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
Short URL: http://EndtheLie.com/?p=35368
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:
Related posts:
- Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part IV
- Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part V
- Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part III
- Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part II
- Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio
Short URL: http://EndtheLie.com/?p=34928
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.
Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part V [video included]
By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
January 14, 2012
Events continue to progress at blinding speed and only seem to be getting increasingly dangerous.
While the United States has been building up a considerable military presence in the Persian Gulf region for years, in recent weeks and months this effort seems to have accelerated.
Don’t forget to read parts one, two, three, and four of this series to get familiar with the complex geopolitics at work.
The Pentagon is now shifting a great deal of military assets into the vicinity of the Persian Gulf under the guise of a contingency plan, while continuing to deny that it means a buildup to war.
These deployments are, in fact, nothing new and have been in the works some time now.
Marine Corps General James Mattis – head of United States Central Command – gained the White House’s approval for the deployment of troops to the region last year in response to the talks between the U.S. and Iraqi governments regarding extended American troop presence broke down.
As Stars and Stripes aptly points out, “the extent of the Pentagon moves is only now becoming clear,” and the timing of this can hardly be dismissed as pure coincidence.
Stars and Stripes cites unnamed United States officials who claim, “the deployments are not meant to suggest a buildup to war, but rather are intended as a quick reaction and contingency force in case a military crisis erupts in the standoff with Tehran over its suspected nuclear weapons program.”
The glaring problem here is that there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. This is so clear that even the United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had to admit as much on national television just days ago.
With Iran not actually developing nuclear weapons and with the United States continually insisting that they abandon an imaginary nuclear weapons program, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the West will not relent until Iran abandons all nuclear technology and research, be it civilian or military.
There has already been a small force of American troops present in Kuwait, along with weapons deals with the small Gulf nation, which I have mentioned in a previous part of this series.
However, this small amount of troops is now going to be augmented by a much larger group which includes 15,000 new troops.
These new units in Kuwait – which is located dangerously close to Iran – include two infantry brigades from the United States Army along with a helicopter unit.
In addition, these troops include the United States Army’s 1st Calvary Division’s 1st Brigade which boasts tanks, artillery and over 4,500 troops.
The 1st Brigade has been dubbed a “mobile response force” for the region according to Colonel Scott L. Efflandt, commander of the brigade.
There is also a National Guard brigade form Minnesota which has been present in Kuwait since August and in December a combat aviation brigade arrived as well.
Apparently there is yet another unit which will be heading to Kuwait in the near future but details on the unit’s size, composition and mission have not been provided by officials.
Whereas Kuwait has primarily been used as a staging area for troops and equipment to be moved into Iraq in the past, it is now clearly becoming yet another American military outpost and launching point in the region.
Just days ago it was reported that in addition to all of these buildups, a marine expeditionary unit along with a group of landing warships were being deployed to the Persian Gulf.
This is to include the Makin Island groups accompanied by the USS New Orleans and the Pearl Harbor amphibious transport dock ships.
The personnel on these ships, which will include sailors, marines and airmen, will be backed up by a general support battalion along with attack helicopters.
This is being explained as a move to replace Navy troops who have been patrolling the area for the last 10 months, but the presence of amphibious transport dock ships is quite interesting indeed.
This might indicate that a plan involving movements of land-based forces is in the works or is already being implemented in order to augment the naval presence, air superiority via aircraft carriers, and overwhelming regional alliances.
The Pentagon has also made the highly questionable decision of ordering two aircraft carriers – along with their sizable and powerful strike groups and associated troops – to remain in the region, a move which will likely upset Iran.
Previously Iran has made ambiguous threats to the United States regarding the presence of carriers in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz and the latest decision to keep them in the general region is not going to reassure the Iranian government as to the United States’ noble intentions.
As I reported in part four of this series, the American aircraft carrier the USS Carl Vinson joined the USS John C. Stennis (which previously sailed through the strait eliciting protest from Iran) in the region in order to sustain the naval presence and threat.
