Daniel Arkin — NBC June 17, 2013

Thousands of joyous Iranians flooded the streets of Tehran on Saturday night after centrist cleric Hassan Rowhani scored a stunning victory in a closely watched presidential election, winning 50.7 percent of some 36 million votes cast in a six-way race, according to the country’s interior ministry.

But many analysts say it remains to be seen if Rowhani, 64, will usher in a new era of sweeping democratic reforms or if he will capitulate to the hardline conservative doctrines of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

“A reform-minded president has been elected, but he still has to survive in a system that existed before the election,” said Geneive Abdo, a fellow at the Stimson Center and Middle East scholar.

Rowhani has been widely characterized as a mild-mannered and moderate counterpoint to outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the international community may not get a complete picture of the president-elect until after he takes office in early August.

Meanwhile, here’s some of what we know about the man who may change the face of Iran:

Background: He was born Nov. 12, 1948 near the northeast province of Semnan. Rowhani’s family reportedly opposed the former Shah of Iran, who was ousted in the Iranian Revolution in 1979. He studied religion at an early age; he took classes taught by leading Shia scholars in his teens.

He’s a lawyer: Rowhani reportedly received his bachelor’s degree in judicial law at the University of Tehran before earning a master’s degree at Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland, according to Hussein Banai, a scholar and co-author of the book “Becoming Enemies: U.S.-Iran Relations and the Iran-Iraq War.”

He’s a political insider: He launched his political career in the 1960s as an acolyte of Ayatollah Khamenei and, after the shah was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution, played a wide range of key roles in the new republic. Rowhani has a lengthy political CV —including stints as a former commander of the Iranian air defenses, a leader on three war and defense councils, and several terms in parliament.

“He’s been part of the establishment for a very long time,” Banai said, adding that Rowhani has close relationships with the clerical elite as well as political figureheads on both ends of the Iranian ideological spectrum.

Iranian President elect Hassan Rowhani, center, with the grandson of the late Ayatollah Komeini, Hasan, to his right.

Perhaps most prominently, Rowhani served for almost 15 years as a top national security consigliere to the president, according to Trita Parsi, the founder and president of the National Iranian American Council. Rowhani reportedly resigned from his post after clashing with newly elected Ahmadinejad in 2005, but he remained involved in Iran’s foreign affairs.

“One of the things people need to understand is that for a very long time he’s been a national security expert,” Banai said. “He’s a technocrat, in many respects.”

He’s a top-shelf negotiator: During his years as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Rowhani was Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator with the West. He earned the nickname “Diplomat Sheikh” — an Arabic honorific that means “elder” — because of the smooth, savvy way in which he handled allies and rivals alike.

“He’s a firm, tough negotiator — but he’s a constructive negotiator,” Parsi said. “I think he’ll be a unifying presence and help to significantly reduce internal quarrels and fights between various political factions.”

Banai said Rowhani is a political natural whose demeanor alone will help start “systemically undoing the public relations damage left by Ahmadinejad.”

“He’s managed to basically have every side think of him as one of their own,” Banai said. “He’s very skilled at listening to people and giving them the impression that he understands them without revealing where he stands.”

He’s an understated guy: Rowhani’s cool temperament offers a stark contrast to that of Ahmadinejad, a political leader partial to inflammatory rhetoric, Banai said.

“He is a very low-key figure,” Abdo said.

Rowhani has a reputation for “not unnecessarily stoking any drama,” Banai said. “He’s kind of a no-drama person.”

He’s a pragmatic moderate: Rowhani is widely seen as an even-handed political thinker who has avoided staking out extreme ideological territory over the course of his career.

“He’s from the center of the political spectrum,” Parsi said, adding that Rowhani rarely articulates radical ideas.

Although Rowhani has been frequently characterized as a moderate, Banai said the term should be used cautiously.

“In an Iranian context, being a moderate means you don’t pick fights with the ruling class and, at the same time, you pander to popular grievances people have about the ruling class.”

Abdo struck a similar chord.

“As Iran has moved to the right, we have redefined what it means to be moderate in Iran,” Abdo said.

He’s promised social reform: Rowhani has vowed to pursue certain liberal reforms that don’t exactly square with the Ayatollah’s stern religious edicts, including loosened restrictions on speech and lessened security on college campuses, according to Abdo. These policies would almost certainly be celebrated by young activists, particularly those involved with the Green Revolution, who have lobbied the government for social reform.

However, Rowhani’s promises may not come to fruition because …

He’s a traditionalist: Rowhani — who campaigned on the slogan “Prudence and Hope” — may talk the democratic talk, but lest we forget: He’s no revolutionary, according to Abdo.

“He believes in the system,” Abdo said.

What’s more, “we should be careful not to over-interpret” Rowhani’s reformist rhetoric, Parsi said.

He’s open to friendlier U.S. relations: There’s no doubt foreign policy officials in Washington will be keeping tabs on Rowhani’s every utterance in the next few months — particularly since the president-elect has signaled he has interest in improving ties with the U.S.

“It is not that Iran has to remain angry with the United States forever and have no relations with them,” Rowhani said in May, according to a state news report. “Under appropriate conditions, where national interests are protected, this situation has to change.”

As former chief nuclear negotiator, Rowhani may be uniquely skilled to reach a compromise with the Obama administration on the issue of Iran’s alleged nuclear program. But ultimately …

He’s beholden to the Ayatollah: Rowhani has publicly criticized Khamenei, and yet generally speaking, he has a “sufficiently good relationship” with the Supreme Leader, according to Parsi. But more importantly, structural changes in Iran — particularly any changes to the country’s weapons stock — don’t happen without the Ayatollah’s approval.

“I don’t think anything is going to change on the nuclear issue,” Abdo said, adding that the Ayatollah is believed to exercise full control over Iran’s alleged nuclear program.

“If you want to be cynical about it,” Abdo added, “Rowhani is … just a smiling face to the West.”

Source

Introduction — June 18, 2013

Hassan Rohani’s election victory will only temporarily hinder U.S. plans to install a new regime in Tehran. This was emphasised in an email we received yesterday from a very reliable psychic friend and further reiterated in the Russian lawmakers comments below.

For years now U.S. Middle East policy has been geared to overthrowing the current regime in Iran. Whether openly, such as the overthrow of Gadaffi, or more covertly, as in the ongoing strife in Syria, events in the region have been engineered in accordance with this policy. All of this has been brought about with an eye to opening Iran’s flanks and installing a more U.S. friendly (and therefore more Zionist amenable) regime in Iran.

Rohani’s win will not thwart these plans. Only delay them. For America’s political leadership is SATANICALLY DRIVEN and guided by their Zionist overlords they are intent on regime change in Tehran.

When that process begins in earnest expect Russia to step in, along possibly with China, and World War III to commence.

Check out Putin’s demeanour at the current G8 conference in Northern Ireland. He knows where current events are leading and his warnings over Syria are meant to deter the West from its current course. Unfortunately we doubt whether it will for as we said, the West’s political leadership is SATANICALLY DRIVEN.

Rohani victory to hinder US military scenario: Russian lawmaker

Press TV — June 18, 2013

A senior Russian lawmaker says the victory of Hojjatoleslam Hassan Rohani in Iran’s 11th presidential election will “greatly hinder” any attempt by the United States to push ahead with any potential military scenario against the Islamic Republic.

Alexei Pushkov, the head of the international affairs committee of Russia’s lower house of parliament, said on Monday, “Rohani’s victory in Iran will greatly hinder the US military scenario for Iran,” Russia’s Ria Novosti reported.

Rohani emerged victorious in the presidential election of June 14, which was marked by a high voter turnout, winning 50.7 percent of a total of 36,704,156 ballots counted.

Iran’s Interior Ministry put the voter turnout at 72.7 percent.

“For those who don’t know: a military scenario for solving the Iranian problem has been prepared in the United States for six or seven years,” Pushkov stated.

The United States, the Israeli regime and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program, with Washington and Tel Aviv repeatedly threatening to resort to a military attack against Tehran’s nuclear facilities based on the unfounded allegation.

US President Barack Obama said in March that “all options are on the table” to stop Iran’s nuclear energy program, which he falsely claims is diverted to non-civilian purposes.

