Archives: Articles

The international community has eased its condemnation of Iran following recent negotiations between Tehran and six other nations in Istanbul, Turkey. While the participating parties agreed to further discussions on May 23, 2012 in Baghdad, both Israel and the West have given no indication of easing the strict regime of sanctions imposed on Tehran. Following claims of the Iranian leadership that it pursues civil nuclear capabilities to generate electricity and fuel for medical reactors (allowing Tehran to divert its primary oil reserves to export markets) [1], Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a religious prohibition on nuclear weapons in Iran [2]. During recent discussions, Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili emphasized Iran’s right to a civil nuclear program, as guaranteed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [3]. Although Tel Aviv possess between 75 to 400 nuclear warheads, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak insists that all of Iran’s uranium enriched to 20% be moved to a “trusted” neighboring country [4].

While both CIA chief David H. Petraeus and US National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper Jr. concede that no credible evidence exists to accuse Iran of constructing a nuclear weapon [5], the brazen criminality of intelligence operations against Iran’s civil nuclear program remain deeply troubling. ISSSource has recently confirmed that the individuals responsible for planting the Stuxnet computer worm used to sabotage Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz were members of Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) [6], a US State Department-listed terrorist organization (#29) [7]. MEK was founded in 1965 as a Marxist Islamic mass political movement aimed at agitating the monarchy of the US-backed Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The group initially sided with revolutionary clerics led by Ayatollah Khomeini following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but eventually turned away from the regime during a power struggle that resulted in the group waging urban guerilla warfare against Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in 1981.

The organization was later given refuge by Saddam Hussein and mounted attacks on Iran from within Iraqi territory, killing an estimated 17,000 Iranian nationals in the process [8]. MEK exists as the main component of the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a “coalition of democratic Iranian organizations, groups and personalities,” calling itself a “parliament-in-exile” seeking to “establish a democratic, secular and coalition government” in Iran [9]. Although the group has been credited with the assassination of high profile US military personnel [10] following the Islamic Revolution on multiple occasions [11], The New Yorker reports that members of Mujahideen-e-Khalq were trained in communications, cryptography, small-unit tactics and weaponry by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) at a base in Nevada starting in 2005 [12]. JSOC instructed MEK operatives on how to penetrate major Iranian communications systems, allowing the group to intercept telephone calls and text messages inside Iran for the purpose of sharing them with American intelligence.

Following the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi Army has twice attempted to enter Camp Ashraf, a “refugee camp” where the militant wing of MEK (consisting of approximately 3,200 personnel) resided under external security protection of the US military up until 2009 [13]. With the full support of the US Embassy in Iraq and the State Department, UN special representative in Iraq Martin Kobler has organized efforts to relocate MEK insurgents to a former US military base near the Baghdad airport, amusingly titled, “Camp Liberty” – to avoid violent clashes between the MEK and the Shiite-led Iraqi government [14]. The group has long received material assistance from Israel, who assisted the organization with broadcasting into Iran from their political base in Paris, while the MEK and NCRI have reportedly provided the United States with intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program, which publicly revealed the existence of the Natanz uranium-enrichment facility in 2002 [15].

While senior figures in the Council on Foreign Relations describe MEK as a “cult-like organization” with “totalitarian tendencies,” [16] a cabal of elder statesmen such as former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley K. Clark, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former 9/11 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton were paid $20,000 to $30,000 per engagement to endorse the removal of the Mujahideen-e Khalq from the US State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations [17]. NCRI head Maryam Rajavi, now based in Paris and endorsed by statesmen from the United States and European Union, is famously quoted saying, “Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards,” during Saddam Hussein’s massacre of Iraqi Kurds in 1991 [18]. Despite the documented cases of atrocities committed by MEK forces, the Council of the European Union removed the group from the EU list of terrorist organizations in 2009; NCRI spokesperson Shahin Gobadi offered, “All we want is democratic elections in Iran,” in a press statement to mark the event [19].

Although current and former US officials agree Iran is years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead and has no secret uranium-enrichment site outside the purview of UN nuclear inspections [20], recent revelations connecting MEK with the Stuxnet computer virus that destroyed several hundred centrifuges in Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility constitutes an act of deliberate and unparalleled sabotage. Stuxnet remains the most sophisticated malware discovered thus far, the virus targets Siemens’ Simatic WinCC Step7 software, which controls industrial systems such as nuclear power plants and electrical grids from a Microsoft Windows-based PC. The virus exploits security gaps referred to as zero-day vulnerabilities, to attack specific targets. Prior to its discovery, Stuxnet was previously undetected and remained unidentified by anti-virus software, as the malware was designed to appear as legitimate software to Microsoft Windows. Upon delivery of the Stuxnet payload, the malware manipulated the operating speed of centrifuges spinning nuclear fuel to create distortions that deliberately damaged the machines, while giving the impression of normal activities to the monitoring operator and disabling their emergency controls.

ISSSource has cited current and former US intelligence officials, who confirm the Stuxnet virus was planted at Natanz nuclear facility by a saboteur believed to be a member of Mujahedeen-e-Khalq [21]. By delivering the malicious payload via USB memory stick, the group was able to damage at least 1,000 centrifuges in the Natanz nuclear facility [22]. MEK has also been accused of assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists [23] and triggering an explosion that destroyed an underground site near the town of Khorramabad in western Iran that housed most of Tehran’s Shehab-3 medium-range missiles [24]. NBC News reports that Israel provided financing, training and arms to members of Mujahideen-e Khalq, who are responsible for killing five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 using motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars [25]. The New York Times reports that former US President George W. Bush authorized covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s Natanz facility, after deflecting an Israeli request to shower specialized bunker-busting bombs on the facility in 2009 [26].

Due to the intricate nature of Stuxnet coding, security experts confirm its creation must the “work of a national government agency” [27]. Ralph Langner, an independent computer security expert who dismantled Stuxnet credited Israel and the United States with writing the malicious software designed to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program [28]. Considering that Stuxnet targeted Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) used in industrial plants to automate industrial operations, the malware designers required detailed knowledge of the programming language written for PLC components to successively subvert them [29]. It remains significant that the German electrical engineering company Siemens cooperated with one of the United States in 2008 to identify vulnerabilities in the computer controllers identified as key equipment in Iran’s enrichment facilities [30]. Intelligence experts concede that testing of the Stuxnet virus was conducted in the Dimona complex located in Israel’s Negev desert, the site of Israel’s rarely acknowledged nuclear arms program [31].

When asked about the Stuxnet worm in a press conference, current White House WMD Coordinator Gary Samore boasted, “I’m glad to hear they are having troubles with their centrifuge machines, and the U.S. and its allies are doing everything we can to make it more complicated” [32]. While former chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Hans Blix challenges the IAEA’s own reports on Iran’s nuclear activities (accusing the agency of relying on unverified intelligence from the US and Israel) [33], former director of US nuclear weapons production programs, Clinton Bastin, has sent an open letter to President Obama regarding the status of Iran’s capacity to produce nuclear weapons [34]. Bastin reiterates in his letter to the President, “The ultimate product of Iran’s gas centrifuge facilities would be highly enriched uranium hexafluoride, a gas that cannot be used to make a weapon. Converting the gas to metal, fabricating components and assembling them with high explosives using dangerous and difficult technology that has never been used in Iran would take many years after a diversion of three tons of low enriched uranium gas from fully safeguarded inventories. The resulting weapon, if intended for delivery by missile, would have a yield equivalent to that of a kiloton of conventional high explosives” [35].

