Israeli MP thanked France for nuclear weapons

Shraga Elam
Zurich/Switzerland
23 June 2008

No real media attention was given to a stunning declaration made yesterday by Dalia Itzik, the Knesset Speaker. Greeting the French president Nicola Sarkozy she said among other things:

„… we remember the beautiful days of political and mainly security cooperation [between our countries – s.e.] and will be forever thankful to you, the French, for giving us the main source of power and deterrence that was and will be in our possession.“

(Source: Knesset website in Hebrew /http://www.knesset.gov.il/vip/speaker/heb/SpSpeech230608.htm). The statement was quoted partially in the Hebrew Ha‘aretz edition, which added: „… as is known the nuclear plant in Dimona was erected with a French aid.” (http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/995439.html ) .

This official statement in the Knesset signals a real change in Israel's policy of nuclear opacity; i.e., Israel has refused to admit till now possessing nuclear weapons. This obvious lie was accepted by the US governments as the most convenient solution for the problem posed by the Israeli nukes. A talkbackist called Hass wrote correctly: „US law requires(d) the US to limit scientific/technical interactions with non-NPT nuclear armed states, and the “opacity” in question was specifically intended to allow Israel to circumvent these restrictions by agreeing to pretend that Israeli nukes don’t exist.“ ( http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1321/israel-and-nuclear-opacity ).

The most plausible explanation for Itzik’s surprising statement is that Israel is preparing the ground for accepting Iranian nukes and institutionalizing a policy of „balance of terror“. The „balance of terror“ requires that both sides will possess weapons of mass destruction and the possession should be made known in order to deter the enemy from attacking.

Hebrew short version:
http://cafe.themarker.com/view.php?t=495545

IAEA on Iran's Nuclear Program: Reality vs. US media myth

Jeremy R. Hammond
June 5, 2008

This is a good investigative report that can rarely been found in US media. Jeremy starts his report with the following:

When the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) sent its follow-up report on the implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Safeguards Agreement in Iran to the United Nations Security Council on May 26, the response from the U.S. media was pretty much along predictable lines.

The next day, The New York Times, under a headline that read "Atomic Monitor Signals Concern Over Iran's Work," called it an "unusually blunt and detailed report" and quoted the report as saying that Iran's alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon remained "a matter of serious concern." The report "accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations that its nuclear program may be intended more for military use than for energy generation." The case that Iran may be seeking a weapon consists in part on 18 documents indicating that "the Iranians have ventured into explosives, uranium processing and a missile warhead design."

Jeremy concludes in his investigative report:

Thus, out of the five remaining outstanding issues at the time of the February report, three were deemed then to be no longer outstanding. A fourth, regarding the "uranium metal document" was awaiting further corroboration from Pakistan of Iran's explanation for its possession of the document, which the IAEA has since received. The last remaining outstanding issue is with regard to the "alleged studies" purportedly shown in documents provided by other nations that Iran claims are forgeries. While these documents are indeed a "serious concern" when considering allegations of Iran's "cat-and-mouse" game with the IAEA, it must also be considered that Iran hasn't even been presented with some of these documents cited as evidence of its intention to build a bomb. The follow-up May report doesn't reiterate issues deemed no longer outstanding from the February report, giving cause for that context to be conveniently forgotten in US media reports.

The fact is that the IAEA has noted substantial progress in resolving outstanding issues that remain in the process of verifying the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. Iran's right to research and develop nuclear technology for energy is guaranteed under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran has allowed the IAEA access and oversight under the terms of its Safeguards Agreement, and the Agency has continued to successfully monitor Iran's program, detecting no proscribed activities indicating a parallel weapons program.

As the IAEA Secretary General Mohammed El Baradei noted at the World Economic Forum the week before the delivery of the May report to the UN, "We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I've been saying that consistently for the last five years."[13]

One must be forgiven if one had arrived at a different conclusion based on contrary impressions delivered to the public by the US media.

the full report @ OpEdNews
more on: http://www.yirmeyahureview.com

Is the world running out of oil?