Iran rejects the allegation, arguing that as a committed signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Meanwhile, Iran’s President-elect Rohani said during his first press conference on Monday Iran’s nuclear energy program is completely transparent but we are ready to show more transparency and make clear for the whole world that the measures taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran are completely within international frameworks.

MYA/HSN/HJL

Source

AFP — June 16, 2013

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday the world should keep up pressure on Iran to rein in its nuclear programme and avoid thinking the election of a moderate president will bring change.

“The international community should not fall into wishful thinking and be tempted to ease pressure on Iran to stop its nuclear programme,” Netanyahu said at the start a meeting of his cabinet.

“Iran will be judged on its actions,” he said a day after Hassan Rowhani, a moderate cleric and former top nuclear negotiator, was declared the winner of Iran’s presidential election.

“If it insists on continuing to develop its nuclear programme the answer needs to be clear — stopping its nuclear programme by any means,” Netanyahu said.

“In the past 20 years the only thing that brought about a temporary freeze in Iran’s nuclear programme was the fear of aggressive action against it.”

Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said although Rowhani won the support of reformists, it was still supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who called the shots.

“The working assumption should be that Khamenei, who has been heading this (programme) for 24 years, will continue to head it and therefore without continued pressure on Iran there is no chance of seeing significant change in nuclear policy,” said Steinitz.

“Rowhani doesn’t consider himself a reformer, he defines himself as a conservative. He was… Khamenei’s representative to the National Security Council,” he told army radio.

Israel, the region’s sole if undeclared nuclear power, along with the West accuses Iran of using its atomic energy programme as a cover for developing an atomic bomb. Tehran vehemently denies those claims.

It also charges Tehran with aiding Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah movement and the Palestinian militant group Hamas, both bitter enemies of the Jewish state.

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni preferred to reserve judgement on Rowhani.

“The test will be in his actions,” she said on army radio. “It is impossible to know today.”

“The Iranians now have a moderate face but if it emerges that in substance he is also a more moderate man, and if what truly happened is that the Iranian people want more moderation and if there is also pressure to have better relations with the West, then the test will move to the West.”

Suzanne Maloney, senior fellow at The Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, was upbeat.

“Rowhani is an ideal candidate to spearhead a new initiative to wrest Iran from its debilitating battle with the international community over the nuclear issue,” she said in a blog ahead of the Iranian poll.

The mass-circulation Israel Hayom daily, considered close to Netanyahu, showed a smiling Rowhani and his dancing supporters on its front page, with the headline “‘Moderate’, but what about the bomb?”

Writing in the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily, veteran Middle East affairs correspondent Smadar Perry, argued Rowahani’s background and connections could actually help bring about change, if he seeks it.

“It is part of the Iranian president’s job definition to sell Iran to the outside world,” she wrote.

“Rowhani has promised to improve the image of the Islamic republic and use his connections to reduce its international isolation.

“By virtue of his proximity to authority, his long career and his religious background he will not be restrained — at least not during his first 100 days of grace,” she added.

In the same paper, Yigal Sarna said Netanyahu would miss outgoing president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose strident anti-Israel rhetoric played to Israel’s attempts to enlist worldwide diplomatic opposition.

“What will we do without the scarecrow, the fanatic Ahmadinejad?” he asked. “What will we do without the Persian Hitler… We are either going to have return to reality or quickly find ourselves a new Satan.”

Source

Robert Fisk — The Independent June 16, 2013

Washington’s decision to arm Syria’s Sunni Muslim rebels has plunged America into the great Sunni-Shia conflict of the Islamic Middle East, entering a struggle that now dwarfs the Arab revolutions which overthrew dictatorships across the region.

For the first time, all of America’s ‘friends’ in the region are Sunni Muslims and all of its enemies are Shiites. Breaking all President Barack Obama’s rules of disengagement, the US is now fully engaged on the side of armed groups which include the most extreme Sunni Islamist movements in the Middle East.

The Independent on Sunday has learned that a military decision has been taken in Iran – even before last week’s presidential election – to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against the largely Sunni rebellion that has cost almost 100,000 lives in just over two years.  Iran is now fully committed to preserving Assad’s regime, according to pro-Iranian sources which have been deeply involved in the Islamic Republic’s security, even to the extent of proposing to open up a new ‘Syrian’ front on the Golan Heights against Israel.

In years to come, historians will ask how America – after its defeat in Iraq and its humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan scheduled for  2014 – could have so blithely aligned itself with one side in a titanic Islamic struggle stretching back to the seventh century death of the Prophet Mohamed. The profound effects of this great schism, between Sunnis who believe that the father of Mohamed’s wife was the new caliph of the Muslim world and Shias who regard his son in law Ali as his rightful successor – a seventh century battle swamped in blood around the present-day Iraqi cities of Najaf and Kerbala – continue across the region to this day. A 17th century Archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbott, compared this Muslim conflict to that between “Papists and Protestants”.

America’s alliance now includes the wealthiest states of the Arab Gulf, the vast Sunni territories between Egypt and Morocco, as well as Turkey and the fragile British-created monarchy in Jordan. King Abdullah of Jordan – flooded, like so many neighbouring nations, by hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees – may also now find himself at the fulcrum of the Syrian battle.  Up to 3,000 American ‘advisers’ are now believed to be in Jordan, and the creation of a southern Syria ‘no-fly zone’ – opposed by Syrian-controlled anti-aircraft batteries – will turn a crisis into a ‘hot’ war.  So much for America’s ‘friends’.

Its enemies include the Lebanese Hizballah, the Alawite Shiite regime in Damascus and, of course, Iran. And Iraq, a largely Shiite nation which America ‘liberated’ from Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority in the hope of balancing the Shiite power of Iran, has – against all US predictions – itself now largely fallen under Tehran’s influence and power.  Iraqi Shiites as well as Hizballah members, have both fought alongside Assad’s forces.

Washington’s excuse for its new Middle East adventure – that it must arm Assad’s enemies because the Damascus regime has used sarin gas against them – convinces no-one in the Middle East.  Final proof of the use of gas by either side in Syria remains almost as nebulous as President George W. Bush’s claim that Saddam’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

For the real reason why America has thrown its military power behind Syria’s Sunni rebels is because those same rebels are now losing their war against Assad.  The Damascus regime’s victory this month in the central Syrian town of  Qusayr, at the cost of Hizballah lives as well as those of government forces, has thrown the Syrian revolution into turmoil, threatening to humiliate American and EU demands for Assad to abandon power.  Arab dictators are supposed to be deposed – unless they are the friendly kings or emirs of the Gulf – not to be sustained.  Yet Russia has given its total support to Assad, three times vetoing UN Security Council resolutions that might have allowed the West to intervene directly in the civil war.

In the Middle East, there is cynical disbelief at the American contention that it can distribute arms – almost certainly including anti-aircraft missiles – only to secular Sunni rebel forces in Syria represented by the so-called Free Syria Army.  The more powerful al-Nusrah Front, allied to al-Qaeda, dominates the battlefield on the rebel side and has been blamed for atrocities including the execution of Syrian government prisoners of war and the murder of a 14-year old boy for blasphemy.  They will be able to take new American weapons from their Free Syria Army comrades with little effort.

From now on, therefore, every suicide bombing in Damascus – every war crime committed by the rebels – will be regarded in the region as Washington’s responsibility. The very Sunni-Wahabi Islamists who killed thousands of Americans on 11th September, 2011 – who are America’s greatest enemies as well as Russia’s – are going to be proxy allies of the Obama administration. This terrible irony can only be exacerbated by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s adament refusal to tolerate any form of Sunni extremism.  His experience in Chechenya, his anti-Muslim rhetoric – he has made obscene remarks about Muslim extremists in a press conference in Russian – and his belief that Russia’s old ally in Syria is facing the same threat as Moscow fought in Chechenya, plays a far greater part in his policy towards Bashar al-Assad than the continued existence of Russia’s naval port at the Syrian Mediterranean city of Tartous.