The theatrics of the US and Israel in their condemnation of Iran’s nuclear power program have come at a heavy price for the Iranian people, who have been subjected to sanctions, assassinations, condemnation and sabotage. The United States has produced more than 70,000 nuclear weapons between 1951 and 1998 [36], while Israel possess a nuclear weapons stockpile ranging from 75 to 400 warheads [37]. The current legal international framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty guarantees the right to conduct peaceful nuclear energy programs; the deliberate provocations of the United States and Israel acting through intelligence groups such as Mossad and the CIA constitute the most genuine contempt toward international law, security and the value of a single human life. The mainstream media have worked to indoctrinate the population of the English-speaking world with an exploited and romanticized version of the Iranian theocracy’s ideological ambitions to wage “unprovoked terror,” while figures such as Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi publically renounce nuclear weapons [38].

The Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or the People’s Mujahedin of Iran is an organization responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians since its inception. If the US and Israel launched a war against Iran, aggressor nations would likely recognize the touted “parliament-in-exile”, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, as the nation’s legitimate government. The US State Department’s own website (which features Mujahedeen-e-Khalq as Foreign Terrorist Organization #29) indicates that “It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide ‘material support or resources’ to a designated FTO” [39]. As the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq continually seek removal from the US list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations [40], the group’s unpardonable offenses must not be lost to the annuls of history. While NCRI leader Maryam Rajavi would prefer to masquerade as a “pro-democracy” figure, the responsible parties of the international community must rightfully condemn the actions taken by her organization and its affiliates.

The Stuxnet virus was engineered with Iran’s nuclear program in mind, as 60% of global Stuxnet cases appear within Iran [41]. US intelligence sources indicate that American and Israeli officials are working to finalize a new Stuxnet worm, referred to as ‘Duqu’ [42]; Alexander Gostev, chief security expert at Russia’s Kaspersky Lab examined drivers used in Stuxnet and Duqu and concluded a single team most likely designed both worms, based on their interaction with the surrounding malware code [43]. Duqu malware similarly exploits Microsoft Windows systems using a zero-day vulnerability and is partially written in an advanced and previously unknown programming language, comprised of a variety of software components capable of executing information theft capabilities highly related to Iran’s nuclear program. Duqu has the capacity to steal digital certificates to help future viruses appear as secure software [44]. Duqu’s replication methods inside target networks remain unknown, however due to its modular structure, a special payload could theoretically be used in further cyber-physical attacks [45]. As the world begins to wage warfare in currency markets and programming code, the demand has never been greater for a new international legal framework to rightfully penalize covert provocateurs for manipulating economic structures and engaging in acts of sabotage.

By Nile Bowie

April 16, 2012

@ Global Research, nilebowie.blogspot.ca/

Notes

[1] Iran’s Nuclear Program (Nuclear Talks, 2012), The New York Times, April 9, 2012

[2] Six-party talks ‘encouraging’ after 15-month break, Russia Today, April 14, 2012

[3] Iran, world powers agree to further nuclear talks, Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2012

[4] Barak doubts sanctions will halt Iran’s nuke drive, The Jerusalem Post, April 7, 2012

[5] U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb, The New York Times, February 24, 2012

[6] Stuxnet Loaded by Iran Double Agents, ISSSource, April 11, 2012

[7] Foreign Terrorist Organizations, Bureau of Counterterrorism, U.S. Department of State, Janurary 27, 2012

[8] Moqtada Sadr Reiterates Iraqis’ Demand for Expulsion of MKO Terrorists, Fars News Agency, September 19, 2011

[9] About the National Council of Resistance of Iran, The National Council of Resistance of Iran, 2010

[10] Massacre at Camp Ashraf: Implications for U.S. Policy, Committee on Foreign Affairs, July 7, 2011

[11] Iran vows capture of officers’ killers, The Free Lance-Star, May 22, 1975

[12] Our Men in Iran? The New Yorker, April 6, 2012

[13] Former U.S. base opened to Iranian terrorist group, Foreign Policy, February 7, 2012

[14] Are the MEK’s U.S. friends its worst enemies? Foreign Policy, March 8, 2012

[15] Iran nuclear leaks ‘linked to Israel’, Asia Times, June 5, 2009

[16] Massacre at Camp Ashraf: Implications for U.S. Policy, Committee on Foreign Affairs, July 7, 2011

[17] Mujahideen-e Khalq: Former U.S. Officials Make Millions Advocating For Terrorist Organization, Huffington Post, August 8, 2011

[18] The Cult of Rajavi, The New York Times, July 13, 2003

[19] EU ministers drop Iran group from terror list, EUobserver, Janurary 26, 2009

[20] SPECIAL REPORT-Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent, Reuters, March 23, 2012

[21] Stuxnet Loaded by Iran Double Agents, ISSSource, April 11, 2012

[22] Did Stuxnet Take Out 1,000 Centrifuges at the Natanz Enrichment Plant? Institute for Science and International Security, December 22, 2010

[23] Report: U.S. Officials Tie Controversial Iranian Exile Group To Scientist Assassinations, Center for American Progress Action Fund, February 9, 2012

[24] Triple Blast at Secret Iranian Military Installation, Virtual Jerusalem, October 15, 2010

[25] Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News, MSNBC, February 9, 2012

[26] U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site, The New York Times, Janurary 10, 2009

[27] Stuxnet worm is the ‘work of a national government agency’, The Guardian, September 24, 2010

[28] US and Israel were behind Stuxnet claims researcher, BBC, March 4, 2011

[29] Code clues point to Stuxnet maker, BBC, November 19, 2010

[30] Israeli Test on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay, The New York Times, Janurary 15, 2011

[31] Ibid

[32] Ibid

[33] Blix: US, Israel source most of IAEA allegations, PressTV, March 25, 2012

[34] Iran has a Nuclear Power, Not a Weapons Program, 21st Century & Technology, December 2, 2011

[35] Top US Nuclear Expert Tells Obama: There Is No Weapons Threat From Iran, LaRouche Pac, February 25, 2012

[36] 50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Brookings Institute, August 1998

[37] Nuclear Weapons – Israel, Federation of American Scientists, January 8, 2007

[38] Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons, The Washington Post, April 13, 2012

[39] Foreign Terrorist Organizations, Bureau of Counterterrorism, U.S. Department of State, Janurary 27, 2012

[40] Iran exile group MEK seeks US terror de-listing, BBC, September 25, 2011

[41] UPDATE 2-Cyber attack appears to target Iran-tech firms, Reuters, September 24, 2010

[42] Stuxnet, Duqu Link Grows Stronger, ISSSource, January 3, 2012

[43] Ibid

[44] The Day of the Golden Jackal – The Next Tale in the Stuxnet Files: Duqu Updated, McAfee, October 18, 2011

[45] W32.Duqu – The precursor to the next Stuxnet (Version 1.4), Symantec, November 23, 2011

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Nile Bowie, nilebowie.blogspot.ca/, 2012

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=30353

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca

Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

HAVANA, Jun 27 2012 (IPS) – Cabbage, broccoli, carrots, onions and other resistant vegetables are being grown by researchers in Cuba, who for decades have been working to design plants adapted to the tropical conditions in the Caribbean region.

Resistance to drought is one of the main aims of crop improvement researchers in Cuba. Credit: Jorge Luis Baños/IPS

“We are now focused on trying to develop new varieties, with a view to climate change,” Laura Muñoz, the researcher who heads a crop improvement team in the “Alejandro de Humboldt” National Institute for Basic Research in Tropical Agriculture (INIFAT), a government institution, told IPS.

