| Al Jazeera, Aug 27, 2009 | |||
A senior Iranian religious cleric has sharply criticised the country’s supreme leader, saying the country is being ruled by a dictatorship following the disputed June presidential election. Grand Ayatollah Hossein Montazeri said on Wednesday that the ruling system under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has misused Islam in its crackdown against opposition supporters. He said Iranian authorities also showed their true nature with the violent suppression of hundreds of thousands of demonstrators who filled the streets of the capital, Tehran, to protest against the results of the June 12 vote.
|
Posts Tagged ‘Iran’
Cleric calls Iran leaders despotic
August 27, 2009
Afghanistan and the New Great Game
August 14, 2009Prized pipeline route could explain West’s stubborn interest in poor, remote land
by John Foster, The Toronto Star, Aug 14, 2009
Why is Afghanistan so important?
A glance at a map and a little knowledge of the region suggest that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden.
Afghanistan is adjacent to Middle Eastern countries that are rich in oil and natural gas. And though Afghanistan may have little petroleum itself, it borders both Iran and Turkmenistan, countries with the second and third largest natural gas reserves in the world. (Russia is first.)
Turkmenistan is the country nobody talks about. Its huge reserves of natural gas can only get to market through pipelines. Until 1991, it was part of the Soviet Union and its gas flowed only north through Soviet pipelines. Now the Russians plan a new pipeline north. The Chinese are building a new pipeline east. The U.S. is pushing for “multiple oil and gas export routes.” High-level Russian, Chinese and American delegations visit Turkmenistan frequently to discuss energy. The U.S. even has a special envoy for Eurasian energy diplomacy.
Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region. Pipelines are important today in the same way that railway building was important in the 19th century. They connect trading partners and influence the regional balance of power. Afghanistan is a strategic piece of real estate in the geopolitical struggle for power and dominance in the region.
Since the 1990s, Washington has promoted a natural gas pipeline south through Afghanistan. The route would pass through Kandahar province. In 2007, Richard Boucher, U.S. assistant secretary of state, said: “One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan,” and to link South and Central Asia “so that energy can flow to the south.” Oil and gas have motivated U.S. involvement in the Middle East for decades. Unwittingly or willingly, Canadian forces are supporting American goals.
The proposed pipeline is called TAPI, after the initials of the four participating countries (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India). Eleven high-level planning meetings have been held during the past seven years, with Asian Development Bank sponsorship and multilateral support (including Canada’s). Construction is planned to start next year.
The pipeline project was documented at three donor conferences on Afghanistan in the past three years and is referenced in the 2008 Afghan Development Plan. Canada was represented at these conferences at the ministerial level. Thus, our leaders must know. Yet they avoid discussion of the planned pipeline through Afghanistan.
The 2008 Manley Report, a foundation for extending the Canadian mission to 2011, ignored energy issues. It talked about Afghanistan as if it were an island, albeit with a porous Pakistani border. Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he “will withdraw the bulk of the military forces” in 2011. The remaining troops will focus mostly on “reconstruction and development.” Does that include the pipeline?
Pipeline rivalry is slightly more visible in Europe. Ukraine is the main gateway for gas from Russia to Europe. The United States has pushed for alternate pipelines and encouraged European countries to diversify their sources of supply. Recently built pipelines for oil and gas originate in Azerbaijan and extend through Georgia to Turkey. They are the jewels in the crown of U.S. strategy to bypass Russia and Iran.
The rivalry continues with plans for new gas pipelines to Europe from Russia and the Caspian region. The Russians plan South Stream – a pipeline under the Black Sea to Bulgaria. The European Union and U.S. are backing a pipeline called Nabucco that would supply gas to Europe via Turkey. Nabucco would get some gas from Azerbaijan, but that country doesn’t have enough. Additional supply could come from Turkmenistan, but Russia is blocking a link across the Caspian Sea. Iran offers another source, but the U.S. is blocking the use of Iranian gas.
Meanwhile, Iran is planning a pipeline to deliver gas east to Pakistan and India. Pakistan has agreed in principle, but India has yet to do so. It’s an alternative to the long-planned, U.S.-supported pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India.