Press TV
World Week Watch (WWW) programme
Saturday 24 May 08

Oscar Reyes

This week, oil prices hit record highs of 135 dollars per barrel – which, even taking inflation into account, is higher than at the peak of the 1970s oil crisis.

Is the world running out of oil? Or are oil traders cashing in on temporary price hikes – creating a temporary bubble that will soon burst?

Let’s take a look at some of the factors behind this week’s record prices.


With oil prices reaching record highs, there is no shortage of explanations for the current boom.

The latest surge came after the US government reported that its supplies of crude oil and petrol fell unexpectedly in the last week.

Financial speculation was rife, with a $5 dollar price hike in a single day’s trading on Wednesday bearing all the hallmarks of a speculative bubble.

The weak US currency was also a factor, as it makes it cheaper for holders of other currencies to buy oil - which is traditionally priced in dollars.

In addition, many investors see commodities such as oil as a hedge against inflation and the falling dollar.

But while some analysts consider that, in the short term, this bubble could burst, the fundamentals of oil supply and global politics make it more likely that the price of a barrel of crude will continue its upward trend.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) last year reported that oil demand is likely to outpace rises in oil supply until at least 2012, generating significant shortfalls.

The economic and consumer boom in the world's largest developing countries, particularly China and India, are one key factor.
But this is accompanied by a pronounced slowdown in the expansion of global supply, due mainly to a dearth of new discoveries, which many analysts take a sign that the world is approaching peak oil - the moment in our history where supplies start to dwindle
This trend has been exacerbated by the unwillingness – and, to some extent, inability - of the oil cartel Opec to pump significantly more crude.

Recurrent political disorder in key oil fields already in production – including Iraq and Nigeria – is a further factor.
US aggression towards key oil producers, including Iraq, Venezuela and Iran – has made the markets nervous too, with the resulting spike in oil prices having a significant ‘blowback’ effect on the US economy itself.
But with US officials keen to pin the blame on OPEC, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez – whose country is a member of the organization – said on Thursday that the true culprit was America’s addiction to oil.

6. Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela:"They say we are to blame for the price of oil. They are the ones to blame in the first place, for their wastefulness, their consumption, the aggression against countries such as Iraq, a great oil-producing country, their threats to Iran and Venezuela, and many other factors. It's not OPEC. They want to demonise OPEC before the world. They want to pin the world against OPEC. Yesterday we were discussing this, how to stop the empire from succeeding with its great media machine from inverting reality, because sometimes they are successful."

So what is the effect of all this?
The environmental impact is ambiguous. A cut in flights, and a decline in sales of gas guzzling 4x4 vehicles in the United States is good news for the planet. But price alone will not change the oil addition of Western consumers. And while oil-dependent companies are reporting losses, oil companies themselves are doing well – with the high price making it viable to invest in new “unconventional” oil sources, such as tar sands and deep-offshore fields.

The impact on the US economy is more telling, however.
With oil prices now over twice what they were a year ago, they are fueling US inflation by making it more expensive to transport goods such as food.

This, in turn, is helping to weaken the value of the dollar on international currency markets – which then inflates the price of oil itself in international trading.

More fundamentally, though, the high oil price is weakening the US economy in the longer term by generating a huge balance-of-payments deficit.

As the United States continues to feed its oil addiction, wealth is being transferred at a rapid rate to the economies of oil-producing nations.

Your comments to this programme should be sent to: www@presstv.co.uk

View this show @ here

watch WWW @ PressTV.com

Rep. Ron Paul Stands Alone in Senate against Powerfull Israel Lobby

CNI reports

Rep. Ron Paul Stands Alone (defying AIPAC) in Voting Against Gaza Bill (see the latest CNI send about Dr. Paul's courage below):

On Wednesday, March 5, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 951, which condemns the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, holding both Iran and Syria responsible for "sponsoring terror attacks." Additionally, the resolution claims that "those responsible for launching rocket attacks against Israel routinely embed their production facilities and launch sites amongst the Palestinian civilian population, utilizing them as human shields …". For the full text of House Resolution 951, please click here.

