Peter Symonds

His Master's Voice: Obama getting his marching orders...

Whatever the exact outcome of today’s haggling between Obama and Netanyahu, it has the character of two gangsters plotting the details of their next crime.

In his most explicit threat against Iran to date, US President Obama declared yesterday that he would “not hesitate to use force” to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. The speech was pitched not just to his immediate audience—the pro-Israeli American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—but to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who he meets today.

Obama spelled out the meaning of his oft-repeated phrase that “all options are on the table” in relation to Iran. “That includes all elements of American power,” he said, “a political effort aimed at isolating Iran, a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored, an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”

Obama’s only note of caution was against “too much loose talk of war”, as he urged Israel to allow time for punitive sanctions to force Tehran into negotiations. However, he also left no doubt that the US was prepared to attack Iran. Citing US President Theodore Roosevelt’s maxim “speak softly and carry a big stick,” Obama added menacingly: “Rest assured that the Iranian government will know of our resolve.”

More »

Peter Symonds

The danger of a US/Israeli attack on Iran was made clear in comments by US President Barack Obama to NBC News on Sunday. Obama not only repeated the mantra that “all options are on the table,” but added that the US was working with Israel “in lockstep as we proceed to try to solve this, hopefully diplomatically.”

Publicly, the Obama administration insists that it is seeking a “diplomatic solution” by imposing crippling oil sanctions on Iran, designed to force it to the negotiating table on US terms. At the same time, however, the White House is coordinating closely with Israel as it prepares military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Washington Post reported last week that US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta believed there was a “strong likelihood” that Israel would strike Iran in April, May or June. While he did not confirm the statement, Panetta did not repudiate it.

Obama downplayed the likelihood of a pre-emptive Israeli attack on Iran, declaring: “I don’t think Israel has made a decision on what they need to do.” However, he also declared: “I’ve been very clear: we’re going to do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

Asked if Israel would consult Washington, Obama provided no direct answer, but emphasised that the US and Israel “have closer military and intelligence consultation… than we’ve ever had.” Significantly, the US president did not oppose what would be an act of war by Israel. Nor did he suggest that the US would use its considerable influence over Israel to veto such action.

While tactical differences might exist over the timing of an attack, Obama’s declaration that the US is “in lockstep” with Israel is a commitment to march together down the road to war against Iran.

More »

Peter Symonds

Dolphin class submarine, made in Germany. The
first two were donated by Germany, the third was
[allegedly] purchased by the warmongering Zionist
entity. Thus Germany now indirectly contributes to
starting a third world war, having directly started
the first two ones. - Some record!

If Israel does attack Iran, it will not simply be “a surgical strike” that destroys Iran’s key nuclear facilities. Any Iranian retaliation will be used by the US as a pretext for a massive air war aimed at destroying the country’s military and infrastructure.

Even as the US and its European allies intensify punitive economic sanctions against Iran, there are growing signs that Israel is threatening military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in the coming months. While the Obama administration has cautioned Israel against military action at this stage, there is no indication that Washington has vetoed such an attack.

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported [on Thursday] that US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta “believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May, or June—before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb.”

Panetta, who had no doubt briefed Ignatius directly or indirectly, refused to comment on the column. But he did not deny the substance of the report. Questioned further, Panetta confirmed: “Israel indicated they’re considering this [a strike], we’ve indicated our concerns.”

Any differences between the US and Israel are purely tactical. While, publicly at least, the US is appealing for more time for sanctions to bite, Israel is pressing for immediate action, on the pretext that Iran’s Fordo uranium enrichment plant is nearing completion and could be “immune” from attack. Both countries have repeatedly declared that “all options are on the table”—that is, including all-out war—unless the Iranian regime bows to their demands.

More »

Peter Symonds

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praises
EU oil sanctions on Iran. (Amsterdam, January 18.)

Using Iran’s nuclear programs as a pretext, the US is escalating its confrontation with Iran. Both US and Israel have repeatedly made clear their preparedness to unilaterally attack Iran on the basis of unsubstantiated claims that it is acquiring nuclear weapons.

European Union (EU) foreign ministers meeting in Brussels yesterday imposed far-reaching economic sanctions on Iran, including an embargo on Iranian oil imports that will come into full force in July. The embargo is an act of economic war that heightens the danger of a slide into military hostilities in the Persian Gulf.

The EU sanctions are comprehensive, hitting every aspect of Iran’s oil industry. The 27 member countries will halt the signing of any new oil contracts with Iran immediately, and end existing ones by July 1. The ban will cover imports of crude oil, petroleum products and petrochemical products, and will extend to the export of equipment and technology to, and new investment in, Iran’s energy sector.