The task involves extreme dedication and long hours of work. Depending on the species, coming up with a resistant variety can take from five to 15 years. The characteristics sought in the new plants are “growth, resistance and vitality,” Muñoz explained.

In the meantime, the climate continues to change. A 2009 report by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) forecasts mild consequences in the region from global warming by 2020, but says they will become especially acute after 2050.

As a result of global warming, extreme events will become more frequent in the near future, such as forest fires, floods, drought, and more intense storms and hurricanes. This makes changes in all spheres of life necessary in developing countries and island nations like Cuba.

The ECLAC report, Climate Change and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean: Overview 2009, says “Adaptation also brings with it some opportunities to pursue more sustainable development, such as better infrastructure, (and) crop variety research and development,” to help sustain food supplies.

Some steps in that direction have already been taken in this Caribbean island nation. Since the early 1960s, Muñoz’s team has identified “five annual planting seasons, with different conditions,” a finding that “did a great deal to improve understanding of the climate problem.”

Today, they are studying more than 30 species of vegetables, to develop resistant varieties. These include tomatoes, peppers, onions, garlic and cucumber, some of the most widely consumed vegetables in Cuba. Others are melons, watermelons, carrots, beans, aubergine and lettuce.

Muñoz said that thanks to the work carried out over the last few decades, Cuba now has varieties that are more resistant to pests and drought, and which can be produced outside of the normal growing seasons. The idea is to develop plants that are adaptable to the climate of the future, when both winter and summer will be warmer.

A good part of the vegetables on Cuban tables are the product of urban and suburban agriculture, grown in backyards and empty lots in and around the cities. This kind of agriculture has grown by leaps and bounds over the last two decades, in response to an effort to promote sustainable, agroecological agriculture and boost food production.

“Between 40 and 45 percent of fresh produce comes from urban and suburban agriculture,” a sector in which 300,000 people work, Nelson Companioni, the national executive secretary of agriculture, told IPS.

INIFAT also coordinates the development of urban farming in the country, he said.

“Those crops that were adapted to periods when it didn’t rain and relative humidity was low are now facing the opposite conditions. So they are attacked by fungal diseases, caused mainly by excess moisture,” said Companioni, who is also the director of urban farming in Cuba.

He said the challenge faced by the programme is to achieve “an adequate web of crop varieties and livestock breeds, and methods adapted to each territory, taking water availability into account.”

The programme’s “organoponic” crops – a term coined for organic production in reduced spaces – have been moved to eastern Cuba, he said, because the sources of water where they were previously located dried up.

The “marien” variety of cabbage is now grown by urban farmers. It took 12 long years of work in genetic improvement to produce this new drought-resistant variety, designed by INIFAT researcher María Benítez. The cabbage is more “compact and more resistant to pests,” she said. It also has a higher yield.

Marien, named after its designer, is also the first species of cabbage that produces seeds in Cuba. Until it was introduced to the market, all cabbage produced in this country was grown from imported seeds.

Every year, Cuba buys five tons of cabbage seed, but in 2011, it produced one ton of marien seed.

Benítez is now working on genetic improvement of arugula, a salad green that is not well-known in Cuba.

And Caribe 71, a variety of onion developed by Muñoz, was included this year in the national plan for replacing imports – one of the priorities of the government of Raúl Castro.

This purple onion can be stored at room temperature for up to eight months, which makes it possible to put it on the market when onions grown with imported seeds run out.

And a variety of broccoli, Tropical F8, adapted by INIFAT to grow in dry tropical conditions, is now produced in some parts of the country.

By Ivet González

@ www.ipsnews.net

* With reporting by Patricia Grogg.

During her visit to Israel yesterday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton renewed the threat of a US attack on Iran. After meeting with top Israeli leaders, she declared: “We will use all elements of American power to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon.” That obviously includes America’s massive military firepower.

Clinton claimed that the US would prefer a diplomatic solution to the standoff, but talks between Iran and the P5+1 grouping—the permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany—have all but broken down. A summit in Moscow last month reached no agreement. It was followed by low-level technical talks in Istanbul on July 3, which only agreed to a further meeting of second-rung negotiators on July 24.

Responsibility for the failure of three summits rests squarely with the US and its European allies. They have effectively delivered an ultimatum to Iran to end uranium enrichment to the 20 percent level, ship its stockpile of that material out of the country and shut down its Fordow enrichment plant.

Washington has flatly dismissed Iranian demands that economic sanctions be ended or eased, and that its right under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes be recognised. Clinton yesterday ruled out any concessions: “I made very clear that the proposals that we have seen from Iran thus far within the P5+1 negotiations are non-starters.”

At the Moscow summit, the US and EU refused to consider delaying harsh new sanctions that came into force this month. European countries have imposed an embargo on the import of oil from Iran. At the same time, US legislation threatens to exclude from the American financial system all foreign banks and corporations doing business with Iran’s central bank.

International sanctions have already had a devastating impact on the Iranian economy. Oil exports have shrunk from 2.5 to 1.5 billion barrels per days. The government depends on oil exports for 80 percent of its revenue. Over the past six months, Iran’s currency has lost half of its value, contributing to the high inflation that is hitting working people.

Last Thursday, the Obama administration imposed a new round of sanctions against 11 Iranian companies allegedly involved in defence projects, as well as dozens of banks and shipping companies supposedly engaged in evading oil sanctions. The latter include Swiss, Chinese, Malaysian and United Arab Emirates trading entities and 20 Iranian financial institutions.

US Treasury Department official David Cohen declared: “Iran today is under intense multi-national pressure, and we will continue to ratchet up pressure as long as Iran refuses to address … well-founded concerns about its nuclear program.” In reality, unsubstantiated US claims that Iran is developing nuclear weapons are a pretext for a concerted campaign aimed at fashioning a regime in Tehran amenable to US interests.

Clinton is just the latest in a string of top US officials to visit Israel for discussions, above all on Iran. Like the US, the Israeli government has repeatedly threatened to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran and its nuclear facilities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been dismissive of international talks with Iran and demanded even tougher conditions for any diplomatic settlement.

In Israel, Clinton stressed that the US and Israel were “on the same page” in trying “to figure our way forward to have the maximum impact on affecting the decisions that Iran makes.”

Military strikes against Iran were undoubtedly among the topics discussed by Israeli leaders with Clinton. The close coordination of military plans is underscored by the visit by US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon to Israel last Sunday and the upcoming trip by US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta.

The US and Israel both have advanced plans for attacking Iran. In recent months, the Pentagon has built up its forces in or near the Persian Gulf, including a doubling of the number of aircraft carriers from one to two and the stationing of a squadron of advanced F-22 fighters. The US military has also established a floating base in international waters in the Gulf, giving it more flexibility to launch special forces operations inside Iran.

The Los Angeles Times reported last week that the US navy was “rushing dozens of unmanned underwater craft” to the Persian Gulf to enhance its anti-mine capability. The sophisticated submersibles, launched from helicopters, are designed to detect and destroy mines. The Pentagon had already announced a doubling of the number of minesweepers in the Gulf to counter any attempt by Iran to mine the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for a US attack.

The Pentagon also announced yesterday that it was dispatching another aircraft carrier, the USS John C. Stennis, to the Gulf to ensure that the US navy has at least two such battle groups in the region at all times.

