by fairleft2, Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 10:39:55 AM EDT
I've said a few times in comments recently that I'm pretty optimistic, from my antiwar and similar perspective, on the Iran and sanctions issue. The reasons are various, but centered on the analysis of India career diplomat M K Bhadrakumar, who also believes the sanctions effort will fail. More on those ideas a couple paragraphs down.
As for my perspective, first of all, not that it's stopped the U.S. before but there is pretty much zero justification for U.S. saber-rattling, as indicated by the mundane headlines (i.e., Iran vows to stick with low-level nuclear enrichment) only two days after the three imperials (Obama, Sarkozy, Brown) news conference about a 'secret' low-grade nuclear 'facility' that was neither secret nor a facility, since it won't be a functioning one till construction ends 18 months from now. This is weak soup for crippling sanctions, naval blockades, and worse. Today, even weaker stuff, 'IRAN TESTS (short-range) MISSILES! Oh my gawd y-a-w-n, weak stuff for scaring us up and dealing death.
Secondly, and Bhadrakumar's analysis is critical here, despite Beltway pundits fishing for wish fulfillment, both China (emphatically) and Russia oppose sanctions on Iran. And this time the U.S. needs international cover, imho, or its 'X must prove it doesn't have WMD' campaign (Hillary Clinton) won't have the outcome (severe sanctions and an attack on Iran's nuclear power facilities) desired by the U.S. & Israeli military-industrial complexes.
Bhadrakumar makes three major points in Moscow holds the line on Iran sanctions:
by fairleft2, Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 08:21:25 AM EDT
Do the facts mean Obama, Sarkozy, and Brown are warmongers and/or crippling sanctions promoters? Yes, so let the cognitive dissonance begin anew, straggling Obama lovers. Emphasis added:
Iran's second enrichment plant not secret, says nuclear chief
Posted: 25 September 2009 2249 hrs
TEHRAN: Iran's new uranium enrichment plant . . . was not a secret, the country's nuclear chief told AFP . . .
"This installation is not a secret one, which is why we announced its existence to the IAEA," Ali Akbar Salehi said. . . .
Iranian officials say Tehran is only obliged to inform the UN watchdog of the existence of any new site 180 days before putting radioactive materials into it. . . .
Earlier on Friday, the IAEA said Iran had announced it was building a second [nuclear enrichment] plant . . .
"On September 21, Iran informed the IAEA in a letter that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country," spokesman Marc Vidricaire said in a statement.
The latest b.s. breathlessly announced by Obama, Sarkozy, and Brown is obscene, since its intent is either to impose crippling sanctions on Iran, with the usual effect of that on Iran's people (see effect of similar on Iraq's people), or to promote war with or a military attack on Iran. Iran violated no rules by not reporting an enrichment plant that it is still under construction. All 3 of the warmongers know that.
A little more below, from the same source, AFP:
by fairleft2, Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 09:46:53 AM EDT
News is 'news' in our corporatacracy. Currently, for example, we have the Israeli-Warmongers-Only-Perspective 'News'. See below for how the release of a UN report on the war criminal conduct on both sides of the Gaza war is widely headlined in the mainstream news (to see how news of 320 dead Gazan children in that massacre is handled (hint: 'not at all'), see NPR's Linda Gradstein):
Israel fights 'perverse' UN report on Gaza
The funniest part is this sentence --
Both sides of the Gaza conflict criticised the report for putting them on the same footing.
-- followed by Israelis-only criticism of the report in the article's concluding 5 paragraphs.
Just a reminder that it is possible to headline the release of the UN report fairly: Israel, Hamas called to account. Now was that so hard?
Related is the 'Anything to get "Iran's Got Nukes!" Into the Headline' 'News':
Iran is a nuclear power: Ahmadinejad aide
Where the Iranian spokesperson is allowed to dispel the headline's glaring implication in paragraph 20:
Javanfekr said Iran is ready to face the six powers and "during the talks we will definitely speak of banning nuclear arms globally because it is not a problem for us as we do not possess any nuclear arms."
So, obviously 'nuclear power' means 'nuclear power power'. Some of you got your war on before you realized that, right? That was the intent.
Meanwhile, McClatchy continues to be a source of news. Here it provides some reality on the domestic side, first the real health care catastrophe:
by MainStreet, Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:20:55 AM EDT
When Rick Steves' Europe travelogue aired his trip to Iran in 2008, recently replayed on PBS, a scene was presented inside of a mosque, where hundreds of parishioners were praying. A sign like the one shown saying 'Death to Israel' stood in front. It was obviously a religious setting rather than a government or political one. One is more likely to see anti-American slogans on the street.
Shortly afterward I came across this article by Jonathan Cook, a British journalist who lives in Israel, about the treatment of old Palestinian mosques in Israel, in this case the Great Mosque of Beersheva. It made me wonder if the 'Death to Israel' sentiment had more to do with Israel's attitude toward Islam than Middle East politics, even though Iran is a theocracy.
As part of Israel's attempt to erase all memory of Palestinian presence on the land, it appears that removing evidence of their predominantly Islamic religion goes along with it. (Also see Palestinians in Israel fight to reclaim Beersheva's Great Mosque)
by altara, Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 11:12:30 AM EDT
We are pleased and thankful that Senator Jim Webb has been able to secure the freedom of John Yettaw, who had been sentenced to prison for swimming to the home of pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi. The Senator, and the Obama administration and its State Department, are to be congratulated.
One somewhat disturbing thought. North Korea, which has a nuclear weapon, was able to secure the visit of a former president, Bill Clinton, to accept the release of imprisoned Americans. Burma, which has no such weapon, got only a Senator.
Would Iran, maybe on its way to nuclear capability, settle for a former vice president in order to release the captured hikers?