A very big game is underway, with geopolitics intruding everywhere. U.S. journalist Steven LeVine describes American policy in the region as “pipeline-driven.” Other countries are pushing for pipeline routes, too. The energy game remains largely hidden; the focus is on humanitarian, development and national security concerns. In Canada, Afghanistan has been avoided in the past two elections.
With the U.S. surge underway and the British ambassador to Washington predicting a decades-long commitment, it’s reasonable to ask: Why are the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan? Could the motivation be power, a permanent military bridgehead, access to energy resources?
Militarizing energy has a high price in dollars, lives and morality. There are long-term consequences for everyone. Canadian voters want to know: Why is Afghanistan so important?
© Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2009
John Foster is an energy economist and author of “A Pipeline Through A Troubled Land – Afghanistan, Canada, and the New Great Energy Game,” published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It is available online at www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2008/A_Pipeline_Through_a_Troubled_Land.pdf
Obama’s Israel Albatross
August 10, 2009Elections and Dissonance in the Middle East
By Elaine C. Hagopian, Counterpunch, Aug 7 – 9, 2009
Obama came into office vowing to resolve the Palestine question. He also vowed to approach the ME with civility and diplomacy, especially Iran, to iron out issues of mutual concern. The two-pronged plan was aimed at removing the Palestine question from the regional agenda, clearing the deck for improved relations with area states and resolution of existing US/ME issues. The February Israeli election yielded Netanyahu as Prime Minister presiding over an ultra right wing government. Netanyahu rejected Obama’s call for establishing a Palestinian state. He argued that Iran’s nuclear program with its assumed threat to Israel and to US interests was the primary issue to address, not Palestine. With the June election of anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, Holocaust denier Ahmedinejad, Netanyahu claimed that the danger Iran represents increased precipitously, and aggressive action was required. Therefore, Palestine should be put on the back burner. Public dissonance between the U.S. and Israel over Obama’s Palestine and Iran agenda amplified after Iran’s presidential election. The dissonance threatens Obama’s efforts to defuse ME volatility.
President Obama entered office with a promise of business not as usual. Although American foreign policy objectives were not changed, Obama insisted on the priority of dialogue and diplomacy to realize them, Afghanistan (and Pakistan) notwithstanding. Obama articulated two immediate goals he sought in the Middle East: 1) to resolve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in accordance with the international consensus for a two-state solution without significantly alienating Israel. Israel is still considered important – wrongly as Mearsheimer and Walt (“The Israel Lobby,” LRB, 23 March 2006) would have it – to securing American economic interests and political hegemony in that region. As such, the US must guarantee key Israeli ME interests including area dominance. And 2) to dissolve, or at least checkmate the only regional alliance challenging US/Israeli designs in the ME, i.e., the alliance of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and political elements in Iraq. Moving to resolve the Palestine question is seen by Obama as contributing to deflating the Iranian-led anti-US/Israel alliance by removing it as its cause célèbre, and thus making key alliance members amenable to American outreach. The thinking is that achieving these two interdependent goals would allow less hindered US maneuverability in taming Islamist movements in the region and prevailing in the energy grand game there.
Photos: Trial Begins for Iran Election Protesters
August 3, 2009| Payvand Iran News, August 1, 2009 | |
|---|---|
| Photos by Amir Kholoosi, ISNA; Report by VOA News About 100 Iranian activists and political moderates went on trial Saturday to face charges related to massive protests following the controversial presidential election. The semi-official Fars news agency published images of defendants sitting in a packed Tehran courtroom, some handcuffed in pairs. The IRNA news agency says the detainees are accused of conspiring against the ruling system, among other charges. Reports say some leading political figures on trial have retracted their claims that the June vote was rigged – the main rallying point of opposition demonstrators. Fars reports reformist former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi said claims about vote violations in the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were baseless. Meanwhile, Abtahi’s lawyer, Salih Nikbakht, told VOA Kurdish service he was not told about the trial before it started, and says he was barred from entering the courtroom when he arrived. U.S.-based group Human Rights Watch says some prominent lawyers were arrested over past weeks to prevent them from representing activists in court. The group says authorities have used harsh interrogations and beatings in an effort to extract false confessions from detainees. According to Fars, some of the major politicians appearing in court Saturday are former parliament vice-speaker Behzad Nabavi and former government spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh. The full list of defendants is not known.