The US military build-up in the Persian Gulf has a logic of its own. An unforeseen incident or a deliberate naval provocation, for which the US in notorious, could become the starting point for a conflict that threatens to involve the entire region and draw in other powers.

Yesterday the USNS Rappahannock fired on a small boat about 15 kilometres off the coast of Dubai’s Jebel Ali port, killing one person and injuring three. A US navy spokesperson claimed that the small vessel had approached fast and failed to heed warnings, yet there is no independent corroboration. A United Arab Emirates official confirmed that the dead man was an Indian citizen, but made no further comment. Fishermen often use the port of Jebel Ali.

By Peter Symonds

17 July, 2012

WSWS.org

CIA agents have been deployed to Turkey to organize the arming of the so-called rebels in Syria seeking the overthrow of the government of President Bashar al-Assad, the New York Times reported Thursday.

The report, citing information provided by senior US officials as well as Arab intelligence officers, states that the CIA operatives are directing a massive smuggling operation through which “automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries, including the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, and paid for by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.”

The day before the publication of the Times piece, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland reiterated the Obama administration’s public line. “We have repeatedly said that we are not in the business of arming in Syria.” She went on to describe Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar al-Jaafari as “deluded” for charging that major foreign powers were backing “armed terrorist groups” in his country and trying to escalate Syria’s crisis into an “explosion” in order to bring about “regime change.”

The Times article only confirms earlier press reports and provides further detail in exposing the same, barely covert, operation directed at fomenting and arming a sectarian civil war in Syria.

Last month, the Washington Post reported that the so-called rebels had “begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States.” The Post, in its May 16 article, also stated that US operatives had “expanded contacts with opposition forces to provide the gulf nations with assessments of rebel credibility and command-and-control infrastructure.”

And last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that “the Central Intelligence Agency and State Department—working with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and other allies—are helping the opposition Free Syrian Army develop logistical routes for moving supplies into Syria and providing communications training.”

The result of this operation has been a sharp escalation in the armed violence in Syria, with a spike in the number of Syrian soldiers killed and wounded and a proliferation of terrorist attacks.

The Obama administration’s pretense that it is not arming the Syrian militias for the purpose of toppling the Assad government has been thoroughly exposed. Its claim is based on the fiction that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, none of which would carry out such an operation without Washington’s approval, are doing the arming, and the CIA agents are merely “vetting” the Syrian rebels to assure that weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

The Times report quotes one unnamed senior American official as claiming that the CIA is working on the Syrian-Turkish border “to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.”

Such claims are absurd. The reality is that the operation being mounted by the CIA against Syria bears a striking resemblance to the one it carried out in the 1980s along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, when Saudi Arabia also provided much of the funding for arms and Al Qaeda was born as an ally and instrument of US imperialist policy.

There is increasing evidence that Islamist elements from within Syria and from surrounding Arab countries are the backbone of the imperialist-backed insurgency seeking regime change in Damascus. The Associated Press Thursday carried a lengthy report on Tunisian jihadis flocking to Syria. It reports that fundamentalist Islamic clerics are urging youth to make their way to Syria to topple the “unbeliever” regime.

According to an earlier report in the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung “at least 3,000 fighters” from Libya have reached Syria, most of them through Turkey. Other similar forces have crossed the border from Iraq to prosecute a sectarian conflict similar to the one that unleashed a bloodbath between Sunnis and Shiites in that country under American occupation.

The result, as the AP reports, is that “Al-Qaida-style suicide bombings have become increasingly common in Syria, and Western officials say there is little doubt that Islamist extremists, some associated with the terror network, have made inroads in Syria as instability has spread.”

On the one hand, Washington and its regional proxies—Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey—are lavishing arms and funding on the so-rebels, while, on the other hand, the major powers are seeking to quarantine the Syrian regime and starve it of resources by means of ever-tightening sanctions and international pressure.

While covertly pouring weapons into the country, US officials have denounced Russia for maintaining ties to Syria, Moscow’s sole remaining ally in the Middle East and the site of its Mediterranean naval base at Tartus. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unleashed a propaganda campaign against Moscow, charging falsely that it was supplying Damascus with new Russian attack helicopters.

Russia responded that there were no new helicopters, but rather it was sending back old aircraft that Syria had bought decades earlier and had been sent to Russia for repairs. The ship carrying the refurbished helicopters, the Curacao-registered MV Alaed, was forced to turn back to the Russian port of Murmansk on Thursday after the British government compelled a London-based insurance company to withdraw its coverage of the vessel. According to press reports, the British government had considered using military force to board the ship.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denounced the British move as an attempt to impose unilateral sanctions on other countries. “The EU sanctions aren’t part of the international law,” he said, vowing that the cargo would be reloaded on a Russian-flagged ship and sent to Syria.

“This is a very slippery slope,” Lavrov told Russia Today television. “This means that anyone—any country or any company—who is not violating any international rules, who is not violating any UN Security Council resolutions, might be subject to extra-territorial application of somebody else’s unilateral sanctions.”

Perhaps of greater concern than the Soviet-era helicopters to Britain and the other major imperialist powers, the ship that was compelled to curtail its voyage was also carrying what was described as a new and advanced air defense system. Such a system could prove an obstacle to an attempt by the US and its NATO allies to reprise the kind of bombing campaign used to topple Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

By Bill Van Auken

22 June, 2012
WSWS.org

Prominent Christian Egyptians snubbed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday because they feel the U.S. administration favors Islamist parties over secular and liberal forces in society at the expense of Egypt’s 8 million Christians.

The critical theme was repeated by others Sunday in Cairo and Alexandria despite Clinton denying U.S. interference in Egyptian elections.

The politicians, businessmen and clerics who snubbed Clinton were supposed to take part in meetings between Clinton and influential members of civil society.

Coptic Christian businessman and politician Naguib Sawiris and three other Coptic politicians said in a statement they were objecting to Clinton’s policies in solidarity with the mainstream Egyptian.

They also said that since the revolution, the U.S. administration and Clinton have paid many visits in support of Islamic political currents in society while ignoring other civil movements.

The four prominent Copts consider the meeting with the Islamist parties a form of external pressure to push the Islamists to power and ignore other civil movements. They blamed the U.S. for even showing a preference for an Islamist presidential candidate.

Egypt, a nation of nearly 84 million, is 90 percent Muslim, 9 percent Coptic and 1 percent other Christian denominations.

Two church leaders also turned their back on Clinton.

Coptic Bishop Morcos and Evangelical church leader Safwat al Bayadi refused to meet with Clinton because of what they characterized as interference in Egyptian internal affairs and U.S. support for Islamists while ignoring the majority of Egyptians.

A few hundred protesters chanted the same message in front of the Garden City Four Seasons hotel where Clinton overnighted.

Clinton sought to dispel the idea.

“She wanted, in very, very clear terms, particularly with the Christian group this morning, to dispel that notion and to make clear that only Egyptians can choose their leaders, that we have not supported any candidate, any party, and we will not,” a senior U.S. official told reporters on Sunday.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets with newly elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, a scene that no one would have believed just 18 months ago. NBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin reports.

Rights for all

At a Sunday meeting of prominent women, Clinton emphasized rights for all Egyptians, not their choices.

“I came to Cairo, in part, to send a very clear message that the United States supports the rights, the universal rights of all people,” she said. “We support democracy. But democracy has to be more than just elections. It has to mean that the majority will be protecting the rights of the minority.”

The United States will “look to any elected government to support inclusivity, to make sure that the talents of every Egyptian can be put to work in building a new future for this ancient and incredibly important country,” Clinton told a group of prominent women.

