf,” Salehi said.

It is unclear what would happen if this warning is not taken seriously, and I seriously doubt that Iran would move to attack the United States unless provoked to do so as they are well aware of the fact that it would mean a massive assault on Iran, Iranian forces and Iranian interests.

It is noteworthy to point out that Salehi didn’t mention which aircraft carrier he was actually talking about, although one can safely assume that he was referring to one of the United States Navy’s largest vessels, the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier.

“We are not in the habit of repeating the warning and we warn only once,” Salehi said.

It appears that one of the United States’ greatest concerns is the possibility that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation to Western aggressive movements due to the massive amount of oil (estimated in the range of 40% of the world’s supply) that moves through the strait.

This capability was affirmed by General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on “Face the Nation” on CBS.

“They’ve invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz,” Dempsey said.

This is a threat Iran has repeatedly made and the United States’ Fifth Fleet out of Bahrain said they would not let such a thing happen.

Despite the rhetoric from the Western establishment media and the claims made which repeatedly say that the US Fifth Fleet on its own is more powerful than the entirety of the Iranian navy, Dempsey made it clear that in fact they do have a strategic advantage in the region.

In late November, Iran expanded their submarine fleet with an additional three Ghadir-class submarines (making a total of 17 according to Iran), something which likely made the United States even more concerned about their military dominance in the region.

Amiri said that the United States has focused on Iran’s “astonish surface capabilities” and thus has ignored the power of their subsurface vehicles.

Business Insider erroneously claims that Amiri said he will move his subs onto the floor of the Persian Gulf and “fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously,” when in fact what he was saying is that they have such a capability.

Like so much of the Western media, Business Insider seems to confuse a statement of capability or a threat with a guarantee of action.

Iran is merely asserting their dominance over the Persian Gulf in order to deter further incursions in the region on the part of the West and to underline their threat to close the vital Strait of Hormuz.

I don’t find this to be nearly as threatening as Business Insider and others are making it out to be. Why wouldn’t any nation make it clear that they can defend themselves? This is not an act of aggression in any way and taking Amiri’s quote to mean that he “plans to … ‘fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously,’” instead of what he was really saying which is that they have the capability is disingenuous and misleading.

The Naval Commander of the Iranian Army, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said at the time that all parts of the submarines had not only been designed but also manufactured by Iranian experts.

This military and nuclear self-sufficiency has become something that Iran brings up often, likely to point out that the West’s sanctions aren’t nearly as damaging as some may think.

Highlighting the domestic design and production of the submarines, along with the nuclear fuel rod, is something we should take note of as such statements will likely increase as the West continues to push for sanctions and European Union ministers are set to discuss further sanctions at the end of this month.

While United States Secretary of Defense emphasized that the United States military is fully prepared to address any threats by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, he claimed that they were not taking any “special steps” to bolster American forces in the region at this point.

This assertion is likely laughable to anyone who has been reading this series, as I have shown a steady effort to bolster the presence of American forces in the region along with the military capabilities of allied nations surrounding Iran.

The most glaring fact which completely contradicts Panetta’s claim is the deployment of 15,000 American troops to Kuwait.

How this does not constitute any “special steps” is beyond me, and likely is beyond anyone who is remotely capable of independent critical thought.

“We are not [taking] any special steps at this point in order to deal with the situation,” Panetta said.

“Why? Because frankly we are fully prepared to deal with that situation now,” he added.

However, this does not explain the movement of the USS Abraham Lincoln, nor the arming of neighboring states, or the massive troop movements.

It appears to me that Leon Panetta is just attempting to be boastful and nonchalant, while the statement from Dempsey reflects the fact that the United States is indeed well aware of the superior strategic positioning of Iran in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.

Reuters cites unnamed analysts who say that the Iranian navy “does not have the size for a sustained physical blockade of the strait, but does have mine-laying and missile capability.”

This obviously leaves out the submarine variable in this complex equation, along with the dual missile/torpedo firing capability.

It also seems to be ignoring the recent successful Iranian missile tests, including the test of a shore-to-sea anti-ship missile which is likely designed to be able to take out American vessels in the region if a conflict were to occur.

The Reuters article marginalizes Dempsey’s affirmation that Iran could indeed close the strait and instead highlights his expression of “confidence earlier this month that the U.S. military could reopen the strait if Iran blocked it.”

To be fair, the do cite “speculation that additional U.S. forces might be needed to do so, and U.S. media have been closely watching the movements of U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups.”

Unsurprisingly they fail to point out the troop movements and naval movements which are already occurring in order to prepare for such an operation.