There are also reports of another aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, moving to the region, again something which will not serve to comfort the Iranian government in this time of record-level saber rattling.
Indeed the official website for the Commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet announced that the USS Abraham Lincoln along with guided missile cruiser Cape St. George left Thailand and are now “en route to support coalition efforts in the 5th Fleet AOR.”
The AOR, or Area of Responsibility, for the Fifth Fleet includes the Persian Gulf region as the Fifth Fleet is based out of nearby Bahrain.
The USS John C. Stennis is slated to return home to the United States in the near future but according to Stars and Stripes, officials have stated that the Stennis will be replaced by the USS Enterprise so two carriers are still present in the region.
This is being done while claiming that it is just going to give “commanders major naval and air assets in case Iran carriers out its recent threats to close the Strait of Hormuz,” according to Stars and Stripes.
However, those who are aware of American military history, especially in the past few decades, know that these buildups inevitably occur before a conflict breaks out which is oft billed as an unplanned, unexpected event.
Obviously this is far from reality, and the case with Iran is no different.
As a recent Russia Today article outlined in detail, this buildup has been going on since 2003 – if not earlier – and the plans for war have been drawn up long ago.
It is only that in recent months the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released what Russia called a “politicized” report which claimed that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, giving newfound impetus to the long-term campaign against Iran.
However, since the evidence of this program is hardly as concrete as they make it out to be (as highlighted by Panetta’s own statements) there needs to be another reason to justify a full-on offense against Iran.
An incident with the Strait of Hormuz would be the perfect excuse for the United States, given that they have previously issued warnings to Iran over closing the strait.
Iran continues to threaten closure and the upcoming Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) exercises in the region are unlikely to ease tensions.
If Iran even conducts a mock closing of the Strait of Hormuz, this might in fact be enough of a justification for a Western strike which would likely involve the United States, Britain, Israel and the regional Western allies.
The massive joint Israeli-American drills in the region, which very well might coincide with the new Iranian exercises, could also provide a situation where a conflict could spark up.
There is also the very real possibility of a Gulf of Tonkin-style false flag incident being manufactured to give the justification for an attack.
The possibility of such an event was reinforced by a recent article in the Jerusalem Post which read, “Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and ‘help’ the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.”
Of course there is the very real possibility that such “help” would be a purely contrived false flag attack, which the United States would create if Iran refused to actually take that first step.
As one reader pointed out via email, it seems likely that this might occur as an attack on an aging United States Coast Guards (USCG) vessel.
This would be preferable because the USCG is often treated as a semi-civilian humanitarian organization, not a purely military force like the United States Navy.
However, I think that most Americans know that any attack on any American – or perhaps even allied – interests in the region would be more than enough justification for a strike on Iran.
If it was a USCG vessel over a Navy one, it would only be icing on the cake and serve to help put the favor of the international community on the side of the United States in this conflict.
This would be completely ignorant of the fact that the United States has been behind the military buildup in the region and as I have repeatedly posited, this very well might be intended to goad Iran into doing something to justify an American assault.
Stars and Stripes points out that United States Navy officials have stated that while Iran might be able to temporarily close the Strait of Hormuz using anti-ship missiles and other weapons – something which Iran said would be as easy as drinking water – American commanders claim that they would be able to quickly reverse such a closure if needed.
The establishment media is continuously stating – without much in the way of evidence or explanation – that the United States Fifth Fleet out of Bahrain on its own could dominate the entire Iranian navy.
On the other hand, individuals only heard in the alternative media have repeatedly pointed out that this very well might not be the case and indeed Iran might have an advantage in the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf.
In a recent RT article, this possibility was highlighted, something which completely conflicts with the unsourced, blanket statements repeatedly made by such establishment media powerhouses as Reuters.
There is also the diplomatic aspect to this conflict which became even more significant with the Obama administration placing sanctions on three corporations which provide gasoline to Iran.