… Payvand News – 08/01/09 … — |
The World Left and the Iranian Elections
August 1, 2009By Immanuel Wallerstein | Agence Global, August 1, 2009
The recent elections in Iran, and the subsequent challenges to their legitimacy, have been a matter of enormous internal conflict in Iran, and of seemingly endless debate in the rest of the world — a debate that threatens to linger for some time yet. One of its most fascinating consequences has been the deep divisions in this worldwide discussion among persons who consider themselves part of the world left. They have ranged in their views from virtually unconditional supporters of the Ahmadinejad/Khamenei analysis of the situation to virtually unconditional opponents, with multiple positions in-between. This may be as much a commentary on the state of the world left as it is on the state of Iran.
IRAN: Victims’ Families Share Stories, Defying Pressure
July 29, 2009By Tesa Sabet | Inter Press Service News
TEHRAN, Jul 28 (IPS) – It has become common these days to hear about the killing of young Iranians at the hands of Iran’s security forces and Basij militia. So many families have come forward with heart-wrenching tales about the deaths of their children in prison or during peaceful protests, it is difficult to keep count.
While each story is unique, all speak of serious human rights violations, extreme violence, and an unaccountable court, prison and security system that gives families the runaround. Another common thread is the pressures that families face when trying to claim the bodies of their children or to hold funeral and memorial services.
IRAN: Opposition Shows Life Around Friday Prayer
July 18, 2009By Sara Farhang | Inter Press Service News
TEHRAN, Jul 17 (IPS) – Amid a flurry of anticipation and speculation, former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani led Friday prayers in Tehran this week.
The event set off massive protests around the first official appearance of several opposition leaders since the crackdown on protesters following the disputed Jun. 12 presidential election.
Biden, Israel and Iran
July 8, 2009“Any Sovereign Nation is Allowed to Bomb Another”
By Gary Leupp | Counterpunch, July 7, 2008
Vice President Joe Biden, apparently speaking on behalf of the Obama administration, has just given Israel the green light to bomb Iran.
“Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else,” he told ABC’s “This Week” in an interview broadcast Sunday. “Whether we agree or not, they’re entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that’s going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed. If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice,” he declared.
The statement is presented in logically abstract terms. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do what’s in its interest regardless of what “we” think, surely. How very reasonable—magnanimous, even, coming from the mouth of the vice-president of the superpower that’s in the last eight years brutally imposed its will on two sizable Southwest Asian countries.
But to test Biden’s universalist logic imagine yourself in 1939, substitute Germany for Israel and Poland for Iran and ask whether “any sovereign nation is” really “entitled to do that.”
Of course Israel doesn’t have any “sovereign right” to attack Iran! And Biden’s implied distaste for the attack (“That is not our choice”), which may presage a calculated distancing from an action in the future, doesn’t undo the fact that he explicitly validates such action here.
They’re entitled to do it, says Joe. Just as presumably they’re entitled to remain outside the nuclear nonproliferation treaty regime, and produce and stockpile the only nuclear weapons in the Middle East, while claiming that the Iranian nuclear program (begun under U.S. encouragement under the Shah) can only have military intentions and can only be designed to produced a “nuclear Holocaust” to destroy the Jews.
Just as presumably they’re entitled to deploy vast resources to pressure the U.S. government to bomb Iran for them. (But no worry about the impact on U.S. foreign policy. “There is no pressure,” says Joe, “from any nation that’s going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.” What he really means is: There’s actually a whole shitload of pressure from Israel on us to bomb Iran. But we might not do that. Because Obama thinks that the Israeli-demanded attack on Iran, like the assault on Iraq, might be a “strategic blunder.”)
One could argue, of course, that in positing Netanyahu’s “sovereign right” to bomb Iran, a nation which has not attacked another in modern times, Biden is just shooting off his famous mouth again. But there are at least two reasons his comments should be taken very seriously.