The EU has also targetted Iran’s central bank, freezing the bulk of its assets in Europe. There are limited exceptions to allow for what is still regarded as legitimate trade. The European measures complement legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 31 providing for penalties against any company, including foreign corporations, having business dealings with Iran’s central bank. The US measures seek to block all Iranian oil sales internationally, crippling the country’s economy.

Last year, the European Union purchased nearly a quarter of Iran’s exported oil. Several southern European countries—Greece in particular—have been heavily dependent on oil imports from Iran and resistant to the imposition of a full embargo. They have been pulled into line with the vague promise of a review by May 1 of any adverse economic impact from the sanctions.

If implemented, the embargo will have a severe impact on the Iranian economy, which relies substantially on oil exports. Iran’s currency has dropped 14 percent in value against the US dollar since Friday, adding to high levels of inflation inside the country.

More »

Peter Symonds

In this photo, Iranian Navy personnel take part in their naval maneuvers dubbed Velayat 90 on the Sea of Oman, Iran, on Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2011. An Iranian surveillance plane has recorded video and photographed a U.S. aircraft carrier during Iran's ongoing navy drill near a strategic waterway in the Persian Gulf, the official IRNA news agency reported on Thursday. (AP Photo/Xinhua, Ali Mohammadi)

The Obama administration has issued what amounts to a threat of war against Iran following comments by senior Iranian officials that Tehran would close the Strait of Hormuz in response to an embargo on its oil exports. To reinforce the point, the US navy sent two of its warships—the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and the guided-missile destroyer USS Mobile Bay—on a “routine transit” through the strategic waterway where the Iranian navy is currently holding exercises.

The growing tensions in the Persian Gulf are the result of provocative steps by the US and its European allies towards blocking Iranian oil exports. President Obama is about to sign a measure into law that would freeze the US assets of foreign financial institutions doing business with Iran’s central bank—moves that would seriously impede Iranian oil exports. At the same time, Britain and France are pressing the European Union to adopt an embargo on the import of Iranian oil.

Any restriction on Iran’s energy exports would seriously damage the country’s economy, which is already under pressure from previous sanctions imposed both unilaterally by the US and its allies and by the UN Security Council.

More »

Stephen Lendman

American foreign policy is defined by rage to ravage. Lunatics run the asylum. Washington's criminal class is bipartisan.

People have no say. Wealth and power alone matter. It's always been that way, today more than ever. Post-WW II, America lurched from one war to another.

Today they're waged in multiples. A queue perhaps includes Syria and Iran topping the list. Ongoing for months, Western intervention incited Syrian violence.

At issue is regime change, eliminating an Israeli rival, and advancing America's imperium. Libya's insurgency began the same way before NATO attacked last March. Will Syria follow the same pattern, then Iran?

So far, heated rhetoric alone is heard. On and off before it echoed. Media scoundrels regurgitate it. Is something different this time? Time alone will tell. Israel often makes baseless accusations. President Shimon Peres warned there's "not much time left" to act.

Israel, of course, is the sole regional threat, nuclear armed and dangerous. A serial aggressor, it endangers Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran with potential attacks.

In contrast, Syria and Iran threaten no one. Rhetoric, of course, belies it. Warrior leaders like France's Sarkozy whetted his killing appetite in Ivory Coast and Libya.

Despite overwhelming homeland opposition ahead of next year's presidential election, he accused Iran of an

"obsessional desire to acquire nuclear (weapons) in violation of all international rules....If Israel's existence were threatened, France would not stand idly by."

No evidence whatever suggests Iran's developing nuclear weapons. Plenty shows Israel and France are nuclear armed and dangerous. So are axis of evil partners America and Britain. Whether or not attacking Iran is planned isn't known.

More »

Peter Symonds

The preparations for war against Iran are no more being driven by concerns over its nuclear program than the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were motivated by “terrorism” or “weapons of mass destruction”, or the NATO bombing of Libya was to protect the Libyan people.

Articles in the British-based Guardian and Telegraph newspapers on Wednesday have lifted the lid on military preparations by the US and Britain for an attack on Iran that go well beyond routine contingency planning.

The leaks pointing to a dangerous new military adventure take place amid a debate within the Israeli inner cabinet and media over whether to unilaterally launch air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Officials and ministers in all three countries have denied the reports, but have repeated the longstanding threat that “all options remain on the table”. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to release a new assessment of Iran’s nuclear programs, described to the Guardian by an unnamed Western official as “a game-changer”, that could well provide the pretext for war. Iran has consistently denied it has any plans to build nuclear weapons.

More »

Peter Symonds

Image: This courtroom drawing shows Mansour Arbabsiar (second from right), who holds both a US and Iranian passport, charged over an alleged plot to murder the Saudi Ambassador to the United States with explosives.

The FBI case hinges completely on one man, Arbabsiar.

Revelations by US Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday afternoon of an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador have prompted calls in the American media for retaliation against Iran.