While Iran exports so much oil that they claim the top 3 position in world oil exports, their domestic refinement facilities are not sufficient to meet demand so they are forced to import the majority of their refined gasoline.
These sanctions will be imposed on China-based Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp., Singaporean Kuo Oil Pte Ltd., and United Arab Emirates-based FAL Oil Co.
This will result in the barring of all American export licenses along with most financing for these corporations, including Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp., which is the largest seller of gasoline to Iran.
This will likely hurt Iran a great deal and raise the price of their gasoline imports while also having some serious consequences for China.
This move elicited a quite negative response from China, including an unusually heated editorial on the issue published in China’s Global Times which can be read here.
It is quite clear that the Chinese are not going to sit by silently while the United States hurts their economy by cutting off their business with Iran.
Honestly, I find their reaction to be totally reasonable. After all, what right does the United States have to tell other nations who they can and cannot trade with? This seems especially ludicrous when the nation they’re trading with does not in fact have nuclear weapons and is not in the process of developing them.
As the editorial quite aptly pointed out, the United States cannot afford to get into a trade war with China right now and these increasing sanctions and global domineering are pushing China towards exhausting that option.
Another matter of significant concern for analysts like me is the statement from Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin.
“Iran is our neighbor,” he said. “And if Iran is involved in any military action, it’s a direct threat to our security.”
This is arguably the strongest pro-Iranian statement coming from a Russian government official since the tensions have risen to these record levels, although they have been making similarly significant remarks about the international pressures on Syria.
A somewhat similar statement was made by Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov in saying that the international community would interpret new sanctions and/or a military strike on Iran as an attempt at regime change.
“Additional sanctions against Iran, as well as a probable military attack on Iran, will be doubtlessly taken in the international community as those pursuing the goal of power change in Tehran,” Gatilov said according to ITAR-TASS News Agency (note the article has some less-than flawless translation as it is primarily a Russian-language publication).
Nikolai Patrushev, head of the Kremlin Security Council, who has also been making some of the most notable statements about Syria, has stated that Russia is concerned that Israel is pushing the United States into military conflict with Iran.
Patrushev, who is reportedly a close friend of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, also highlighted the total lack of evidence supporting the claims made by Western countries regarding the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program.
“Talk about Iran creating an atomic bomb by next week we have heard for many years,” he said.
Indeed those of us who have been following this issue closely for years are beginning to get weary of the alarmist rhetoric which never seems to materialize in the dramatic fashion pundits and government officials are always talking about.
Another important piece in this puzzle is the report coming from Foreign Policy, a publication of the Slate Group, which is a division of the Washington Post Company.
I find the providence of this report quite interesting given that it goes over reports which allegedly, “detail CIA field reports saying that Israel’s recruiting activities occurred under the nose of U.S. intelligence officers, most notably in London, the capital of one of Israel’s ostensible allies, where Mossad officers posing as CIA operatives met with Jundallah officials.”
Jundallah, a Sunni terrorist organization based out of Pakistan, is allegedly responsible for the assassination of Iranian governmental figures and also for the murder of Iranian women and children.
It’s interesting that such a thing could be going on while Israel “apparently didn’t give a damn what we [the CIA/United States] thought,” one anonymous intelligence officer said.
This is especially ridiculous when one considers that one of the main charges leveled against Iran is that they support terrorist organizations.
Meanwhile, the West supports terrorist organizations at the same time and turns a blind eye to Israeli false flag operations.
Indeed Mark Perry wrote Foreign Policy, “the existence of the Israeli false-flag operation was confirmed to me by four retired intelligence officers who have served in the CIA or have monitored Israeli intelligence operations from senior positions inside the U.S. government.”
“There is no denying that there is a covert, bloody, and ongoing campaign aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear program,” Perry wrote.
The covert war against Iran, which Israel is heavily involved in, is something which I have been covering for some time now, and with every mysterious incident that occurs, like the assassination of Roshan, it just becomes that much clearer.