For the Russians, of course, the ‘Middle East’ is not in the ‘east’ at all, but to the south of Moscow;  and statistics are all-important. The Chechen capital of Grozny is scarcely 500 miles from the Syrian frontier.  Fifteen per cent of Russians are Muslim.  Six of the Soviet Union’s communist republics had a Muslim majority, 90 per cent of whom were Sunni.  And Sunnis around the world make up perhaps 85 per cent of all Muslims.  For a Russia intent on repositioning itself across a land mass that includes most of the former Soviet Union, Sunni Islamists of the kind now fighting the Assad regime are its principal antagonists.

Iranian sources say they liaise constantly with Moscow, and that while Hizballah’s overall withdrawal from Syria is likely to be completed soon – with the maintenance of the militia’s ‘intelligence’ teams inside Syria – Iran’s support for Damascus will grow rather than wither.  They point out that the Taliban recently sent a formal delegation for talks in Tehran and that America will need Iran’s help in withdrawing from Afghanistan.  The US, the Iranians say, will not be able to take its armour and equipment out of the country during its continuing war against the Taliban without Iran’s active assistance.  One of the sources claimed – not without some mirth — that the French were forced to leave 50 tanks behind when they left because they did not have Tehran’s help.

It is a sign of the changing historical template in the Middle East that within the framework of old Cold War rivalries between Washington and Moscow, Israel’s security has taken second place to the conflict in Syria.  Indeed, Israel’s policies in the region have been knocked askew by the Arab revolutions, leaving its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, hopelessly adrift amid the historic changes.

Only once over the past two years has Israel fully condemned atrocities committed by the Assad regime, and while it has given medical help to wounded rebels on the Israeli-Syrian border, it fears an Islamist caliphate in Damascus far more than a continuation of Assad’s rule.  One former Israel intelligence commander recently described Assad as “Israel’s man in Damascus”.  Only days before President Mubarak was overthrown, both Netanyahu and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia called Washington to ask Obama to save the Egyptian dictator.  In vain.

If the Arab world has itself been overwhelmed by the two years of revolutions, none will have suffered from the Syrian war in the long term more than the Palestinians.  The land they wish to call their future state has been so populated with Jewish Israeli colonists that it can no longer be either secure or ‘viable’.  ‘Peace’ envoy Tony Blair’s attempts to create such a state have been laughable.  A future ‘Palestine’ would be a Sunni nation.  But today, Washington scarcely mentions the Palestinians.

Another of the region’s supreme ironies is that Hamas, supposedly the ‘super-terrorists’ of Gaza, have abandoned Damascus and now support the Gulf Arabs’ desire to crush Assad.  Syrian government forces claim that Hamas has even trained Syrian rebels in the manufacture and use of home-made rockets.

In Arab eyes, Israel’s 2006 war against the Shia Hizballah was an attempt to strike at the heart of Iran. The West’s support for Syrian rebels is a strategic attempt to crush Iran. But Iran is going to take the offensive.  Even for the Middle East, these are high stakes. Against this fearful background, the Palestinian tragedy continues.

Source

Farnaz Fassihi — Wall Street Journal June 15, 2013

Hassan Rohani, the candidate backed by the opposition and reformist political factions, was declared the winner in Iran’s presidential vote, giving a decisive victory to Iranians calling for change.

Iran’s interior minister, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, said at a press conference Saturday in Tehran that Mr. Rohani had obtained more than 50% of more than 36 million votes cast in Friday’s election.

Conservative candidates did poorly in vote counts so far, especially the candidates perceived to be the closest to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The current nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, ranked fourth and Ali Akbar Velayati, a former foreign minister, was fifth. Mohsen Rezaei, the former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, who made the economy his top campaign issue, ranked third. The votes for all three men are below 13% so far.

Iran analysts and media pundits had said that if Mr. Rohani wins with a large margin, it should serve as wake-up call for Mr. Khamenei and his circle of conservative advisers that their hard-line policies ranging from the standoff over the nuclear issue to the dire state of the economy have been rejected by the majority of the population.

“Mr. Khamenei has to understand that his policies have failed. The people came out and voiced their protest in the most civil way and hopefully they will be heard,” said Ali Mazrui, a former parliamentarian and member of the main reformist party, to BBC Persian on Saturday morning.

The government announced that 70% of the country’s estimated 50 million voters had cast ballots at 60,000 polling stations across the nation.

Overshadowing the election process for many voters were memories of the last presidential ballot in 2009, when large-scale unrest followed allegations that authorities had rigged the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mr. Khamenei was the first official to cast a ballot early on Friday morning. He said that not even his family members were aware of his preferred candidate and urged election officials to handle ballots with care and honor the public’s choice.

He also said that Washington “can go to h—” for suggesting that Iran’s elections were unfair and undemocratic.

Five candidates hailed from conservative political parties loyal to Mr. Khamenei’s hard-line positions, while only one, Mr. Rohani, had been endorsed by opposition supporters and reformist parties, which seek democratic changes.

That endorsement galvanized enough voters that polls suggested Mr. Rohani would make it to a runoff ballot against one of the conservatives. Mr. Qalibaf, a former military commander with a reputation for management skills, appeared likely to emerge at the front of the conservative ranks. Mr. Jalili was the one remaining candidate seen as most strident in defending Iran’s current policies.

Many opposition supporters considered a boycott of the election, complaining that there was no candidate representing their interests and voicing fears that the outcome would be rigged.

During the campaign, candidates offered varying views on issues important with voters such as the state of the economy, foreign policy as it relates to sanctions and nuclear negotiations, and personal and social freedoms. Most voiced harsh criticism of the status quo and pledged change if elected.

The presidential election, which occurs every four years, is a critical milestone for the Islamic Republic that offers the regime a chance to boast to the world that it maintains a legitimate political system backed by the majority of the population.

Across Iran, turnout was reported stronger than expected, but not as large as 2009 when lines snaked for several miles outside of polling stations, according to witnesses.

In Tehran, some larger polling stations, such as Hosseinieh Ershad, where the government had a camera broadcasting live on state television were packed, while smaller polling stations in schools and mosques had no lines.

“Voter participation was much better than we anticipated but nothing like four years ago,” said Ali, an election supervisor for Mr. Rohani’s campaign who visited polling stations throughout Tehran. He declined to provide his last name.

Voter apathy appeared stronger at two opposite poles of the population: the secular affluent and the religious poor, with each saying they had little hope that the government would improve their lives. Polling stations in their neighborhoods weren’t crowded, witnesses said.

A day laborer in the industrial city of Arak said he and his family boycotted the vote this year out of frustration with the economy. He said his salary had shrunk to a third of its value with the dropping currency and rising inflation.

“I voted for Mr. Ahmadinejad in both previous elections but we only suffered more. All these years I was loyal and voted and they did nothing for us,” he said.

Many opposition supporters of the Green Movement and reformist parties had a change of heart about boycotting the vote and decided to back Mr. Rohani. Influential political figures, political prisoners and artists and musicians began rallying behind Mr. Rohani as a way to challenge hard-line conservatives and call for change.

“The government must realize that fundamentalism is over and people aren’t supporting it,” said Niloufar, a 27-year-old student from Isfahan who said she voted for Mr. Rohani.

Mr. Rohani also benefited from conservatives’ lack of unity and divided votes among five candidates. Witnesses and election supervisors who surveyed voters in conservative neighborhoods in Tehran said votes appeared to have been divided between Mr. Jalili and Mr. Rezaei.

State television ran a live broadcast of the election all day and most voters interviewed repeated government rhetoric. One young man said his vote was a “big defiance against our enemies.”

Several problems were reported that prompted concern about the fairness of the election.

Mr. Rohani’s campaign put out a statement saying the name of a reformist candidate, Mohamad Reza Aref, who withdrew last week, was still on the ballot in some polling stations, including the one where Mr. Rohani voted—suggesting an effort to dilute reformist support for Mr. Rohani. The name of a conservative candidate who withdrew, Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, wasn’t on the ballots.

The Interior Ministry said supervisors were investigating reports that pieces of paper with Mr. Jalili’s name typed on the header were being distributed to voters in some south Tehran polling station.

Mr. Rohani suffered other setbacks. His campaign website was blocked early on Friday after he called on voters who picked him to register their names and where they cast their ballot on his website. Election monitors working for Mr. Rohani’s campaign also had trouble obtaining credentials in time from the Interior Ministry, according to Iranian media.