“We have continually maintained a strong presence in the region to make very clear that we are going to do everything possible to secure the peace in that part of the world,” Panetta said.

However, to the independent observer it seems quite clear that what the United States is doing in the region is not promoting peace in any way but is instead designed to push Iran into striking first in order to justify an all-out Western assault against the nation.

With so many undeclared conflicts (or wars depending on how you define the term) going on at once, the United States and the West in general cannot afford another public relations problem.

Having Iran strike first would get much of the international community behind the West and thus give them free license to utterly destroy Iran with impunity.

Yesterday FNA also reported that Ramin Mehman-Parast, the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Spokesman, said that a recent letter from the United States regarding the Strait of Hormuz does not signal any new development in American-Iranian ties.

“No new development has happened with regard to Iran-US ties,” Mehman-Parast told reporters in Tehran yesterday.

Iran confirmed that they had received a letter from the US and the Iranian Foreign Ministry stated, “A reply will be sent if Tehran finds it necessary.”

“The US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice had handed a letter to Iran’s Ambassador to the UN Mohammad Khazayee; the Swiss Ambassador to Tehran [Livia Leu Agosti] also conveyed the same thing; and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani delivered the same message to Iranian officials,” Mehman-Parast said.

In response to the American warnings to Iran regarding closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Lieutenant Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami said that Iran “never asks for anyone’s permission to carry out what it desires.”

“Iran does not ask permission to implement its own defensive strategies,” Salami told FNA in late December.

It remains to be seen if Iran will reply to the American letter at all, and if they do, what tone the response will take.

Iran has made no effort to tone down the heated rhetoric or to counter Western saber rattling with anything other than saber rattling of their own.

It is hard to blame them when they have such a large conglomeration of nations itching to pull the trigger on them, especially when the group is being lead by the United States – hardly a nation known for overwhelming peacefulness.

Today Russia said that a military strike on Iran would be what AFP called “a ‘catastrophe’ with the severest consequences which risked inflaming existing tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.”

“As for the chances of this catastrophe happening you would have to ask those constantly mentioning it as an option that remains on the table,” Lavrov said.

Here Lavrov is clearly hinting at the United States and Israel which repeatedly say that a military option has not been taken off the table.

Although, it is worth mentioning that Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defense Minister did say today that Israel considered a military option to be “very far away.”

Then again, Israel is not a nation known for being straightforward and public with their plans so I think Barak’s statement is worth very little, if anything at all.

Lavrov emphasized that such a military operation on Iran would create a refugee crisis in the region along with inflaming sectarian tensions which already run quite deep.

“I have no doubt in the fact that it [would] only add fuel to the fire of the still-simmering Sunni-Shiite conflict. And I do not know where the subsequent chain reaction will end,” Lavrov said.

I believe this assertion is quite accurate as we’ve seen a great deal of sectarian violence in Syria, especially in cities like Homs, along with constant violence along sectarian lines in Iraq.

“Additional unilateral sanctions against Iran have nothing to do with a desire to ensure the regime’s commitment to nuclear non-proliferation,” Lavrov added.

Again, I find Lavrov’s assessment to be entirely accurate as it has become quite clear that the West is just using the nuclear issue as an excuse to pressure and/or attack Iran.

This is highlighted by Leon Panetta openly admitting that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon on national television in the United States, while still insisting that we must be concerned.

It has become obvious to even the casual observer that the United States cares not about the civilian nature of the Iranian nuclear program and instead is just using it as a way to steer the opinion of the international community against Iran.

“It is seriously aimed at suffocating the Iranian economy and the well-being of its people, probably in the hop of inciting discontent,” Lavrov said.

Indeed these moves seem focused upon cutting off Iran’s economic ties (which directly affects the well-being of the Iranian people) while reducing their self-sufficiency.

As I have previously mentioned, while Iran has a massive oil reserve, they do not have the refining capability to keep up with domestic demand.

This leads them to have to look outside their borders for sources of refined gasoline and the United States has been attempting to cut off these supply lines in every way possible.

Furthermore, the pressure on their nuclear program is designed to reduce their ability to domestically produce energy and become self-sufficient.

Lavrov also said that Russia has evidence that Iran not only was ready to cooperate more closely with representatives of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but also were preparing for “serious talks” with the West.

Interestingly, Lavrov hinted that the United States and Europe were intentionally imposing new sanctions in order to kill a new round of nuclear talks.

This seems quite plausible given that the West appears to have no interest whatsoever in letting Iran pursue a nuclear capability be it peaceful or military.