Alexandria protesters chant ‘Monica’

Later in Alexandria, Clinton presided over a ceremony to reopen the U.S. consulate in Alexandria, which was closed in 1993 to save money.

Brendan Smialowski / AFP – Getty Images

Protesters gather on an Alexendria, Egypt, street Sunday as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attends a flag-raising ceremony for the reopening of the U.S. consulate in the mediterranean port city.

The ceremony was moved inside as protesters grew vocal outside the consulate.

In her speech, Clinton said, “I want to be clear that the United States is not in the business, in Egypt, of choosing winners and losers, even if we could, which, of course, we cannot.”

Protesters threw tomatoes, shoes and a water bottle as members of the press accompanying Clinton walked to their vans.

A tomato hit an Egyptian official in the face.

The protesters also chanted “Monica, Monica, Monica,” a reference to Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern who was the focus of a sex scandal with her husband, then-President Bill Clinton.

By NBC’s Charlene Gubash and news services

15 Juky 2012

@ NBC News.com

As the conflict in Syria continues without a resolution, and government and rebel forces are locked in fierce battles across several cities, Christians in the besieged city of Homs were evacuated with the help of a priest on Wednesday.

For months, Christians have been trapped in the crossfire with scarce access to basic necessities such as food, water and medical help, but yesterday Maximos al-Jamal, a Greek Orthodox priest, revealed that he was part of evacuation efforts that saved 63 people.

“Gunmen have told the besieged people that if you go out of these areas, we will die,” al-Jamal shared with The Associated Press.

Christians in the warring Middle East nation make up around 10 per cent of the largely Muslim population, but with little government support and the difficulty foreign aid workers have had gaining access to besieged areas, they have had to rely only on themselves and their church.

“I stayed inside Hamidiyeh to protect the churches from looting. I saved 14 icons from the St George church which has been destroyed,” shared one Homs resident, Jihad Akhras, who was among the rescued. After negotiations, a deal was made between rebels and troops that allowed 24 civilians to escape on Tuesday, followed by a further 39 on Wednesday.

Homs, the third largest city in Syria, has been hit particularly hard by government bombings and crossfire between Islamic rebels and government forces. The AP reported that Christians have been leaning more toward President Bashar Assad’s regime despite the current dire situation, if only due to fears of further persecution they might face if more radical Islamic extremists take control of Syria.

Back in February, a Christian priest in Homs shared of how dire the situation was getting in the city.

“The armed Islamist Opposition in Syria has murdered more than 200 Christians in the city of Homs, including entire families with young children. These Islamic gangs kidnapped Christians and demanded high ransoms. In two cases, after the ransoms were paid, the men’s bodies were found,” Barnabas Aid, a charity organisation helping persecuted Christians around the world quoted him as saying.

“Christians are being forced to flee the city to the safety of government controlled areas. Muslim rebel fighters and their families are taking over their homes. We need your prayers and we need them urgently,” he added.

By Stoyan Zaimov

14 July 2012

@ Christian Today

StatCounter – Free Web Tracker and Counter StatCounter – Free Web Tracker and Counter

With the rise of China as an economic superpower, its past and often subdued approach to diplomatic relations have seen changes. China now boasts a more decisive role in international decision-making, especially in dealing with concerns in the Middle East.

The use of China’s veto over the Syrian crisis demonstrates that it no longer needs to sit on the fence on such international issues. In other words, there is no ambivalence on China’s part; it is decisive in its actions and no longer desires to either please everyone or to provoke anyone. China had previously maintained diplomatic relationships with smaller countries in order to gain support against Taiwan at the United Nations, or more generally to defend China against criticism of its human rights record. China is now recognised as an emerging international power especially after it asserted itself as a major economic force. Its strategic interests have changed and with that its relations with other major powers. These developments have effected a change in its policies and diplomatic conduct.

China is now on the threshold of a new phase of geopolitical and strategic transformation and it has put into place new rules for its dealings with other major powers. It has also affirmed its presence on the regional and international stage, especially in the Middle East which includes the entire Arab region and Iran, from China’s perspective.

China’s strategy in the ‘Middle East’

China has tended to use the term ‘West Asia and North Africa’ as an alternative to the term ‘Middle East’ in its definition of the region. In accordance with this geographical division it has a structure of involved, partisan, governmental establishments to manage its relations with the many states in the region. It is known that the Chinese generally – including some party and government officials – do not differentiate much between nationalities, people, small minorities and sects in the Middle East. Usually many of them confuse Islam (as a religion) and Arabism (as an identity or nationalism). They consider Iran an Arab state and its differences with its regional neighbours are, as a whole, differences with religious roots.

Despite the deeply-rooted historical relations that date back centuries, the Middle East was never as central to China’s foreign policy strategy as it is today. Similarly, the countries of the region for their part did not consider China to be a global player that could be relied upon. China’s role remained limited and marginal, confined to trade and cultural exchanges. Beijing did not seek to establish a physical or political presence in the region similar to other international forces.

China has always looked at the Middle East in terms of its resources and strategic location, yet as a region entangled in a raging and sustained conflict between competing international forces and their respective spheres of influence in the region.

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, China’s interest in the Middle East focused on the search for legitimacy and diplomatic recognition in a region where the majority of countries recognised the legitimacy of Taiwan. For this reason China’s diplomacy at the beginning concentrated on attempting to enter the region by supporting the national liberation movements and to prevent the overwhelming hegemony of foreign forces in the region. Chinese conduct has continued to be based on the ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence’, launched by its late leader Chuan Lai. Beijing remained committed to the belief that ‘the problems of the Middle East must be resolved by the people of the region and not by any foreign interference.’

The understanding of Chinese national security has not, until recently, included protection of its political or economic interests outside of China. For many decades, since the founding of the Republic, it abided by a deep-rooted belief which was limited to protecting its borders. China calls this the theory of the ‘Great Wall of China’, a metaphor to indicate that China has remained confined within its borders and had withdrawn from playing any vital role outside its walls. But with recent developments it seems that China has begun to expand its definition of the concept of national security, taking into account the rapid growth of its economy and the expansion of the terrain of Chinese interests abroad. Another development is the emergence of energy security – which guarantees that the wheel of the Chinese economy keeps spinning – as one of the most important aspects of national security. It appears that China’s interest in the Middle East will be greater than it has been in the past but without its active involvement in the political issues of the region, taking into account the foundations that govern its foreign policy. Its interest is based on the fact that the Middle East is the most important source of energy in the world just as it is one of the most important consumer markets. It is now possible to say that, from the standpoint of the Chinese, the balance of trade exchange with any country is the only measure of the level of relations required. Economic relations dominated most of China’s movements and its diplomatic conduct in the Middle East thus far, affirmed by the priorities of the country’s decision-makers.

Whenever Beijing was compelled under stressful regional and international pressure to define a clear position, it did do so either through prudent steps or through a combination of concern and confusion. China has on many occasions invited concerned parties in a crisis to engage in dialogue and negotiation without going into any details or presenting any initiatives itself. The region – according to China’s vision – was filled with religious and ethnic contradictions and was a dangerous centre of international conflict and competition. Any engagement with this region was fraught with challenges which necessitated many political, military, security, economic, cultural and media resources that Beijing did not have and even if Beijing possessed some of them it would not have known how to employ them skilfully enough in the context.