This latest revelation also lends support to the notion that a false flag attack on Western interests might be conducted in order to justify an attack on Iran or very possibly an attack on Iran could be used to push Iran into acting first.
Either way, it seems that as every day goes by the pieces just slide closer into place and a disturbing picture is beginning to form.
Did I miss a story or an aspect of this rapidly changing situation? Please email me at tips@endthelie.com with links or other information I might have skipped in order for me to provide you with the best possible geopolitical coverage.
If you run a radio program or podcast and would like to have me on as a guest to discuss these issues, please do not hesitate to contact me for availability and to schedule an appearance. You may get in touch with me directly by emailing admin@endthelie.com with your contact information.
Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:
- endthelie mobile site
- iran straits cape st george
- iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part iii
- iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part v
Related posts:
- Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part III
- Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part IV
- Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part II
- Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio
- Positioning for war with Iran?
Short URL: http://EndtheLie.com/?p=34496
Corbett Report Radio 047 – Geopolitics with Madison Ruppert [audio]
- Dees Illustration
Corbett Report Radio
January 12, 2012
Madison Ruppert of EndTheLie.com is our guest tonight on the program as we go over the latest news and geopolitical updates from around the world, including the recent car bomb assassination of yet another Iranian nuclear scientist, the growing tensions between NATO and Russia, China’s place on the chessboard, and more.
[CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE SHOW]
Works Cited:
Was Israel behind yet another assassination of a nuclear scientist?
Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – Part I / Part II / Part III
Leon Panetta admits Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon
Russia strikes back against US-NATO missile system with their own advanced radar
Syrian state media reports Russian naval flotilla arrival in Tartus
US and NATO are on the March Part I / Part II
Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part IV
By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
January 12, 2012
The USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
Last night James Corbett and I discussed the situation with Iran and the Persian Gulf which is progressing at a blinding pace on his show, Corbett Report Radio.
Since then, a considerable amount has happened and that was less than 24 hours ago. It is nearly impossible for one person to round up all of these events for you but I am doing the best I possibly can if I miss something please do not hesitate to contact me at Admin@EndtheLie.com
If this is the first part of the series you have come across, please take a few moments to go over parts one, two and three to get a better sense of what is going on here and the events leading up to what we are now witnessing.
You also might want to read parts one and two of the “U.S. and NATO are on the march worldwide” series to get a better sense of the global scale of this geopolitical strategy.
Today a significant step forward (or backward, depending on your point of view) with a NATO Parliamentary Assembly member made some heated statements regarding Iran, Kuwait, and the region in general.
The first jab at Iran in the piece published by Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) comes in the opening sentence in calling the Persian Gulf “the Arabian Gulf.”
The Deputy Chairman of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Defense and Security Committee Francesco Buzzi addressed the Iranian threats to close the critical Strait of Hormuz, which Corbett rightly characterized as a flashpoint, while telling Tehran “to observe international treaties and laws and to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and borders of its Gulf neighbors, ‘mainly the friendly State of Kuwait.’”
The following choice of words should be noted: “The veteran NATO MP voiced total solidarity with the State of Kuwait versus the Iranian move.”
This shows they are already creating the alliances and regional infrastructure required to wage war with Iran.
Furthermore, it clearly shows which side Kuwait is on while highlihgting the fact that these individuals believe Iranian aggression is not only inevitable but already occurring.
Buzzi also pushed for a more aggressive political and diplomatic approach on the part of the European Union, in which the Italian government would take a more active role.
This shows just how divorced from reality these NATO bureaucrats are. With Italy’s immense domestic woes weighing heavily upon the Italian people, Buzzi actually thinks the government should be focusing on the non-threat that is Iran.
Buzzi is also apparently an advocate of European economic sanctions against Iran, which will likely be discussed in the meeting of European Union Foreign Ministers at the end of the month.
This – of course – is Iran’s red line which they said would force them to close the Strait of Hormuz.