First of all, there is obviously much conflict within the U.S. power structure over the wisdom of a U.S. attack on Iran. The Israel Lobby demanding one may have suffered a defeat at the hands of the Pentagon, which sees such an attack as complicating the imbroglios it faces in Iraq and Afghanistan (and down the road in Pakistan?), and the intelligence community which knows that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapons program threatening the world.
Secondly, the state of Israel continues to depict the Islamic Republic of Iran as an “existential” threat to itself, while threatening to attack it with missiles if the U.S. does not do so. The Bush administration always endorsed Israel’s vilification campaign and conceded the possibility that it might act “on its own” (as though it could really do so without a green light from Washington). Dick Cheney told Don Imus on MSNBC in January 2005 that “Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel [sic (disinformation)], the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.” He implied that if the U.S. didn’t take action, the Israelis would be justified in doing so.
This remains the U.S. position under the Obama administration. And having decided for geopolitical reasons to adopt a tougher line on Israel’s illegal settlements on the West Bank, Washington is perhaps particularly disinclined to deter Israel should it opt to create the mess of which Cheney spoke. “That was not our choice,” it will say.
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch’s merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.
Biden: US won’t stand in Israel’s way on Iran
July 6, 2009Middle East Online, First Published 2009-07-06
Green light
US Vice President says his country cannot dictate to Israel what they can do if they are threatened.
WASHINGTON – US Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview broadcast Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israel in its dealings with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else,” Biden told ABC television’s “This Week.”
“Whether we agree or not. They’re entitled to do that… We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination, that they’re existentially threatened.”
But the top US military officer meanwhile warned of the dangers posed by any military strike against Iran.
“It could be very destabilizing, and it is the unintended consequences of that which aren’t predictable,” Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff told “Fox News Sunday.”
However, he added: “I think it’s very important, as we deal with Iran, that we don’t take any options, including military options, off the table.”
President Barack Obama has said he wants to see progress on his diplomatic outreach to Iran by year’s end, while not excluding a “range of steps,” including tougher sanctions, if Tehran continued its controversial nuclear drive.
Hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not ruled out a possible military strike against Iran, insisting that Tehran, which the Mossad spy agency could have a ready-to-launch nuclear bomb within five years, must not obtain nuclear weapons.
“If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice,” Biden said. “But there is no pressure from any nation that’s going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.”
Israel, the region’s sole if undeclared nuclear-armed state, contends — as does the West — that Iran is seeking to acquire a nuclear arsenal, despite Tehran’s repeated denials.
The Jewish state has also called the Islamic Republic a threat to its existence, citing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s call to wipe Israel off the map.
Biden also confirmed that the Obama administration remains open to pursuing negotiations with Tehran, despite the regime’s crackdown on protesters following a disputed election outcome last month that saw Ahmadinejad return to power.
“If the Iranians respond to the offer of engagement, we will engage,” Biden said. “The offer’s on the table.”
Mullen declined to say whether the danger posed by a nuclear-armed Iran would be sufficient to outweigh the negative consequences of a US military strike on Tehran’s weapons program.
Why Not Crippling Sanctions for Israel and the US?
September 1, 2009By Paul Craig Roberts, Information Clearing House, Aug 31, 2009
In Israel, a country stolen from the Palestinians, fanatics control the government. One of the fanatics is the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Last week Netanyahu called for “crippling sanctions” against Iran.
The kind of blockade that Netanyahu wants qualifies as an act of war. Israel has long threatened to attack Iran on its own but prefers to draw in the US and NATO.
Why does Israel want to initiate a war between the United States and Iran?
Is Iran attacking other countries, bombing civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure?
No. These are crimes committed by Israel and the US.
Is Iran evicting peoples from lands they have occupied for centuries and herding them into ghettoes?
No, that’s what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians for 60 years.
What is Iran doing?
Continues >>
Share this:
Tags:apartheid state, crimes, homeless Americans, invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestinians, President Obama, sanctions, United States, violation of human rights, war of aggression, wars of agression against Muslims
Posted in Afghanistan, Commentary, imperialism, Muslims, President Barack Obama, Uncategorized, US policy, USA, war, warmongers, Zionist Israel | Leave a Comment »