China and America: Partners

As mentioned earlier, China did not, at any point in time, attempt to compete with the major players in the region. It recognised the limitations of its role and evaded the issue. Yes, it tried at different periods to block the influence of some of the international powers in the region. Interestingly, it was more robust in preventing Soviet influence than in resisting American influence. That was at the height of revolutionary fervour until China began weaving relations with more regimes hostile to communism and closer to Washington. It had distinct relations with the regime of the Shah of Iran, Numeiri in Sudan, Siad Barre in Somalia and with North Yemen in its confrontation with South Yemen which was aligned to the Soviets. China’s relations extended as far as Sadat, the national hero who liberated Egypt from foreign influence when he decided to expel the Soviets and open up to Washington.

Here one must point out an important observation that is sometimes overlooked: there is a lack of significant difference between the USA and China’s vision regarding regional issues in the Middle East. China was and still remains on Washington’s side in its war on so-called terrorism. It did not strongly oppose the US occupation of Iraq and immediately acknowledged its findings and subsequent outcomes. China also contributed to a great extent to reconstruction projects in Iraq.

In the Arab-Israeli conflict China believes that negotiation is the only solution that will result in a settlement that will satisfy all the parties concerned. China refused to sign the document that regarded Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state during the Sino-Arab Cooperation Conference in Tianjin in 2010. This was considered an abdication of its previous positions. It also refused to recognise the Hamas government after it had won the elections and was quick to contribute by sending troops to the Gulf of Aden to combat piracy. China’s position on the Iranian nuclear issue is compatible in principle with that of Washington, which wants to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Beijing recently responded – relatively obediently – to American pressure by reducing its dependence on Iranian oil and increasing its imports from the Gulf.

In short, Beijing’s policy toward the Middle East in the past has been directed at cooperating with Washington and avoiding a clash or competition. Indeed many of its positions did not go beyond this tactical framework nor did they fall within China’s broader strategic framework.

Chinese concern for Washington

Subsequently, China directly sought to increase and prolong American involvement in the Middle East as much as possible to gain more time to build its own capacities and spheres of influence away from the ‘vexing Americans and their interference in its internal affairs.’

However, President Obama’s decision to withdraw from Iraq and the announcement of his new strategy to shift focus to the Asia-Pacific region as one of the top priorities of US foreign policy has aroused deep apprehension in Beijing. This has upset China’s calculations and imposed on it the need to review its strategies and to adapt its strategic vision, which partly involves its partner on the international stage, Moscow.

This comes at a time when there is an increasing and unprecedented stranglehold on Beijing within its own region. China’s relations with most of its neighbouring countries are at their worst in decades. This includes relations with Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Australia, South Korea and Thailand and even with traditional allies like Burma. This is aside from the abrupt departure of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il. Furthermore, tension has returned to areas like the disputed islands in the South East China Sea in light of calls for the creation of an international mechanism to resolve the issue of the disputed Spratly Islands. This is not to mention the security and social stability challenges China faces domestically where there has been an increase in the number of demonstrations and protests. During the last year more than a 100 000 cases have been recorded, the latest being the bloody events in the town of Wu Kang in the Guangdong province in south China. The protests were against the lack of social justice, rampant corruption, unemployment and the widening gap between rich and poor, in addition to ethnic tensions in several regions like Tibet and Xinjiang (East Turkistan).

All these issues constitute real challenges for China at a critical and delicate juncture. China is on the threshold of transferring power to a new generation whose leadership is characterised by intense conflict between the centres of power and influence within the ruling party. This will continue until it is resolved at the General Conference of the Party in October. All these reasons combined have resulted in pressure on Beijing essentially with its back against the wall. They have imposed on Beijing the search for new horizons, as well as made it line-up alongside the major powers, share common concerns and agree on tactics even if these differed with its own strategy. This probably explains China aligning itself to Moscow in the Security Council regarding Moscow’s geopolitical and strategic importance with respect to the Syrian issue, in the hope that Moscow will return the favour and stand with Beijing equally on issues that enjoy geopolitical and strategic importance for China. These issues are urgent and inevitable, and perhaps will materialise in the near future.

Iran’s strategy in China

The written history on Sino-Iranian (Persian) relations goes back about 2 500 years and specifically to the second century BC. These relations continued to grow within the commercial and cultural framework through two paths – the silk route and at sea. The relations between these two Asian cultural powers did not witness any military confrontation throughout their history and are considered to be among the most established, stable and consistent relations. Similarly they have neither influenced nor have they been affected by each other’s intellectual or cultural influence, possibly due to the strong nationalism that each country displays, in addition to the natural geographical distance between them.

With the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, the country maintained good relations with the Shah’s regime. Beijing was preparing to welcome him on his historic visit to inaugurate the massive Persian-style embassy, especially constructed to coincide with the Shah’s visit had it not been for the Khomeini revolution (1979) that toppled his regime and cancelled the visit. It is worth mentioning that China at the time took a position which seemed closer to the Shah and was opposed to the revolution which it considered to be ‘disturbances and acts of sabotage driven by black external hands’. This position is similar to a large extent to the positions of present-day China towards the revolutions of the Arab Spring. However, as soon as possible, Beijing moved beyond its negative attitude and resumed good relations with the revolutionary regime. This it did in spite of the ideological and doctrinal differences between the two sides and, interestingly, China is trying to repeat the same scenario with the new regimes that have emerged and continue to emerge from the current Arab revolutions.

In any case, Tehran, which adopted the slogan ‘neither East nor West’ (East being the first option and West being the second option), found it necessary to open-up to China, an opportunity the latter optimised. In return, Beijing chose to open its doors to the nascent Iranian revolution although it (Beijing) was in opposition to the hegemony of the two superpowers at the time (the Soviet Union and the United States) with respect to the areas of engagement and influence between them. One of these areas was the Middle East which, according to China’s vision, was the most prominent. These ties strengthened the bond between the two sides on the basis of the considerable similarity of their psychological, formative and shared circumstances. Both countries work with intense secrecy, absolute confidentiality, unlimited patience (both manufacture carpets, miniatures, intricate handicrafts); both do not have confidence in their environment, have a permanent sense of being targeted and plotted against by others and have a strong sense of nationalism. They are independently products of two radical revolutions and have a high degree of sensitivity to the West, resulting from decades of occupation, sanctions, blockades and interference in their internal affairs. In addition, they have a tendency to revive their ‘glorious’ past.

With the outbreak of the Iraq-Iran war, relations between Beijing and Tehran quickly witnessed accelerated growth and China formed an important and essential source of arms for Tehran in its war with Baghdad which lasted eight years. Arms sales are considered to be an important element in the relations between them. It has been estimated that the arms deal with China and its ally, North Korea, at the end of the 1980s constituted about 70 per cent of Iran’s needs. This led to Saddam Hussein ending diplomatic ties with Pyongyang. At the same time Beijing tried – through its official declared position on the war – to appear, as usual, to sit on the fence and equally distant from the sides involved in the conflict. It demanded both the sides to stop the war and to settle their disputes through dialogue and negotiation. China also announced its opposition to any intervention by the major international powers and to the expansion of the conflict which threatened the security and stability of the Gulf region.

At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of 1990s, Iraq succumbed under years of international embargo and wars in the Gulf region. During that period and its concomitant circumstances imposed by shared interest, the suffering of both China and Iran from political isolation and international sanctions constituted a golden opportunity for the unprecedented development and prosperity of relations between them. This was accompanied by the significant entry of Chinese companies into Iran to participate in the reconstruction required after much of the infrastructure had been destroyed by the war. Likewise in rebuilding and developing its military industries.