“Elections today showed that the critics of the regime are growing in size and significance to include a much larger portion of the society because even conservatives are shouting for change,” said Ali Akbar Mousavi Khoeini, a former parliamentarian with the main reformist party who now lives in the U.S.

Source

Ian Deitch — Associated Press June 15, 2013

A senior Israeli official said Sunday that sanctions on Iran should be increased to pressure Tehran to end its suspect nuclear program, despite the election of a reformist-backed president, as nuclear efforts remain firmly in the hands of ruling clerics.

Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s minister of intelligence and strategic affairs, spoke to Army Radio a day after the surprise victory by Hasan Rowhani in Iran’s presidential election was announced.

Although Rowhani is considered as a relative moderate and had the backing of Iranian reformists, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the ultimate authority on all state matters and key security policy decisions— including nuclear efforts, defense and foreign affairs — remain solidly in the hands of the ruling clerics and their powerful protectors, the Revolutionary Guard.

“It’s good to see the Iranian people protest against the radical regime,” Steinitz said. But he cautioned, “As long as we don’t see a change it’s better to be wary and not celebrate prematurely.”

Steinitz is close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and is responsible for monitoring Iran’s nuclear program.

He said he doubted that the election of the new president will soften Iran’s stance in its nuclear standoff with the west. “Therefore the international community needs to work hard to tighten sanctions and present a clear ultimatum to Iran in order to maybe bring about change,” Steinitz said.

“The Iranians today are very close to the red line, they are about a year or less to a first (nuclear) bomb,” he said.

Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be an existential threat, citing Iranian calls for Israel’s destruction, its support for anti-Israel militant groups and its missile and nuclear technology.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, a claim that Israel and many Western countries reject.

Israel has said that it prefers diplomacy and sanctions to end Iran’s nuclear program but has hinted that military action would be an option if other peaceful attempts fail. It has called on the international community to issue a clear ultimatum to Iran to curb its nuclear program.

Meir Litvak, head of Iranian studies at Tel Aviv university, told Army Radio that Rowhani’s “smiley face to the west” might make the option of military action harder.

Rowhani’s predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on multiple occasions made references to the destruction of the Jewish state.

Source

Max Fisher — Washington Post June 12, 2013

Iran, though it is isolated, is still outmaneuvering the United States in the Syrian conflict that matters for them both. The Washington Post’s Liz Sly reports that Hezbollah’s entrance into the war on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad signals the degree to which Iran, Hezbollah’s sponsor and Assad’s ally, “is emerging as the biggest victor in the wider regional struggle for influence that the Syrian conflict has become.”

Hezbollah and Iran have been helping Assad’s forces to regain the momentum in the war, making it look more likely that he could ultimately prevail over the rebels. If and when the war ends, it’s increasingly plausible that Iran will emerge as the big winner, able to project even more influence in a weakened Syria and into Lebanon, where Hezbollah is based. “If Iran wins this conflict and the Syrian regime survives, Iran’s interventionist policy will become wider and its credibility will be enhanced,” an analyst at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Council told Sly

How did it happen? The answer may be both simple and complex. For all the twists and turns in regional politics, sectarian divisions and even great-power politics, it might come down to something really simple: Iran just has a bigger stake in Syria than the U.S. does.

It’s true that Iran has responded more forcefully in Syria, sending in weapons, cash, even Revolutionary Guards officers while the United State has hesitated over even arming select rebel groups. But it would be overly simplistic to boil that down to the decisions of a few U.S. and Iranian officials, to reduce the war’s sweep to the Obama administration’s reluctance to send arms.

Long-held international relations theory maintains that states, though their leaders might nudge them a few degrees one way or another, tend to conduct foreign policy in accordance with their national interests. And the simple fact is that, for all the U.S. interests in Syria, Iran’s interests run deeper. The country just has much more to gain in “winning” the conflict than does the United States and much more to lose if it doesn’t.

A rebel-held Syria, whether those rebels were the Islamists favored by Saudi Arabia and Qatar or the moderates hoped for in Washington, would shut out Iran from its only major Arab ally and and make it much tougher for Iran to reach its proxies in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. It would leave Iran less able to reach the outside world or to threaten Israel, which Tehran sees, rightly or wrongly, as an imminent threat to Iranian security that must be deterred.

Amr al-Azm, a history professor at Shawnee State University in Ohio who is Syrian and active in the opposition, put it succinctly to the Post’s Sly. “Politically we’re screwed, and militarily we’re taking a pounding,” Azm said of the opposition’s recent setbacks. “America talked the talk while Iran walked the walk.”

Source

Robert Fisk — The Independent June 13, 2013

We shall miss him. The cheeky smile, the chipmunk eyes, the Spanish Armada beard, the crackpot President who once claimed that a cloud emanated above his head at the UN – then denied he’d ever said such nonsense – and then confessed that he had when confronted with tape of his holy utterance.

Trying to elevate his most trusted lieutenant to his private office, he found his friend accused of sorcery and witchcraft. Only Israel’s ex-Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman – he who once telegraphed the foreign ministries of Europe with photos of the long-dead Grand Mufti of Jerusalem chatting to Adolf Hitler – could match Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for sheer unadulterated nonsense.

It could make you feel sorry – and that takes some doing – for both Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “Supreme Leader” of the Iranian necrocracy, and for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of That Country. Both were racists, Ahmadinejad about the Jews, Lieberman about the Arabs, and both shamed their countries. Ahmadinejad knew how to infuriate the Americans, Israel, the Russians, Iranian exiles and the EU all at the same time.

He suggested the Holocaust was exaggerated, that the “Israeli regime” should be “wiped from the map” – the court is still out on that translation, whatever the Israelis may say – and that Tehran would batter on with its nuclear technology, however much Israel and Washington may threaten to bomb Iran. At least Iran’s electoral laws forbid him a Roosevelt-like third innings.

Everyone knew that Ahmadinejad would never be given a finger on any nuclear button – many doubted if he knew the difference between nuclear physics and electrical power – but he provided, effectively (and damningly for Iran’s reputation as a serious, historical state), a hate figure to rival Gaddafi or any of the other ravers of the Middle East. There was a serious side, of course. While we hated him, we paid no attention to his popularity with the poor. Hands up who knew how much prestige he won by instituting pensions for the thousands of sightless female carpet weavers of Iran, blinded by their profession by the age of 40.

Yet who can forget the trough of ugliness, the torture and killings that followed the 2009 disputed election that appalled even his clerical supporters. His simplicity could contain a fearful cynicism. When I asked him after his 2009 election if he would ensure that no young Iranian woman would ever again be hanged like the 22-year-old who was dragged screaming to the gallows while pleading with her mother for help on her mobile phone, he looked at me with those soft eyes and said: “I personally would not even hurt a fly.” And then delivered a lecture on the independence of Iran’s judiciary.

Yes, we shall miss him. But not that much because he’s scheduled, according to a friend of mine, to take up a Tehran academic post as a lecturer in urban planning. Well, at least that will keep him out of the department of nuclear physics.

Source

Liz Sly — Washington Post June 12, 2013

As fighters with Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement wage the battles that are helping Syria’s regime survive, their chief sponsor, Iran, is emerging as the biggest victor in the wider regional struggle for influence that the Syrian conflict has become.

With President Obama set to host a White House meeting of top national security aides on Wednesday to reassess options in light of recent setbacks for the rebels seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the long-term outcome of the war remains far from assured, analysts and military experts say.

But after the Assad regime’s capture of the small but strategic town of Qusair last week — a battle in which the Iranian-backed Shiite militia played a pivotal role — Iran’s supporters and foes alike are mulling a new reality: that the regional balance of power appears to be tilting in favor of Tehran, with potentially profound implications for a Middle East still grappling with the upheaval wrought by the Arab Spring revolts.

“This is an Iranian fight. It is no longer a Syrian one,” said Mustafa Alani, director of security and defense at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Council. “The issue is hegemony in the region.”

The ramifications extend far beyond the borders of Syria, whose location at the heart of the Middle East puts it astride most of the region’s fault lines, from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the disputes left over from the U.S. occupation of Iraq, from the perennial sectarian tensions in Lebanon to Turkey’s aspirations to restore its Ottoman-era reach into the Arab world.