This resolution problematically includes a strong defense of the recent Israeli incursions in Gaza. The following is one such exert: "Whereas the inadvertent inflicting of civilian casualties as a result of defensive military operations aimed at military targets, while deeply regrettable, is not at all morally equivalent to the deliberate targeting of civilian populations as practiced by Hamas and other Gaza-based terrorist groups…"
The resolution passed the House with an unequivocal majority of 404 to 1 with four representatives voting present and nineteen abstaining. Who was the lone Member of Congress to stand up to the Israel Lobby? Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) not only voted against HR 951, but also made a very strong statement explaining why he opposed such a biased pro-Israel statement.

Below is Rep. Paul's statement he gave to the House before the vote:

Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to H. Res. 951, a resolution to condemn Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. As one who is consistently against war and violence, I obviously do not support the firing of rockets indiscriminately into civilian populations. I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured.

Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. It is our continued involvement and intervention - particularly when it appears to be one-sided - that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement.

Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria. This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the United States and Iran and Syria. My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the US attack on that country.

I strongly believe that we must cease making proclamations involving conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States. We incur the wrath of those who feel slighted while doing very little to slow or stop the violence.

The Council for the National Interest denounces H.R. 951 and encourages our members to call their Representative to let them know that this approval of Israeli aggression and flagrant human rights abuses is unacceptable. To find out how your Representative voted, please click here.

In addition, please thank Rep. Paul for his brave actions on Wednesday. Contact his office today and express your gratitude by calling (202) 225-2831.


Reported by CNI@ Council for the National Interest Foundation

Were the Archbishop's Comments on Sharia Law Justifiable?

A debate at Press TV london

Broadcast on 26 February 2008.

Watch @ PresTV, Forum

The Forum - Sharia controversy: justified fear or media circus?

Host: Phil Rees

Panelists:
The Reverend Stephen Coles, is a member of the General Synod of the Church of England and Vicar of St Thomas', Finsbury Park, London

Dr Daud Abdullah is deputy secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain

Alex Deane, member of Church of England. He is the author of 'The Great Abdication: Why Britain's Decline of the Middle Class' and is former Chief of Staff to leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron MP.

Mohammad Saeed Bahmanpour, raised in Iran, studied at Queen Mary College London, the London School of Economics and the Allameh Tabatabai University in Tehran and most recently a lecturer at the Islamic College for Advanced Studies in London. His latest book, Muslim Identity in the 21st Century, was published in London in 2001.

Preview:
This week Forum was discussing sharia law in the UK. A lecture to lawyers by the chief religious leader of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, earlier this month, has sparked off serious attacks against him in the media with headlines including 'Bash the Bishop.' Commentators from both from the political right and left both criticised him, some calling for his resignation, whilst colleagues in his Church have questioned his judgement. The subject at the centre of the row is sharia law in the UK, with Williams questioning whether British law should legally recognise aspects of religious law.

Political leaders Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg all disagree fearing the universal value of equality before the law in the UK would be undermined by the introduction of parallel foreign laws. Fears also of the fragmenting of society have been stoked up by the recycling of an ICM poll in 2006 claiming 40% of Muslims would favour the introduction of sharia laws in the pre-dominantly Muslim areas. But few have asked exactly what is sharia and what parts of the legal system would be affected.

Can sharia like elements of other religious laws be formally practiced in the UK? Those sympathetic to sharia claim sharia courts have been operating in England for a number of years and Muslims are only seeking equality in the law with the likes of the Jewish and other communities.

Should we be more concerned with sharia or with the reporting behind it? And does this tell us about wider underlying attitudes towards Muslims behind the issue of the sharia law?

Watch @ PresTV, Forum

US Nuclear Hypocrisy and Iran

FRIDA BERRIGAN

The Bush administration is very focused these days on Iran's nuclear program.


The new round of hand-wringing and saber-rattling about Iran's nascent but worrisome nuclear program comes just a few weeks after the Bush administration announced its new budget, which included billions for nuclear weapons development. The Department of Energy's "weapons activities" budget request totals $6.4 billion, a drop in the bucket compared to the Pentagon's $481.4 billion proposed budget. But the budget for new nukes is large and growing -- even in comparison to Cold War figures.