As I said on Corbett Report Radio, I find this prospect quite unrealistic, due to the fact that the Iranian government is well aware of the fact that they would be leaving themselves open to a massive attack from the United States.
When they first threatened to close the strait the United States Fifth Fleet, based out of nearby Bahrain, countered with threats of their own.
I do not believe the Iranian leadership is foolish enough to believe that the United States military would not make good on their threats, especially when it comes to a resource like oil.
Another Italian, Pieradrea Vanni, president of the Kuwaiti-Italian Friendship Society, expressed a similar sentiment to that of Buzzi in calling “on the Italian government to support an EU initiative for a decisive action against Iran, which he said is seeking to destabilize the Gulf region.”
I would counter Vanni’s claim that it is Iran destabilizing the region by asking him why the United States is moving even more naval forces into the region, making a concerted and public push to arm neighboring states and holding the largest joint Israeli-American drill in history at a time like this.
Is it really Iran that is seeking to destabilize the region which is so critical to their infrastructure, or perhaps could it be that it is the United States, NATO and the West in general that is destabilizing the region in order to firm up their grip on the Gulf and exploit the unmatched oil resources?
An event which just served to reinforce the assertion that the United States is in fact the nation destabilizing the Gulf was the announcement of additional warship movement in the region.
Of course the United States is not alone, indeed as I previously mentioned, the British are moving their most advanced warship into the region as well, far from what this tense situation needs.
Unsurprisingly, like in the previous instances of American naval vessels entering the region, United States officials deny this has anything to do with tensions over the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaking of the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said, “Her deployment in that area is routine, long-planned – there’s nothing unusual about that.”
According to RT, the USS Carl Vinson has yet to go through the Strait of Hormuz and has a capacity of up to 80 planes and helicopters and is accompanied by a cruiser and destroyer.
The Pentagon says that the ships are “not in the Gulf,” but instead in the Area of Responsibility of the United States Fifth Fleet.
Other than the Persian Gulf, this includes the Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea and some of the Indian Ocean.
The United States is now claiming that the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier is not expected to return to the Gulf after it recently passed through the Strait of Hormuz – a move which infuriated Iran.
However, the American Navy has indeed stated that the USS Carl Vinson will be joined by the USS Abraham Lincoln, yet another aircraft carrier which is currently in transit from the Indian Ocean.
The United States is also stepping up the sanctions war against Iran, with Japan agreeing to adopt harsh sanctions against importing Iranian oil today.
“We plan to start reducing this 10 per cent share [of Iranian oil imports that make up the Japanese energy market] as soon as possible in a planned manner,” Japanese Finance Minister Jun Azume said.
One interesting piece in this international jigsaw puzzle I discussed with Corbett last night is the duality of India’s approach to Iran.
As I have been outlining in my series, “U.S. and NATO are on the march worldwide,” India is becoming increasingly close with the United States in the Western bid to control the Asia-Pacific region.
While India is growing closer to the United States and NATO by the day, they still have a considerably tight relationship with Iran.
According to RT, Reuters reports via sources in the Indian cabinet that their government is not looking “to waver” from the American approach to Iran.
India currently pours a whopping $12 billion per year into Iranian oil and is the largest purchaser of Iran’s oil after China.
However, India has chosen to deal with Iranian oil outside of the United States dollar, a move which the US has oddly left unaddressed.
Oddly enough, it is not just India that is now dealing with Iran outside of the dollar, indeed Russia, China and surprisingly even Japan have decided to make the same move, according to Iranian Fars News Agency.
It’s quite interesting that Japan would get on board with the Western oil sanctions against Iran seeing as they have opted to deal with the supposedly dangerous nation outside of the dollar completely.
There is also the matter of the Fujairah pipeline, the construction of which has been accelerated and is now slated for testing in May.
This pipeline is set to be able to move 1.4 million barrels per day of oil, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz bottleneck.