“Iran is now waiting for an [IAEA] delegation so that it can discuss serious issues. So the sanctions that can now be adopted by the European Union can hardly improve the atmosphere or make the talks productive,” Lavrov said.

“All possible sanctions that could impact Iran’s behavior in the nuclear sphere or its cooperation with the IAEA have been exhausted,” he added.

Lavrov is emphasizing the point that I have been attempting to drive home with a vengeance: the West has no interest in stopping the Iranian nuclear program or working towards peace in the region.

It is becoming increasingly clear that all the United States and the West in general wants is regime change and/or war.

It is also being reported that European Union diplomats have set a july date for a full embargo on Iranian oil imports, something which Iran has repeatedly said would lead them to close the Strait of Hormuz.

It remains to be seen if Iran will follow through with this threat, and if they do how the United States and the West will react or retaliate.

If the rhetoric is any indicator, I think the United States very well might take some sort of action against Iran for closing the strait.

This is due to the fact that it appears that the United States believes that such an action constitutes an act of war or at least an aggressive enough maneuver to justify an attack.

Of course, the United States has been incredibly ambiguous with the threats issued in response to the Iranian statements, so it is unclear what would happen at this point.

To speculate a bit, I think the United States might make aggressive maneuvers in the region in an attempt to goad Iran into striking first.

This would give the West the green light to go all-out on Iran and “wipe them off the map,” as the constantly cited (and incorrectly translated) statement from Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad goes.

At this point I just hope that the saber rattling will fail to lead to any real conflict and this will all become a distant memory.

However, the nature of the rhetoric and the persistence of both sides of this war of words does not paint a pretty picture of what the future holds.

Please do the world a favor and share this article along with the rest of the series with your friends, family and internet contacts.

Only through raising awareness, countering the Western propaganda, and spreading the truth can we fight against what could very well bring about World War III and instead bring about a new era of peace in the region and the world at large.

So long as the establishment media can keep the blinders on Americans and Europeans and keep them thinking that Iran is a threat to the rest of the world, they will be able to push the public to support war.

Once we can eradicate the constantly promulgated falsehoods and instead perpetuate truth and justice, we will be able to see a real dialogue for peace.

If I missed anything or if you have any feedback, please remember to contact me directly at admin@endthelie.com and I will do my best to get back to you immediately.

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

January 27, 2012 | Categories: Iran, news, sovereignty, tyranny, war | Leave a comment

SUPERPOWER – Official Movie Trailer [video]

Global Research TV
January 24, 2012

“The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know.”
-Harry S. Truman

SUPERPOWER: A documentary film by Barbara-Anne Steegmuller
Available to order from Global Research:
https://store.globalresearch.ca/store/superpower-dvd/

SUPERPOWER is a comprehensive film that asks tough questions and goes behind the scenes of America’s national security apparatus and military actions. Far from a conspiracy film about the dangers of government secrets and regime change, this well-balanced film straddles the philosophical divide and allows viewers to understand the US quest for global dominance through economic and military strategy that is exposed through review of historical events, personal interviews, and analysis of US foreign policy.

Featuring interviews with Michel Chossudovsky, Bill Blum, Chalmers Johnson and Noam Chomsky, among many others.

SUPERPOWER has won a number of awards, including the 5th Annual Hollywood F.A.M.E. Award for Documentary of the Year 2011 as well as the 2011 32nd Annual People’s Choice Bronze Telly Award.

For more information, visit:
http://superpowerthemovie.com

Available to order from Global Research:
https://store.globalresearch.ca/store/superpower-dvd/

January 27, 2012 | Categories: documentaries, news, tyranny, videos | Leave a comment

Friend Turned Foe: Turkey Rounds on Syria in Regional Power Bid [video]

YouTube – GlobalResearchTV
January 19, 2012

Turkey, Syria’s neighbor and long-time ally, is now taking an active role in attempts to dethrone Assad. Ankara is backing Western actions, reportedly providing a base for training Syrian rebels and even discussing a no-fly zone with the US.

­Back in 2002 Turkey, strictly following its newly-designed “zero problems with neighbors” foreign policy, was engaged in building strong economic, political, and social ties with neighboring countries.

Everything was going to plan until the Arab Spring hit the region.

Turkey faced a choice: to maintain its policy of engagement with authoritarian Arab leaders, or to take a different path.

And Syria became the country which felt the full force of Ankara’s policy u-turn when Turkey came out in support of Syria’s opposition and aligned itself with the country’s staunch enemy — the US.