At that time Beijing was subject to international political isolation and to European and American sanctions in the aftermath of the events of Tiananmen Square in 1989. Up until that time Beijing had not established diplomatic relations with most of the Gulf States. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was the last Gulf country that recognised China and established diplomatic relations with it in 1990. Until then, oil was not yet a priority and of great importance in China’s international relations.

Nuclear cooperation formed a new element – among other elements – of cooperation between the two sides in the 1990s and Beijing was considered Tehran’s main nuclear partner in 1997. But, very quickly Beijing abandoned Tehran because of American pressure. Iran’s cooperation moved to Pyongyang, under the watchful eyes of China. But Beijing remained committed to defending Iran’s nuclear program at the Security Council and with international organisations as long as Tehran confirmed the programme’s peaceful purpose and that it (Tehran) would remain bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Beijing succeeded several times to prevent the referral of the matter to the Security Council and to keep it within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), without having to use its veto.

With the growing geo-strategic importance of Central Asian states Moscow and Beijing sought to establish the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and very soon, in 2005, Iran became an observer member. However, sanctions imposed on Tehran prevented its accession to full membership, in accordance with the constitution of the organisation. In all cases, China sees the growth in the role and influence of Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia as a useful intersection for its security, economic and geo-political agenda.

With escalating international pressure on Iran, economic sanctions – particularly against Iran’s Central Bank – began to make an impact. The Iranian currency has lost a large percentage of its value. The suffering of the Chinese companies has increased because of the inclusion of some of them in those sanctions and other companies that have been forced to freeze their projects or to withdraw. Likewise China has been forced to reduce its imports of Iranian oil by approximately 290 000 thousand barrels per day – during last January alone. The Chinese and Iranian sides have entered into a dispute over oil pricing and how to pay the huge past bills.

Iranian statements about closing the Strait of Hormuz have stirred Chinese panic. This caused Beijing to swiftly send its deputy foreign minister to Tehran to warn it against taking such a step.

China’s vision and current shifts

The shifts in the international scene and the increasing intensity of the competition between world powers, on the one hand, and the complexity of their relationships and their intricacies, on the other, demand consideration. Similarly, in light of international, regional and internal challenges facing China, the wait for a new Chinese leadership, the great changes that the revolutions of the Arab Spring produced in the region, the position of China regarding the emergence of political Islam as an important force and the resulting growing concern in Beijing (which has been expressed by most of the Chinese media), all these factors will still not likely lead to radical and essential changes in China’s policy towards the region and its issues. But China will certainly need to reformulate its political discourse so that its position becomes clearer. Sometimes Beijing may be forced to step out of the ‘grey area’ depending on current developments. The time when Beijing used to measure its positions and its understanding of the overall issues of the region under the umbrella of the Egyptian position, or the position of what used to be called the ‘countries of moderation’, has changed or is in the process of changing.

Energy security with respect to sources and supply routes will remain the main driver of China’s policy toward the region, and therefore it cannot completely abandon Iran’s oil and put all its eggs in the basket of the Gulf States. This is mainly because it has discerned that the Gulf States will most likely succumb to American demands when circumstances warrant it. Likewise China cannot rely completely on Russian oil even if it succeeded to extend the pipelines between the two sides – and also for strategic reasons.

China may seek to strengthen its presence in oil productive sectors in different parts of the world depending on their competitive prices and acceptable conditions, which ought to be better than that of Western companies. It is also expected that China will continue to strive for more of a military presence by increasing its participating forces in peacekeeping operations or in combating piracy. At the same time it will seek to establish military bases to protect its oil supplies. It has already started negotiations with Pakistan and with the Seychelles* while at a same time developing its marine capabilities and building an aircraft carrier.

As far as Iran is concerned, it is expected that China will attempt to apply continuous pressure on Tehran to show greater flexibility in its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It will also engage in further coordination and rapprochement with Moscow to prevent the occurrence of a catastrophic war, or to delay its occurrence and limit it if it should happen.

Perhaps a comparison of Beijing’s relationship with Tehran to its relationship with Islamabad will clearly reveal in a substantial way Iran’s position in China’s strategic vision. Relations between China and Iran did not reach the degree of an alliance or even to the point where they can be considered as a ‘spring in all seasons’, as Sino–Pakistan relations have been described. That is an objective issue imposed by many reasons, including the fact that China’s diplomacy continues to reject the principle of alliances in its international relations except in the case of relations that are considered “above normal” with some countries, which relations are dictated by geographical, historical and strategic necessities such as the relationship with North Korea, and similarly but to a lesser extent with Pakistan. In addition, Iran has no common border with China, as is the case with Pakistan.

Iran is also in a confrontation with the United States, the international community and its region, while Pakistan is in a confrontation with India, China’s traditional rival. Likewise each of these two countries have different neighbouring regions; India’s neighbours look to China as a regional balance while Iran’s neighbours are the Arab countries. This aspect is not contained in the calculations of the Arab countries in that they do not see in Iran a regional balancing power because they have strong relations with Washington.

Therefore, China’s relationship with Iran will remain, regardless of how close they become, merely a bargaining chip and will not become in any way a strategic relationship at least in the foreseeable future. As for China’s relationship with the region as a whole, in spite of the growing importance of the region with respect to China, it will not accept any threat to its relationship with major powers.

By Izzat Shahrour

July 2012

@ AMEC

Izzat Shahrour is a specialist in Chinese affairs and director of Al Jazeera’s bureau in Beijing

Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski warns Newsmax.TV that a confrontation with Iran would be disastrous for the United States, lasting for years and possibly devastating America’s economy.

“A war in the Middle East, in the present context, may last for years,” Brzezinski, who served in the Carter White House, tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. “And the economic consequences of it are going to be devastating for the average American.

“High inflation. Instability. Insecurity. Probably significant isolation for the United States in the world scene,” Brzezinski says. “Can you name me any significant country that’s going to be in that war together on our side?

“That’s something no one can afford to ignore,” Brzezinski adds.

Brzezinski’s warning comes as Iran apparently is ramping up tensions in the region. On Wednesday, a bus carrying Israeli youth exploded in a Bulgarian resort, killing at least six people and wounding 27, police and hospital officials said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it “an Iranian terror attack” and promised a tough response.

Syria, meanwhile, a close ally of Iran’s, appears on the brink of collapse as fighting engulfs Damascus. On Monday, a bomb killed the chief of its security operations — a devastating strike that indicates a serious weakening in the security around President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

As the U.S. fortifies its presence in the Persian Gulf in preparation for a possible showdown with Tehran over its nuclear arsenal and its threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, Brzezinski paints a frightening picture of how the U.S. would be affected by yet another war in the Middle East.

“Rushing to war is not a wise course of action,” he says. “You can always start a war, and you know pretty much what happens when you start it. But you don’t know how long it will last, what its consequences will be – and they will be certainly very costly for the United States.”

Iran recently renewed its threats to close the Strait of Hormuz unless sanctions against it were revoked. Tehran has repeatedly threatened to close the vital oil-shipping channel, through which 40 percent of the world’s seaborne oil exports travel, in retaliation for sanctions placed on its oil exports by Western nations.

“We would open it by force — and we have the power to do it, and I’m fairly confident we would do it,” says Brzezinski, who now is Robert Osgood Professor of American Foreign Policy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C.. His latest book, released in January, is Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power.

“But let’s not be simple-minded about it. We can open it up, but you can be absolutely certain that the costs of oil will skyrocket because it will still be a dangerous passage.