Interestingly, RT points to a possible spark which could ignite the flames of World War III as being the killing of an American citizen convicted of espionage in Iran.
They link this to the infamous assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 which many argue sparked World War I.
They also posit that the Strait of Hormuz might be the spark; something which I think is more likely, especially given the upcoming massive Israeli-American drills which might coincide with Iranian military exercises in the region as well.
They rightly point out, “Right now it is a war of words,” and I do not think that Iran will take the first step unless they are forced to do so or backed into a corner and truly feel threatened.
I believe that it is not Israel that should be speaking of an “existential threat,” instead it should be Iran which is becoming increasingly encircled, isolated and threatened by a massive navy and powerful group of allied nations.
Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part III
By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
January 8, 2012
The Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, seen here pictured from the International Space Station (ISS) on September 30, 2003 (Photo credit: NASA)
Note: the last post was supposed to go up yesterday but for some reason it disappeared (something which has been happening disturbingly often) so it had to be reposted today.
Before you proceed with the third part in this fast-moving series, I highly recommend that you familiarize yourself with previous events by reading parts one and two.
In the past two days the situation with Iran became increasingly more volatile, all while the American establishment media wastes time distracting the people of the United States with the dog and pony show that is the Republican primaries.
Thankfully, there are plenty of people – outside the limelight of broadcast news – who are covering these dire developments in detail.
However, as I always point out, this is often done in bits and pieces without presenting the whole picture to give readers a true sense of what is going on in the world.
Creating a more complete understanding is exactly what I’m attempting to do in this series although I cannot possibly cover it all on my own, so if I miss something, please feel free to send me an email at Admin@EndtheLie.com to correct my error.
Despite the constant pressure being put on Iran from the West due to their alleged nuclear weapons program, which the Iranians repeatedly insist is purely peaceful, Iran has announced a new uranium enrichment site.
This site is strategically located underground and has been said to be protected from airstrikes as well as getting the somewhat dubious title of “bomb-proof.”
The Atlantic Wire claimed that this new, supposedly “bomb-proof facility” (which is highly doubtful given that nothing on Earth is truly completely bomb-proof, just as nothing is truly bullet-proof) can not only be used to create enriched uranium for nuclear power generation, “but also as a potential fuel for nuclear weapons.”
This new facility is reportedly called Fordo, near the holy city of Qom and two conflicting reports have already emerged regarding the operational status of the site.
Kayhan daily, the manager of which is reportedly a representative of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reported, “Iran has begun uranium enrichment at the Fordo facility amid heightened foreign enemy threats.”
However, the Iranian nuclear chief Fereidoun Abbasi stated that Iran will “soon” begin to enrich uranium at the Fordo facility, completely contradicting the report published by Kayhan in a front-page article.
The Associated Press said, “It was impossible to immediately reconcile the two reports.”
While Iran had begun enriching uranium at the Natanz facility in April of 2006, the centrifuges at Fordo are reportedly more efficient and the plant is better shielded form an aerial assault like that which was launched by Israel against Syria in 2007.
In the face of growing threats from the West as the European Union’s Foreign Ministers plan on meeting on January 30 to discuss possibly increasing sanctions against Iranian oil exports, the Iranian government has renewed its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz.
The Iranian Khorasan daily cited a senior commander in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who said that the Iranian leadership has already made the decision to order the closure of the strait if Iranian oil exports are blocked.
The commander, Ali Ashraf Nouri, stated that the decision has been made by the top authorities in Iran, and it is not the first time Iran has threatened to do so.
However, as the Associated Press pointed out, “this is the strongest statement yet that a closure of the strait is official policy.”
While I believe it is highly unlikely that the Strait will be closed by Iran, the United States seems to be taking it quite seriously.
Today the United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated that a move to close the Strait of Hormuz would cross a “red line” adding, “We made very clear that the United States will not tolerate the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz.”
On the CBS show “Face the Nation” chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey backed up Panetta’s statement in saying, “we would take action and reopen the Strait,” obviously implying military intervention.