An Iran emboldened by the unchecked exertion of its influence in Syria would also be emboldened in other arenas, Alani said, including the negotiations over its nuclear program, as well as its ambitions in Iraq, Lebanon and beyond.

“If Iran wins this conflict and the Syrian regime survives, Iran’s interventionist policy will become wider and its credibility will be enhanced,” he added.

From Iran’s point of view, sustaining Assad’s regime also affirms Iran’s control over a corridor of influence stretching from Tehran through Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut to Maroun al-Ras, a hilltop town on Lebanon’s southern border that offers a commanding view of northern Israel, according to Mohammad Obaid, a Lebanese political analyst with close ties to Hezbollah.

Iran has sought to minimize its visible involvement in Syria so as not to exacerbate sectarian tensions that have been inflamed by a conflict pitting an overwhelmingly Sunni opposition against a regime dominated by Assad’s minority Shiite-affiliated sect, Obaid said.

Iran has provided advice, money and arms to Assad’s regime, but the manpower needed to bolster his forces, flagging after two years of trying to contain the revolt, has come from Hezbollah, which was founded in the 1980s with help from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and has become Lebanon’s leading military and political force.

“Hezbollah is part of the Iranian strategy,” Obaid said. “This counts as a victory for the group of Iran, Syria, Iraq and Hezbollah against the group backed by the United States.”

‘Iran walked the walk’

Supporters of the Syrian opposition contrast the hesitancy of the U.S. administration in offering arms to the outgunned, poorly trained and deeply divided rebels with the commitment that Iran has shown to its Damascus ally.

The U.S. goal was to pressure Assad into making concessions at the negotiating table, without delivering a resounding military victory to the rebels that might have brought Islamists to power in Damascus, said Amr al-Azm, a history professor at Shawnee State University in Ohio who is Syrian and is active in the opposition. Instead, a proposed peace conference in Geneva seems likely to be held on Assad’s terms, should it go ahead.

“Politically we’re screwed, and militarily we’re taking a pounding,” Azm said. “America talked the talk while Iran walked the walk.”

This would not be the first time that Iran has outmaneuvered the United States since the Iranian revolution brought Shiite clerics to power in Tehran in 1979. But the assertion of Shiite power in Syria rankles Sunnis across the region, compounding the dangers that the Syrian conflict could provoke a wider and even bloodier war than the one currently underway, which is estimated to have killed at least 80,000 people.

Escalating violence in Iraq and growing tensions in Lebanon, whose conflicts are inextricably intertwined with the increasingly sectarian nature of the war in Syria, underscore the risk that centuries-old religious rivalries between Sunnis and Shiites will be aggravated by Iran’s role. The leading religious authority in Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri have in the past week called on Sunnis to volunteer to fight in Syria, marking a potentially dangerous convergence that could herald an intensified influx of Sunni jihadis.

Saudi Arabia’s role

Saudi Arabia, the leading Sunni power in the region and Washington’s closest Arab ally, is unlikely to tolerate an ascendant Iran even if the United States chooses to remain aloof, said Jamal Khashoggi, director of the al-Arab television channel.

“It is a serious blow in the face of Saudi Arabia, and I don’t think the Saudis will accept it. They will do something, whether on their own or with America,” he said. “Syria is the heart of the Arab world, and for it to be officially conquered by the Iranians is unacceptable.”

One way in which Saudi Arabia could influence the outcome is by facilitating unchecked supplies of arms to the rebels, analysts say. Although the umbrella Free Syrian Army has received small quantities of weaponry from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar over the past year, the United States has sought to control the flow, vetting the recipients and restricting the caliber of the weapons provided.

After videos surfaced in March of Islamist groups wielding antitank weapons funneled across the Jordanian border by Saudi Arabia, the United States imposed a freeze on all further deliveries, putting the rebels at a disadvantage just as Iran, through Hezbollah, was gearing up to rejuvenate the Assad regime’s army with reinforcements, according to rebel leaders.

A symbolic battle

Military analysts caution against overestimating the impact of the rebel defeat in Qusair on what is likely to be a long and unpredictable war. The obscure western town abutting Hezbollah-controlled territory in Lebanon almost certainly offered an easier conquest than other rebel strongholds, such as the city of Aleppo, where the regime is touting an imminent offensive.

The rebels are continuing to press attacks in the northern, eastern and southern peripheries of the country even as the government appears to be tightening its grip on the central provinces of Damascus and Homs, raising the specter that the country will be partitioned into enclaves backed by rival Sunni and Shiite regional powers. A suicide bombing in Damascus on Tuesday highlighted the likelihood that the rebels will sustain an insurgency similar to the one that persists in Iraq even if they are defeated militarily.

The chief significance of the battle for Qusair lay in the powerful symbolism of the role played by Hezbollah, which eliminated any doubt that the Syrian conflict has turned into a proxy war for regional influence, said Charles Lister, an analyst with IHS Jane’s defense consultancy in London.

“External actors are becoming increasingly decisive and pivotal in terms of where the conflict is going,” he said. And if the United States increased its support for the rebels, Assad’s allies would be likely to boost theirs, he added.

“The conflict has regionalized, and, unfortunately, that gives it the potential to drag on longer,” he said. “As long as one side increases its assistance, the other will see the need to do so, too.”

Source

Associated Press — June 9, 2013

Iran said Sunday that it set up its first space tracking center to monitor objects passing in orbit overhead, the breakthrough claimed by the Islamic Republic in its space program.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who inaugurated the facility near the town of Delijan some 200 kilometers (125 miles) south of Tehran, said the center will help the country to manage “activities of satellites” but was also capable of monitoring “very remote space,” according to the official IRNA press agency.

Iran says it wants to put its own satellites into orbit to monitor natural disasters in the earthquake-prone nation, improve telecommunications and expand military surveillance in the region. The U.S. and its allies worry that the same technology could also be used to develop long-range missiles.

Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi said the center was for Iran’s space-related security but that Tehran would also share the acquired data with other countries, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Iran frequently announces technological breakthroughs that cannot be independently verified. It has long pursued space ambitions aimed at putting its own satellite into orbit as well as a manned space flight.

“The base is aimed at securing the country’s space facilities and monitoring space objects especially satellites that pass overhead,” Vahidi was quoted as saying.

The country has nine command and control ground stations for its space program including one in Syria, the country’s main Arab regional ally. The rest are located mainly in the central and southern parts of the country.

Vahidi said the Delijan center used radar, electro-optic and radio tracking.

In one of its most recent high-profile space announcements, Iran said in February that it send a monkey into space.

Source

News Brief — June 2, 2013

Iran claims its intelligence has uncovered a network of Mossad-trained terrorists who had been preparing to disrupt the country’s forthcoming national elections.

“The ringleader of this group was recruited by the spy agency of one of the most dependent and reactionary Arab countries in the region,” Iran’s intelligence ministry said in a statement on Sunday.

The subservience of this unnamed Arab country to the Israeli regime has become more obvious in recent years, it added.

Although the statement did not identify the “reactionary Arab countries”, at least one is thought to refer to Saudi Arabia, one of Iran’s foremost regional adversaries.

A statement on the ministry’s website said its agents had arrested 12 people who were preparing to ignite ethnic conflicts on Iran’s national election day through sabotage and assassination.

To this end, the ministry’s statement said, the terrorist cell had been ordered to kill prominent religious figures and leaders of ethnic groups in the country.

In addition to arresting 12 suspects involved in the plot, the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence also said it had confiscated a large amount of weapons and explosives.

The ministry’s statement also warned the “arrogant powers”, a term often used in reference to Britain, and reactionary countries in the region that they would face harsh retaliation should they cross any of Tehran’s “red lines”.

This is not the first time Iran has uncovered plots to disrupt the forthcoming national elections this year.

On March 21, the Iranian Intelligence Ministry seized the members of two groups who had smuggled weapons into the country with the intention of staging terrorist attacks during June’s presidential election.

by Hamad Subani (author of) The Secret History of Iran — (henrymakow.com) June 1, 2013

Given that the New World Order is a global phenomenon that seeks to enslave humanity, the Islamic World is not exempted from the conspiracies and secret societies of these same powers.