Two men—Manssor Arbabsiar and Gholam Shakuri—have been charged with multiple offences, including conspiracy to murder a foreign official, conspiracy to commit an act of international terrorism, and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, namely explosives.

Arbabsiar, an American citizen, was arrested on September 29 with the assistance of Mexican authorities, after months of surveillance. He allegedly met several times with a confidential US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) source, believed by Arbabsiar to be connected to a Mexican drug cartel, to carry out the murder for $1.5 million.

Shakuri, who US officials claim is a member of the elite Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, is still at large. Arbabsiar only spoke to him over the phone or met with him during visits to Iran.

During yesterday’s press conference, FBI head Robert Mueller warned: “Although it reads like the pages of a Hollywood script, the impact would have been very real and many lives would have been lost. We send a clear message that any attempts on American soil will not be tolerated.”

Attorney General Holder also declared that the US was “committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions.” As a first step, the Obama administration announced financial sanctions yesterday against five Iranians, including the two suspects charged.

In a lengthy interview with the Associated Press, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went on the diplomatic offensive, explaining that the US was “actively engaged in a very concerted diplomatic outreach to many capitals” to pre-empt any Iranian denial. Making clear that Washington intended to exploit the alleged plot to the hilt, she said that it created “the potential for international reaction that will further isolate Iran.”

More »

Peter Symonds

[French President Nicolas Sarkozy, right, welcomes Libyan National Transitional Council chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil, center, and Libyan Transitional National Council Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril, left,at the Elysee Palace in Paris, Thursday, Sept.1, 2011. Heads of state and top officials gather in Paris to work out how to support Libya's opposition leaders after Gadhafi's fall from power.]

The espousal of vigilantism by the man likely to be the next prime minister is the sharpest indication of the draconian measures that the NATO-installed regime will employ to deal with any political opposition.

The military push by Libya’s NATO-backed National Transitional Council (NTC) to take control of the remaining pro-Gaddafi strongholds appears to have stalled. NTC militias have encountered strong resistance in their advances on Bani Walid, about 150 kilometres south-east of Tripoli, and coastal city of Sirte, the birthplace of ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

The NTC had set a deadline of last Saturday to allow for negotiations with local tribal leaders over the terms of a possible surrender. After talks failed, the first probing attacks began but were driven back. The NTC yesterday announced another two-day deadline and called on residents of Bani Walid to leave the town. The siege of the town has resulted in severe shortages of water, food and medicines.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that at least 80 anti-Gaddafi fighters had been killed during attacks on Bani Walid and Sirte over the past few days. Having encountered resistance, the NTC has presented a rather inflated picture of the military strength of Gaddafi loyalists. “Its cities are packed with weapons, missiles and ammunition depots. It is an unbelievable force,” Fadl-Allah Haroon, a militia commander, told the Associated Press.

NATO warplanes have continued to pound pro-Gaddafi strongholds. Over the four days to Tuesday, the NATO website reported that more than 450 missions had been flown involving 175 strikes, including on targets near Sirte, Bani Walid and Sabha, a town in the country’s south controlled by pro-Gaddafi forces. CNN yesterday reported clashes as a convoy of some 500 NTC fighters moved south toward Sabha.

More »

Peter Symonds

The sacking of the entire Benghazi-based Libyan opposition cabinet this week has exposed the anti-democratic, faction-riven character of the regime that the US and its European allies are seeking to impose on Libya. The self-proclaimed Transitional National Council (TNC)—facing a military stalemate in efforts to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi due to its lack of popular support—is being consumed by violent internal conflicts.

TNC President Abdul Mustafa Jalil ordered the dismissal of the TNC’s executive committee on Monday, after the unexplained murder of the organisation’s military chief, General Abdel Fatah Younis, on July 28. Only Mahmoud Jibril, the TNC’s so-called prime minister, was kept on to form the next cabinet. In a further sign of disarray, Jalil insisted that members of various autonomous militias operating broadly under the TNC’s banner had to integrate into its armed forces as individuals rather than units.

Jalil was acting under demands for justice from Younis’s family members and the powerful Obeidi tribe, and under pressure from the February 17 Coalition, a secular grouping of Libyan judges and lawyers, critical of the growing influence of Islamists within the TNC. As it announced the sackings, a TNC spokesman declared that the cabinet was responsible for “improper administrative procedures” that led to Younis’s death.

No official explanation has been given for the arrest and killing of Younis, which has been the subject of bitter recriminations. He was Gaddafi’s interior minister before defecting to the Benghazi opposition, along with the Special Forces troops under his command.

Those close to Younis have accused an Islamist militia of killing him, to avenge the general’s savage repression of an Islamist uprising in the mid-1990s and to block his efforts to bring TNC military units under his unified command. Various Islamist organisations—including those derived from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Al Qaeda-aligned Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)—are prominent in the TNC’s loosely-organised military umbrella group, known as the Union of Revolutionary Forces.

More »