Turkey found itself in the frontline of the Syrian crisis last June when thousands of Syrians poured across its border, fleeing a government crackdown on the town of Jisr-al-Shughour. At the time, the Red Crescent said it was caring for 30,000 refugees in camps just inside Turkish territory.

Threats of the conflict spilling into Turkey caused Ankara to consider sending troops into Syria to create a buffer zone. In the event, it was not deemed necessary, but the tensions did not help relations between the two neighbors.

Turkey claimed that the Syrian crisis could not be resolved through negotiations, that Bashar al-Assad could no longer be trusted, and started to act.

Turkey has suspended energy cooperation with Syria and threatened to stop supplying electricity to the country.

It followed the Arab League and announced a raft of punitive measures targeting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, provoking Damascus to suspend its free trade pact with Ankara.

As a result, cross border trade ground to a halt; flourishing commercial links between northern Syria and south-eastern Turkey were severed as if they had never existed.

Reports about American and NATO forces training Syrian rebels in the southeastern Turkish city of Hakkari added more fuel to the fire.

And according to PressTV reports quoted in the Turkish daily Milliyet, former FBI employee Sibel Edmonds has said the bureau started a training program in Turkey back in May.

She also mentioned that the US was involved in smuggling arms into Syria from Incirlik military base in Turkey in addition to providing financial support for the Syrian rebels.

Russia’s Kommersant daily also reported in November on operations being managed from Turkish territory.

Meanwhile, rebel groups that attack government forces have frequently fled retribution by crossing the Turkish border.

And finally, the most recent move from Turkey — discussions with the US about a no-fly zone over Syria, in what looks suspiciously like a Libya-style scenario.

Nikolay Patrushev, head of the Security Council of Russia, said on January 13 that the United States and Turkey — both NATO members — were discussing the possibility of a no-fly zone.

­From ‘Zero Problem Policy’ to Regional Leadership

­Back in 2003, Turkey and Syria entered a golden era of bilateral relations, with a free trade agreement, a visa-free regime and several presidential visits. The border areas became especially close — families living on both sides felt they shared a common home.

To switch from “a zero-problem policy” with your neighbors to a “problem-creating position,” you need good reason. And Turkey seems to have few.

Geographically, politically and religiously, Turkey has always been the crossing point of decidedly-different worlds.

Ankara has long harbored ambitions to be the region’s powerful, leading state.

But the influence of Iran, Israel and Egypt complicated Turkey’s path to its goal.

The Arab Spring has significantly shifted the years-long balance of power in the Middle East. Everyone has become weaker — everyone except Turkey which, on the contrary, has significantly increased its influence in the Middle East and North Africa.

“Turkey wants to be leading this movement of changes and reforms in the Middle East,” Dr. Jeremy Salt, a Middle East politics expert, told RT.

“This is a kind of cohabitation between America and Turkey: Turkey helps America in exchange for some stuff. This is how Turkey becomes more and more influential in the region,” echoes political science professor Gokhan Bacik.

The road Turkey is now following may look slippery, but no matter how dangerous its choice may be, there seems to be no way back.

Originally aired on RT, January 18, 2012
http://rt.com/news/turkey-syria-neighbors-policy-077/

January 27, 2012 | Categories: co-opting and/or destabilization, news, sovereignty, Syria, Turkey, tyranny, videos, war | Leave a comment

EU to embargo Iranian oil [video]

YouTube – corbettreport
January 23, 2012

EU nations have formally adopted an unprecedented set of sanctions against Tehran – which include a bloc-wide embargo on Iranian oil. The move targets Iran’s nuclear program which, the Islamic Republic insists, is for purely peaceful purposes. To discuss the implications of fresh sanctions against Iran, RT talks to James Corbett – editor of independent news website – ‘The Corbett Report’ which is based in Japan.

January 27, 2012 | Categories: Iran, news, sovereignty, tyranny, videos, war | Leave a comment

Biometric ID Schemes Around the World – GRTV Behind the Headlines [video]

Global Research TV
January 23, 2012

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=3783

The Indian government is ramping up efforts to fingerprint and iris scan the entirety of its 1.2 billion citizens in an ambitious scheme to issue national ID cards with biometric details. The plan has so far already enrolled 110 million people and issued 60 million numbers, with the aim of enrolling 200 million by this March and 600 million by 2014.

Find out about the history and consequences of biometric ID this week on GRTV – Behind the Headlines.

January 27, 2012 | Categories: India, news, police state, science, surveillance, tyranny, videos, world government | Leave a comment

Newer Entries »