When Albert Pike allegedly predicted three World Wars, with the last one involving Muslims, it is safe to assume that a certain portion of the Islamic World would be playing its part in a massive staged conflict aimed at destroying the existing order.

Who would that player be? In the history of the Islamic World, Iran has always been a hotbed of intrigue and conspiracy directed against the rest of the Islamic World.  Probably this can be attributed to its location, which is at a crossroad between the West and the Middle East. But looking back at Iran’s past, there is reasonable evidence to suggest that secret groups have managed to control its destiny since ancient times.

While anomalies and inconsistencies in the 1979 Revolution (which brought Khomeini to power) have been noted in other conspiracy literature, there are also several disparities between the activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its stated goals.

DISCREPANCIES

Continues, with insightful comments from Dan …

Commentary — May 31, 2013

I’m not going to say where these photos were taken. But they present an entirely different picture of the country to that routinely depicted by the Western corporate media.

Even the people are different. Many of the women are strikingly beautiful. While many of the landscapes and the people in them wouldn’t look out of place in continental Europe.

As they say: a pictures says a thousand words so as you look at these photos of the land and its people (linked here) recall how they are usually portrayed by the Western corporate media.

Continues…

News Brief – May 26, 2013

Iran has reportedly equipped its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Aerospace Force (IRGC AF) with large numbers of long-range surface-to surface missile launchers.

Although the actual range and type of missiles fired from the launchers wasn’t specified, the fact that the missile launchers are mobile means that should Iran be attacked, US bases in the region and Israel would likely be hit in retaliatory strikes by missiles fired from the launchers.

Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi said during Sunday’s handover ceremony that the missile launchers had been jointly developed by the country’s Defense Ministry and the Aerospace Division of IRGC.

Vahidi emphasised moreover that the missile launchers were merely part of the country’s wider defensive capabilities used to safeguard peace.

“Today, the Defense Ministry, with the key strategy of self-confidence, hard work and self-sufficiency, designs and manufactures different weapons and military systems in aerospace, naval, aerial, ground, electronic and optic fields,” the Iranian minister said.

“Iran does not want war with any country and will not be the initiator of any war or conflict, but will also not allow any aggression or hostile act [against the country],” he continued.

The Islamic Republic will give a crushing response to any act of aggression by enemies, making them regret their actions, the minister added.

Over the past two decades, Iran has made important breakthroughs in its defence sector and attained self-sufficiency in developing and producing key weapons and military systems.

Apart from developing a wide range of surface-to-surface missiles, ground-to-air and anti-ship missiles, Iran has also launched its own naval frigates, submarines, fighter jets and long range radar systems.

While developing these weapons, Iran has repeatedly assured its neighbours that its military power poses no threat to them. Insisting rather that its military doctrine is solely based on defence and that the weapons displayed were primarily to deter potential aggressors.

He may have a point. There is absolutely no comparison between Iran’s current defensive capabilities and Iraq’s in 2003. During that time Iran has steadily developed its military-industrial capacity as the Western military threat has loomed closer from the waters of the gulf and military bases in Afghanistan and the Persian gulf states.

Had Iran not developed into a self-sufficient and reasonably advanced military power in its own right, it may well have gone the same way as Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that it hasn’t is in large part due to its having developed the capability to produce weapons systems like the missile launchers handed over in Sunday’s ceremony.

However, how much longer that deterrence factor remains viable is open to question.

Israel is still eager to see military action against Iran, preferably led by the U.S. But while Washington seems hesitant about direct military confrontation — as opposed to economic sanctions and a covert campaign through proxy ‘Syrian rebels’ to overthrow Iran’s closest regional ally — that could change overnight.

It would only take one false flag to change that and as we’ve seen recently in Boston and Woolwich, hidden powers are all too ready to launch such an operation when it’s least expected.

Press TV — May 26, 2013

Commander of the Iranian Army’s Ground Forces Brigadier General Ahmad-Reza Pourdastan says the country has been equipped with new domestically-produced anti-armor missiles.

In recent years, Iran has made great achievements in its defense sector and attained self-sufficiency in producing essential military equipment and systems.

“The Ground Forces have recently received new anti-armor missiles that feature high capabilities and are specifically used to [target] tanks equipped with reactive armor and are therefore resistant to usual missiles,” he said.

The commander said that the Ground Forces have also received recently-produced military equipment, including ground surveillance radar systems as well as two types of tactical vehicles, which have significantly increased the country’s defense capabilities.

Pourdastan added that a number of the latest military equipment, including personnel carriers, was also tested during the recent Beit-ul-Muqaddas 25 drills held in the central province of Isfahan.

The Islamic Republic has held several military drills to enhance the defense capabilities of its armed forces and to test modern military tactics and equipment.

Iran has repeatedly said its military might poses no threat to other countries, insisting that its defense doctrine is based on deterrence.

AR/HGH

Source

Associated Press — May 24, 2013

The U.N. nuclear agency responsible for probing whether Iran has worked on a nuclear bomb depends on the United States and its allies for most of its intelligence, complicating the agency’s efforts to produce findings that can be widely accepted by the international community.

Much of the world looks at U.S. intelligence on weapons development with a suspicious eye, given American claims a decade ago that Iraq had developed weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. used those claims to justify a war; Iraq, it turned out, had no such weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency insists that it is objective in evaluating Iran’s nuclear program and that its information comes from a wide range of sources and is carefully vetted. But about 80 percent of the intelligence comes from the United States and its allies, The Associated Press has been told.

Two IAEA officials, who gave the 80 percent figure, told The AP that the agency has been forced to rely more and more on information from Iran’s harshest critics — the U.S., Israel, Britain, France and Germany — because Tehran refuses to cooperate with international inspectors.

Their evaluation appeared to be the first in percentage terms. The officials demanded anonymity because they are not authorized to release classified information.

All five nations accuse Iran of having worked on nuclear arms, with Israel and the U.S. not ruling out force as a last resort if diplomacy fails to curb programs that Tehran could use for such weapons.

France and Germany refrained from joining the Iraq invasion, insisting U.S. intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s purported weapons program was inconclusive.

Intelligence services of other nations, such as Pakistan, China or Russia, also collect information on Iran. But they are compromised by the fact that their governments or individuals provided the equipment or knowledge in the past that allowed Iran to develop its nuclear program.

Today, they are reluctant to pass on what they know to the agency for political reasons — they want to be viewed as above the fray. They also view the IAEA more as technical organization and less as the U.N.’s nonproliferation watchdog, a role the agency has increasingly assumed with its Iran probe.

That leaves the U.S. and its allies as the IAEA’s main intelligence sources.

Critics invoke the Iraq fiasco to warn that the information on Iran provided by Tehran’s adversaries may be at best inaccurate and at worst spin, meant to pave the way for possible attack.

“Memories of the failure and tragic mistakes in Iraq are not taken sufficiently seriously,” Hans Blix, a former IAEA chief, told reporters in Dubai in March.

“There is no evidence right now that suggests that Iran is producing nuclear weapons,” said Blix, who headed the team that combed Iraq in the vain search for weapons of mass destruction.

Tehran has played on the credibility gap left by Iraq as it insists it is not interested in nuclear weapons, even as it pursues a program that is near the ability to make them.

Asked about the information on which the accusations against Iran are based, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s chief delegate to the IAEA, urged the world to pay heed to “lessons learned from Iraq” in comments to the AP.

In a November 2011 report that summarized its suspicions, the IAEA said that all its intelligence on Iran “has been carefully and critically examined.” But its ability to vet information has been hampered by Iran’s refusal to give experts access to sites, documents and people the IAEA suspects of involvement in possible weapons research.

Such access effectively ended more than five years ago when Tehran announced it had answered all questions which it is obliged to under an agreement worked out with the U.N. agency. That has left the agency mostly dependent on outside intelligence — and has reduced its means of crosschecking that intelligence.

A cable from the U.S. mission to the agency citing IAEA chief Yukiya Amano telling mission officials that he is “solidly in the U.S. court” on Iran — published by Wikileaks in 2009 — also helps those arguing that the case against Tehran could be overblown.