Key to revitalizing nuclear weapons is Complex 2030, the NNSA'a "infrastructure planning scenario for a nuclear weapons complex able to meet the threats of the 21st century." It is a costly, illegal, and dangerous program aimed at rebuilding the 50-year-old nuclear facilities where the weapons are both assembled and disassembled...
See full article @ Counterpunch

Ghosts of Abu Ghraib

ICH
"Ghosts of Abu Ghraib," a new HBO documentary produced and directed by Rory Kennedy, daringly approaches a scandal that hardly anyone wants to see reexamined -- least of all, one can safely assume, the Bush administration and the Pentagon.

The reason is not just that what happened at Abu Ghraib is, to understate in the extreme, unpleasant. The documentary says it's also because this breakdown was not so much nervous as inevitable -- and not so spontaneous, having been sanctioned by the top brass, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
too see videos go @ ICH

Military strikes against Iran will simply not work

Military strikes could speed Iran's development of nuclear weapons, warns new report.

Military strikes, instead of setting back Iran's nuclear program, could actually speed up their production of a nuclear weapon, according to a new report written by one of the UK's leading nuclear scientists published today (Monday).

The report shows that following an armed attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran could change the nature of its program to assemble a small number of devices relatively quickly.

The report is written by Dr. Frank Barnaby, who worked as a weapons scientist at the headquarters of the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishment (Aldermaston) during the development of Britain's own nuclear weapons, and is published by Oxford Research Group, one of the UK's leading global security think tanks.

"If Iran is moving towards a nuclear weapons capacity it is doing so relatively slowly, most estimates put it at least five years away. However attacking Iran - far from setting back their progress towards a bomb - would almost certainly lead to a fast-track program to develop a small number of nuclear devices as quickly as possible. It would be a bit like deciding to build a car from spare parts instead of building the entire car factory. Put simply, military attacks could speed Iran's progress to a nuclear bomb," said the report's author Dr Barnaby.

Commenting on the launch of the report, Dr. John Sloboda, Executive Director of Oxford Research Group, said: "This report doesn't get into the rights and wrongs of military strikes on Iran - it asks whether they will achieve their objectives of destroying or setting back Iran's nuclear program. The conclusions should be food for thought for even the most hawkish: military strikes against Iran will simply not work. Indeed they could even bring a nuclear-armed Iran closer."

See the full report@ Oxford Research Group

Iran: a Chronology of Disinformation

By GARY LEUPP

The disinformation campaign eschews logic, gambling that fear alone will produce popular support. It anticipates the eventual discovery of its lies and charades, but calculates that the attainment of its heroic ends will make any embarrassment worth the effort. So what if following the nuking of Iran, after the rubble's cleared, we discover that Iran had no military nuclear program? Maybe there will be no evidence of anything at all left anyway. Maybe that's the radiant beauty of the plan.

Don't expect the neocons urging the Iran attack to apologize after the event, not matter how catastrophic the consequences. Consider Douglas Feith's response to the report by the Pentagon's inspector general that his Office of Special Plans peddled allegations about Iraq "not supported by the available intelligence" in order to get the U.S. into a bloody war.
"All of that was wrong, wasn't it?" Feith was recently asked by Chris Wallace in the most neocon-friendly environment imaginable, Fox News studio.
"No, not at all," Feith responded. "There was substantial intelligence. . . . There was a lot of information out there."
A lot of information indeed. Lots of stuff to believe and fear. That's how it works, again and again, in the history of U.S. imperialism. From the imaginary Spanish sinking of the USS Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to Saddam Hussein's WMD to Iran's plans for genocide. Disinformation has a long proud history of working well when deployed by amoral, unscrupulous, maybe insane men holding state power. Will it work once more?

Full report @ Counterpunch

Neocons attack on Iran is a Six-Year Project

Larisa Alexandrovna
Raw Story

The escalation of war rhetoric against Iran from the Bush White House and the neocons is just the latest installment of a long-term plan for another preemptive war.

The escalation of US military planning on Iran is only the latest chess move in a six-year push within the Bush Administration to attack that country. While Iran was named a part of President George W. Bush's "axis of evil" in 2002, efforts to ignite a confrontation with Iran date back long before the post-9/11 war on terror.