To make matters even worse, the British have deployed the HMS Daring, a Type 45 Destroyer which is obviously intended to send a not-so-subtle message to Iran due to their threats to close the strait, not to mention their large-scale naval exercises and announcement of even more drills focusing on the Strait of Hormuz to come in the near future.
Just like his American counterpart, the British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond has warned Iran not to block the strait.
The HMS Daring is reportedly equipped with new missile interception technology allowing it to intercept any Iranian missile along with what Haaretz calls “the world’s most sophisticated naval radar.”
Emphasizing the missile interception capability is likely being done because of the recent Iranian ballistic missile tests which occurred in the final stages of their recent 10-day-long naval exercise.
There is also the matter of the increasingly tight relationship between Russia and Iran, which recently became even closer than it was previously.
The Iranian Fars News Agency (FNA) reported that the Iranian Ambassador to Moscow Seyed Reza Sajjadi stated that during a meeting between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, Medvedev proposed replacing the US dollar with the ruble and rial in their trade.
It appears that this is already being implemented with Sajjadi stating that “we have acted on this basis and a part of our interactions is done in Ruble now.”
“There is a similar interest in the Russian side,” Sajjadi added, pointing out that the Russians oppose unilateral sanctions on Iran made outside the United Nations Security Council.
He emphasized their distaste with sanctions focused on the Iranian Central Bank (CBI) which is what the latest round of American sanctions targeted.
“The move (imposing sanction on the CBI) is unacceptable. Russians have clearly announced that they will not accept these sanctions and Iran’s nuclear issue is resolvable just through negotiations,” Sajjadi said.
Ahmadinejad has been similarly defiant, stating that the central bank would respond with “force” to new American sanctions, adding that the bank was strong enough to defeat “enemy plans.”
This is part of a larger move to separate Iran from the dollar as much as possible, including eliminating the dollar entirely from Iranian oil trade with China, India and Japan.
The latter two countries are quite surprising when one considers the increasingly close relationship between Japan, India and the United States in the West’s quest to extend hegemony over the entirety of the Asia-Pacific region.
One must wonder if the United States would speak out against Japan and India’s trade ties with Iran or if they will hypocritically remain silent because they are critical allies in the region.
I tend to believe that it would likely be the latter as the United States has a long history of hypocrisy when it comes to foreign policy (and domestic policy for that matter).
We must also consider the fact that Iran is reaching out to form new alliances across the globe, apparently focusing on Latin America and Africa.
Yesterday Ahmadinejad arrived in Venezuela and is now embarking on a tour of four nations during which he will reportedly be pushing for investment projects like a hydro-electric plant in Ecuador, according to Bloomberg.
Bloomberg characterizes this as “taking shots at the U.S. in its own backyard, defying attempts to isolate Iran over its nuclear activities” and the friends he is making are not on the friendliest of terms with the American government.
Of course this includes Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Raul Castro of Cuba and this will be his fifth trip to the region since 2005.
However, the moves towards Africa will likely make an even greater stir as the Iranian nuclear chief stated that Iran is prepared to assist “friendly” African nations that possess uranium reserves to establish facilities which can process natural uranium into material for nuclear programs.
Fereidoun Abbasi highlighted Iran’s ability to carry out the entire nuclear fuel cycle from extraction of uranium to fuel production and thus is willing and able to share the technology.
Given that the West is pushing incredibly hard for Iran to shut down any and all nuclear programs, it is unlikely to make anyone happy to know that Iran will be expanding their reach into Africa and providing allied nations with the means to produce nuclear fuel.
With the increasingly rapid buildup in the region and the move to arm Western allies that surround Iran, along with the American-Israeli drills which very well might coincide with the upcoming Iranian drills, it all seems like this situation is making an unfortunate turn.
Again, all we can hope is that those in power aren’t insane enough to engage in a conflict they know full well could – and likely would – spark World War III.
PN 