International concerns about Iran’s nuclear intentions date to the fall of the Shah in 1979. Those concerns resurfaced shortly before the 2003 Iraq invasion when U.S. spy satellites verified claims by Iran’s exiled opposition that Tehran was assembling a uranium enrichment program at Natanz, in central Iran.

Six years later, Iran acknowledged to the IAEA that it was building a fortified underground site at Fordo, southwest of Tehran, to enrich uranium. It did so a few days after the U.S. shared intelligence with the IAEA on its existence.

But those revelations in themselves do not prove that Iran is interested in nuclear arms.

Although uranium enriched to weapons-grade is used for the core of nuclear warheads, the Iranians have so far enriched only to grades suited for nuclear fuel, medicine and science.

Iran insists it has no intention of making weapons and asserts it, like Japan and other non-nuclear arms states, is within international rights to enrich.

In its November 2011 report, the IAEA said that Iran appeared to have conducted high explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, as well as computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead.

It also cited alleged preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test, and development of a nuclear payload for Iran’s Shahab 3 intermediate-range missile.

The agency says some such work may be continuing. Without a smoking gun, Iran and its supporters have challenged the IAEA to go public with its intelligence so the world can examine the allegations.

But the agency is obligated to countries supplying it with information to maintain secrecy. IAEA officials also fear that revealing too much might tip off Tehran and allow it to hide activities under investigation.

Hence, assessments about Iran’s intentions come down to a matter of trust — something many countries are unwilling to buy into after the Iraq debacle.

Gary Samore, the White House’s top adviser on weapons of mass destruction until January, says only a “couple of outliers, like Venezuela and Cuba” doubt that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.

“I can’t recall talking to any foreign government officials who believe that Iran’s program was peaceful,” he told the AP, dismissing public statements to the contrary from critics of Washington as politically motivated.

Nevertheless, public support for Iran remains strong, particularly among the 120 countries that call themselves nonaligned. Many are receptive to Iranian arguments that Western pressure on Tehran is a tactic to keep lucrative nuclear technology out of their hands.

In Tehran last year, nonaligned countries directly challenged the Security Council’s position on Iran’s nuclear enrichment, backing the Iranian insistence that the program is peaceful.

Russia is a U.S. partner in trying to curb Iran’s enrichment program. But only after Moscow expressed unhappiness with what it saw as the agency’s dependence on intelligence from the U.S. and its allies last year did the agency start to to share some — but not all — of the intelligence it gets with a Russian expert who reports to the Kremlin.

Reflecting indirect distrust of that intelligence, Russia’s Interfax news agency last year quoted Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying Moscow sees “no signs that there is a military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program.”

Even some experts who are skeptical of Iran question the IAEA’s heavy reliance on limited sources of information.

Robert Kelley, a former senior IAEA official, describes agency claims of continued Iranian weapons work as “sketchy.”

Kelley, who was part of the 2003 IAEA inspection team in Iraq, says that Iran may indeed have an ongoing weapons program. But he also suggests that the U.N. agency may be jeopardizing its impartiality “by constructing accusations based upon anonymous sources that are almost a decade old” and relying on information “clearly coming from known sources hostile to Iran.”

“Remember the lessons of 2003,” he told the AP.

Source

Times of Israel — May 23, 2013

Netanyahu draws a cartoon, illustrating to the U.N. the dangers posed by a nuclear armed Iran. Click to enlarge

In a show of force, the United States Senate on Wednesday unanimously passed a resolution urging an uncompromising US stance against Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, calling for Washington’s support should Israel strike the program.

“If the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence,” the resolution reads.

It also calls for the US to take “such action as may be necessary” to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability.

While senators are careful in their calls for US military intervention, the resolution, which passed 99-0, is seen as the most direct expression yet heard from Washington reflecting support for a potential Israeli strike.

“I cannot emphasize enough my strong concerns about Iran’s nuclear program and the extraordinary threat it poses to the United States, to Israel and to the entire international community,” Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), the powerful chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a speech on the Senate floor before Wednesday’s vote.

Diplomatic efforts “have failed to achieve their central objective — getting Iran to make concessions on the nuclear program,” Menendez said. “It is clear to me that we cannot allow the Iranians to continue to drag their feet by talking while all the while they grow their nuclear program.”

Menendez cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report released earlier Wednesday which said Iran was speeding up its enrichment work at Natanz.

“We cannot allow Iran to buy more time talking — even as the centrifuges keep spinning. There is no doubt, there has never been a doubt – not in my mind – that a nuclear-armed Iran is not an option,” he said.

The resolution, he said, “makes clear that a nuclear Iran is not an option, and that the Unites States has Israel’s back… Iran’s leaders must understand, that unless they change course their situation will only get worse and economic struggles and international isolation will only grow. They must understand that at the end of the day their pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability will make them less, not more secure.”

It also contained a message for Israel, Menendez continued.

“The bottom line: Israel should always understand that the United States has its back, that we will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons capability, and, if we are forced to, we will take whatever means necessary to prevent this outcome,” he said.

The resolution itself “declares that the United States has a vital national interest in, and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel, and reaffirms United States support for Israel’s right to self-defense.”

The resolution was introduced by Menendez and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and had 92 cosponsors (out of 100 senators) by the time it reached the Senate floor for a vote. It passed unanimously.

Reactions to the resolution included enthusiastic support by pro-Israel groups and criticism by groups opposed to further sanctions or military measures against Iran’s nuclear program.

The “Senate action…comes at a critical moment as Iran stands on the verge of attaining nuclear weapons capability following repeated defiance of the international community,” the American Israel Public Affairs Committee said on Wednesday.

“The passage of this resolution is an extremely significant and timely statement of solidarity with Israel and a restatement of America’s determination to thwart Iran’s nuclear quest – which endangers American, Israeli, and international security,” AIPAC said.

Meanwhile, the National Iranian American Council said the resolution amounted to “saber rattling.”

“Apparently the Senate thinks the standoff between the US and Iran suffers from a lack of brinksmanship,” the group’s policy director Jamal Abdi said. “Washington and Tehran are stuck in vicious cycle of mutual escalation that can only be broken through the give and take of serious negotiations, not through further saber rattling.”

He called on Congress to “abstain from any more reckless threats or sanctions that push us closer to the brink of war with Iran. Instead, Congress should ensure diplomacy can succeed by making it absolutely clear and credible that, in exchange for verifiable concessions that prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, sanctions will be lifted.”

The resolution urges US support in the case of an Israeli strike, but includes a few key caveats. It only supports an attack conducted “in legitimate self-defense” and directed “against Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” both phrases added to the resolution as it went through committee.

The resolution also states outright that “Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.”

“No one wants another conflict anywhere in the world militarily, but we also don’t want a nuclear-capable Iran,” the resolution’s Republican sponsor, Lindsey Graham, told reporters at a February press conference.

Source

Jim Fetzer (with M.J. Rosenberg) — Veterans Today May 21, 2013

In a stunning betrayal of the Constitution of the United States, which obligates the United States to conform to the UN Charter and international law, the US Senate has before it a resolution that commits the nation to support Israel militarily, diplomatically, and economically should it decide to attack Iran “in its legitimate self-defense”, where every action Israel has ever taken–from the Six Days War to its incursions into Lebanon–has been deemed by the American government to be “in its legitimate self-defense”.

The resolution states:

If the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self defense against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

As M.J. Rosenberg has observed,

[T]he “self-defense” limitation is no limitation at all. The United States has deemed all major Israeli military actions as “self-defense” (most recently two Gaza wars) with the oft-repeated statement that the United States is “fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself.” Couple that with President Obama’s language ruling out containment of a nuclear Iran and it’s pretty clear that any attack by Israel on Iran will be deemed self-defense by the United States.

Rand Paul (R-KY) has been doing what he can to tone down the resolution, but whether he can prevail is yet to be seen.  While this is a non-binding resolution that does not have the force of law in committing the nation to support Israel under these circumstances, it does express “the sense of the Senate”. While the President is obligated by the Constitution to seek its “advice and consent”, this commitment violates international law and the UN Charter and therefore the Constitution itself.