Presently, the Administration is trumpeting claims that Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than the CIA's own analysis shows and positing Iranian influence in Iraq's insurgency, but efforts to destabilize Iran have been conducted covertly for years, often using members of Congress or non-government actors in a way reminiscent of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.
For the full report go @ AlterNet

Attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences, warn 15 groups

A coalition of fifteen British groups urges new diplomatic push to avoid crisis in the Middle East.

Military action against Iran could have disastrous global consequences according to a new
report published Monday 5 February by a diverse group of organisations including Oxfam, the Foreign
Policy Centre, faith groups and others.

On the one year anniversary of Iran's referral to the Security Council, a new joint report by 15
organisations - including think tanks, aid agencies, religious groups and Trade Unions - warns
that, despite the seriousness of the situation, there is still 'time to talk'. This must be used to
avoid an escalation with potentially disastrous consequences.

According to the report, military action against Iran could:

-- Further jeopardise the prospects of peace taking root in the Middle East - Long standing
Iranian links to Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shia
groups in Iraq, along with the presence of significant minority Shia populations in Saudi
Arabia, could lead to severe destabilisation throughout the Middle East.

-- Severely undermine hopes for stability in Iraq - Iran has several thousand intelligence
agents operating in the Shia region of Iraq and has been accused of arming Shia
insurgents. A decision to activate insurgent units could lead to a massive escalation in
violence.

-- Bolster the position of hard-liners and set back chances of reform within Iran - Recent
municipal elections suggest that the bellicose rhetoric of Ahmadinejad is beginning to
lose appeal. Over the winter there have been fuel shortages and inflation continues to
rise. Ahmadinejad's popularity is waning. Military strikes would unify Iranians, ignite
greater nationalist feeling and undermine the growing prospects of an internal shift in
power.

-- Cause significant civilian casualties

-- Push developing countries into greater poverty - If military action led to an increase in
oil prices. For example, a $10 increase in oil price could drop the GDPs of Sub-Saharan
African states by an average of 3% with serious implications for those already living in
poverty.

-- Damage UK, US and European economies - if oil prices rose to $100 per barrel this
could increase the risk of recession.

-- Threaten serious environmental contamination - Bombing could result in radioactive
contamination, oil slicks and oil well fires that could take years to deal with.

-- Increase the terror threat to the UK by fuelling resentment and bolstering extremists.
The Coalition includes: Amicus, Amos Trust, British Muslim Forum, Christian Solidarity
Worldwide, Foreign Policy Centre, GMB, International Physicians for the Prevention of
Nuclear War, Medact, Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Parliament, Ockenden
International, Oxfam, Oxford Research Group, Pax Christi, PCS, People and Planet, Unison.

Read full report @ Crirsis Iran

Iran self-sufficient in producing centrifuges

RI
International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London in its latest world military assessment concluded that Iran is self-sufficient in producing centrifuges, the heart of the uranium enrichment fuel cycle.

Iran so far has been accused of obtaining the centrifuges from A. Q. Khan black market network but the reality of producing over 3000 centrifuges forced the Think Tank close to American circles admits that Tehran is capable of producing them domestically.

However, IISS, in its latest annual report entitled "The Military Balance 2007"wrote: "It obtained at least 500 disassembled centrifuges from Pakistan through the A.Q. Khan black market network plus the blueprints to produce its own."

IISS estimated that, "Iran is probably on track to meet its goal of producing 3,000 centrifuges by the end of March or shortly thereafter."

Read the press release for the report @ IISS

Bush Is About To Attack Iran-Why Can't Americans See it?

By Paul Craig Roberts

The Bush Regime has made it clear that it is convinced that Bush already has the authority to attack Iran. The Regime argues that the authority is part of Bush's commander-in-chief powers. Congress has authorised the war in Iraq, and Bush's recent public statements have shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi insurgency from al-Qaeda to Iran. Iran, Bush has declared, is killing US troops in Iraq. Thus, Iran is covered under the authorisation for the war in Iraq.