At the very least, AIPAC should be required to register as a “foreign agent”. Its virtually complete domination of American foreign policy has led wits to describe the US as “the United States of Israel”.  The problem is that this is not a joke, where “our gallant ally” is drawing us deeper and deeper into a conflict which has enormous potential to precipitate World War III.  It is a positive sign that Russia has intervened in Syria.  It will not stand idly by while Israel and the United States attack Iran.

Iran poses no imminent treat to the US or to Israel, where the stunning stupidity of the Senate resolution emerges from the reflection that (1) Iran has no nuclear weapons program, much less any nukes; (2) that the casualties from an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities would be catastrophic; and (3) that Israel is not an ally of the United States, but is committed to advancing its own interests, regardless of the consequences for the US or, indeed, for the world at large.

(1) Iran has no nuclear weapons program

Iran not only has no nuclear weapons program but is a peaceful nation that has not attacked any other country for more than 300 years.  The Supreme Leader of Iran, The Ayatolla Khamenei, has declared, “Nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none”.  Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has allowed inspectors.  All 16 US intel agencies concluded in 2007 that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, a conclusion that it reaffirmed in 2011.

Israel, by contrast, has more than 200 and as many as 600 of these little beauties. It has never signed the NPT and will not allow inspectors. The War against Terror was an Israeli contrivance to set the United States on a course to dismantle the sophisticated Arab states and leave Israel with uncontested domination of the Middle East.  Upon his return from serving as Supreme Commander, Allied Forces Europe, Gen. Wesley Clark was presented with a plan to dismantle seven Arab nations in the next five years.  Syria and Iran are the final stages of this Israeli plan.

(2) The civilian casualties would be catastrophic

Estimates have it that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities would bring about an estimated 1 million Iranian deaths outright and another 35,000,000 premature deaths as the cloud of pollution swept across Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.  Even if there were proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, what could possibly justify an atrocity of this magnitude?  Yet the US Senate would have our nation become complicit in one of the greatest atrocities of human history?

For the sake of comparison, according to the “official account”, some 6,000,000 Jews died during the Holocaust.  Set aside that the International Committee of the Red Cross maintained detailed records that support perhaps 600,000 deaths of Jews, gypsies and the mentally and physically impaired, Benjamin Netanyahu is willing to sacrifice six times the number of deaths alleged to have taken place during the Holocaust to promote Israel’s political domination of the Middle East.

(3) Israel is not an ally of the United States

The recent attack on Syria by Israel, which appears to have been intended to destroy a shipment of missiles and to take out a chemical supply depot, has had the unintended consequence of providing Russia with an excuse to speed up its delivery of its advanced S-300 missiles, which can be used for anti-aircraft and anti-ship defense and has greatly strengthened the ability of Syria to withstand attacks.  Indeed, there is every reason to believe that Russia is committed to standing fast with Syria.

Throughout this conflict, Obama’s actions have been disgraceful, where he (a) has supported Israel in taking such actions as it may deem appropriate (without adding, “provided they are in accordance with international law”), (b) is providing Netanyahu with refueling tankers and radar-suppressing aircraft to attack Iran (which I compare to placing a pedophile in charge of a day care center) and (c) continues to use drones in Pakistan (another violation of another nation’s sovereignty).

What this means is that the President of the United States, by encouraging Israel to violate the sovereignty of Syria and of Pakistan and to attack Iran, which poses no “imminent treat” to any other nation, especially to Israel with its vast stock of nuclear weapons, has become an accessory to  the violation of international law and to the commission of war crimes.  If Israel should launch an attack on Iran because it believes the US will support it, the stain on our history will be permanent.

It is all the more surprising that the US Senate remains so enthusiastic about its unqualified support for Israel, since we now have multiple confirmed reports of Israeli snipers having taken out more than 400 US troops in Iraq.  This is just about as disgusting as it gets and reveals decisively that Israel has only its own interests at heart and is willing to sacrifice even the welfare of American troops in combat to promote it, not to mention 36,000,000 innocents to advance its political agenda.

Senate Resolution: U.S. Will Go to War With Iran if Israel Does

by M.J. Rosenberg

It is customary for Congress to pass resolutions commending Israel on the anniversary of its founding in 1948. Once these resolutions were innocuous with references to “making the desert bloom” and “ingathering” Jewish refugees. Standard “pro-Israel” boilerplate. No more.

In recent years Congress, with the Israel lobby’s eager assistance, has coupled salutations and congratulations with increasingly strident language about terrorism, Palestinians, and now, Iran. (For an excellent analysis on how the concept of being “pro-Israel” has degenerated in recent years, see this smart piece by Michael Koplow, program director of the Israel Institute at Georgetown University.)

One such anniversary resolution now being considered in the Senate and, with 79 cosponsors, certain to pass is Senate Resolution 65, introduced by Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), two lobby stalwarts. It cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday.

The resolution begins with five clauses of standard rhetoric, noting that “since its establishment nearly 65 years ago, the modern State of Israel has… forged a new and dynamic democratic society including “freedom of speech, association, and religion; a vigorously free press; free, fair, and open elections; the rule of law; a fully independent judiciary; and other democratic principles and practices….” The usual fare.

Then, with no transition, it segues into 14 clauses condemning Iran with citations of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ugly language about Israel, his repeated Holocaust denials, the Islamic Republic’s human rights violations and then the threat ostensibly posed by its nuclear program.

That is followed by 13 clauses citing President Obama’s repeated promises not to permit Iran to attain a nuclear weapon, along with Congress’ own, which are even more aggressive.

All this is just the windup for the pitch which says that if Israel goes to war with Iran, the United States should join the fight. The resolution states:

If the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self defense against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

On the surface, this doesn’t sound that terrible. After all, it specifically limits our commitment to a situation in which “Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense….”

But the “self-defense” limitation is no limitation at all. The United States has deemed all major Israeli military actions as “self-defense” (most recently two Gaza wars) with the oft-repeated statement that the United States is “fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself.” Couple that with President Obama’s language ruling out containment of a nuclear Iran and it’s pretty clear that any attack by Israel on Iran will be deemed self-defense by the United States.

In short, the Graham-Menendez resolution is telling Israel that if it goes to war, we will have their back.

The problem here is not that Congress is saying that the United States would support Israel if there was any chance that it might be defeated in a war with Iran or anyone else. That is obvious and has been since 1973 when the United States military was placed on its highest alert following the joint Egyptian-Syrian attack on Israel.

No, the point of this resolution is to tell Israel that it can go to war with Iran, with the assurance that if it gets into trouble, the United States will step in and finish the job. Israeli hawks need that assurance because it is generally understood that Israel cannot take out Iran’s nuclear facilities alone. It can only try if it knows that the United States is right there just in case.

The intent of this resolution is to eliminate any Israeli hesitancy about getting into a war it cannot win. Israelis won’t do that. Menendez, Graham and company are telling them not to worry. Just do it, and we are in too.

Source

Fars News Agency — May 19, 2013

Iran plans to start mass-production of a new air-defense system on Monday.

The production line of the new system, Herz (Protector) 9, will be inaugurated in a special ceremony attended by the country’s Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi tomorrow.

Last Tuesday, the Iranian defense ministry announced that Iran plans to unveil five new defensive achievements in coming days.

Also, a senior Iranian military commander announced last month that the country would unveil a home-made long-range air-defense missile system similar to the Russian S-300 in the near future.

“This system, dubbed as Bavar (belief) 373, is being developed in the country and will be officially unveiled soon,” Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian Army’s Self-Sufficiency Jihad Rear Admiral Farhad Amiri said.

He noted that Bavar-373 missile defense system has reached the production stage and its subsystems have been already tested.

Earlier this year, senior military officials announced that Iran was testing the subsystems of Bavar 373 missile defense system.

Commander of Khatam ol-Anbia Air Defense Base Brigadier General Farzad Esmayeeli said then that “laboratory tests are underway on subsystems of the long-range Bavar 373 air-defense system”.

The Iranian Armed Forces have recently test-fired different types of newly-developed missiles and torpedoes and tested a large number of its home-made weapons, tools and equipments, including submarines, military ships, artillery, choppers, aircraft, UAVs and air defense and electronic systems, during massive military drills.

Defense analysts and military observers say that Iran’s wargames and its advancements in weapons production have proved as a deterrent factor, specially at a time of heightened threats by the US.

Source