“In effect, the American taxpayer should be ready to pay $5 to $10 a gallon for the pleasure of having a war in the Strait of Hormuz,” Brzezinski explains. “This is another reason why it’s a wise course of action to be prudent and patient. Time’s on our side.”

He concurs with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that Iran probably will not have a nuclear weapon for “at least three years or so” — but, regardless, a Tehran with such arsenals is a major game-changer in the region.

“I think some concern is justified, but hysteria and exaggeration are not. Certainly, a nuclear-armed Iran introduces a whole new destabilizing reality into the Middle East.

“On the other hand, several years are several years. A lot can change in several years, including the regime which, if there is no confrontation with the West, is likely to be much more vulnerable to internal pressures for change.

“So we have to take this into account and not rush to war,” he says.

While many world leaders express concerns privately that Iran could make pre-emptive strikes against Israel and the U.S., Brzezinski said the chances of that, right now, are “close to zero.”

“First, their delivery systems are very inefficient — and probably most of them vulnerable to elimination in the course of any attack. And, secondly, one thing you can say about the Iranian regime, it’s not very attractive.”

Then, in a suggestive nod at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Brzezinski adds: “It shoots its mouth off. It says extreme things, which are actually costly to Iran, but it’s not suicidal.”

Diplomacy is clearly the best weapon of choice now, Brzezinski says.

“A great deal depends on how accommodating the Iranians are in the negotiations — but a great deal also depends on how intelligent we are in the negotiations,” he says. “If the negotiations are designed to humiliate Iran and to put it in some sort of separate box, confining it to a status totally different from all the other signatories of the nonproliferation treaty, then we probably will not get an agreement.”

And he says he would urge President Barack Obama to continue down this road.

“I will advise him to stay on course. Not to be intimidated. Not to be rushed. Time is on our side.

“We don’t have to reach an agreement by some finite date,” Brzezinski adds. “We can take a few months. That’s better than going to war.”

Brzezinski also says in his exclusive Newsmax interview:

Any international response to Iran would, essentially, fall to the United States. “Let’s not kid ourselves. When people talk about taking on Iran by force, they really mean the United States.”

As U.S. involvement in Iraq nears its 10th year, Brzezinski still opposes it. “We have now an Iraq which is much more vulnerable to Iranian pressure. Saddam Hussein was an odious dictator, but he was also a very effective opponent of Iran. He was also a very effective opponent of al-Qaida. We now have an Iraq that’s unstable.”

Despite the “War on Terror,” al-Qaida remains a world threat: “We have managed to decimate its leadership. We have deprived it of an open and secure base, which it had in Afghanistan. We have fragmented it. But at the same time, it is still a dangerous and painful reality that segments of al-Qaida, cells of al-Qaida now operate in different parts of the world.”

The United States, and other countries, remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack. “We have had nine years or more, 10 years since 9/11. Not one significant terrorist act in the United States. We have had terrorist acts in Great Britain. We have had it in other parts of the world — Spain, certainly the Middle East — not in the United States.”

The United States must take another approach in Syria, rather than demanding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down to end the bloodshed there. “Let’s stop sort of waving the sword and making these threats unless we’re prepared to deliver. I don’t approve of the notion that we should be announcing who should step down from the position of a head of a state unless we are seriously prepared to remove that person. But if we are not, if we are being prudent and careful, then let’s also be careful with how we talk.”

By: Todd Beamon and Kathleen Walter

18 July 2012

@ Newsmax.com

Brazil has provided a vote of confidence in China’s efforts to promote the renminbi as a reserve currency by becoming the biggest economy yet to agree a swap deal with Beijing.

Brazil and China announced the R$60bn ($30bn) local currency swap after a bilateral meeting between Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, and Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s president, on the sidelines of the Rio+20 environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro.

“It is a measure that reinforces the economies of both countries,” Guido Mantega, Brazil’s finance minister, said late on Thursday night.

China has launched an aggressive campaign of “currency swap diplomacy”, signing about 20 such agreements over the past four years with countries ranging from Argentina toAustralia and the United Arab Emirates.

While these have been largely symbolic – only Hong Kong so far has had to activate its swap line after a shortage of renminbi in the territory in 2010 – they are seen as helping the long march of the internationalisation of the Chinese currency.

Last week at the Group of 20 meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico, the so-called Brics nations, which aside from Brazil and China also include India and Russia, discussed establishing more local currency swap agreements among themselves. Thursday’s measure was the first bilateral swap announced since those discussions.

“The two leaders announced a decision to establish a bilateral swap agreement between the two central banks, with a maximum value of R$60bn/Rmb190bn, and instructed the central banks to rapidly implement the agreement,” Brazil said.

The agreement comes amid efforts by Brazil and China to deepen their economic partnership, with Brasília concerned that while it was exporting mostly unprocessed commodities to Asia, it was facing a growing flood of cheap, mostly Chinese, manufactured imports from the region.

In a hint at their bilateral tensions, the two leaders underlined the importance of increasing the value-added component of their exports to each other.

Brazil has taken several measures to curb cheap imports, particularly by taxing overseas goods, such as cars and motorbikes, more heavily than domestically produced items.

“The leaders underlined the importance that bilateral investment flows contribute to the aggregation of value in the production chains of the recipient country,” Brazil said. “They reiterated their promise to resolve trade questions through consultation and friendly dialogue through established institutional channels and condemned any recourse to trade protectionist measures.”

It said China had agreed to allow the local assembly of Brazilian Embraer jets in a sign that a long-running dispute over Beijing’s barring of the aircraft was nearing a resolution. It also said that the Brazilian bus maker Marco Polo was nearing a conclusion of a proposed vehicle joint venture with Chinese producer SG Automotive Group.

Mr Mantega said Brazil and China had agreed to elevate their relationship to the level of a “global strategic partnership” and announced a “10-year plan of co-operation” covering areas from education to space technology that will take effect between 2012 and 2021.

Among the education agreements, China will grant scholarships to 200 Brazilian students a year and the two countries will promote the instruction of their languages in each other’s universities.

They will also open cultural centres and will launch a “Brazil month” and “China month” in each other’s countries starting in 2013.

By Joe Leahy in Rio de Janeiro

The corporate media write lies on the American public’s consciousness with impunity, as if it were a blank slate incapable of understanding or remembering anything.

The power of the corporate media to deceive the people is simply astonishing, but, mind you, it depends on an already distracted, ignorant, semi-passive multitude whose marching values have been carefully cultivated.

In 2003 we went into Iraq under scandalously false pretexts, guns blazing–bragging about our ability to deliver “shock and awe” with impunity (the mark of the bully)–and with one goal in mind: to rob and rape that country blind of its riches. The official excuse was that Iraq and Saddam were mortal threats that had to be neutralized.

Within a matter of weeks if not days, the official line–adopted without missing a beat by the entire punditocracy–was that we had gone in “to save Iraq”, “make it a democracy,” and all the rest of the self-serving claptrap we use over and over again to justify our uber-criminal behavior. With a straight face the official voices declared that those who had the audacity to resist our criminal violence were ingrates. Don’t believe it? You may be forgiven: it is rather unbelievable.

Not too long after that, another somersault in logic and truth took place. This time the contortion was of Olympian quality, as we saw the same pundits–a great many of them liberals–talking with a straight face (as did the man in the White House and other administration flacks) that if the Iraqis continued to “misbehave”, continued attacking our troops, imagine that, “we’d leave”–yeah, that’s right, their punishment would be that we, the self-annointed saviors, would leave!

Buwahahahahahahah! Isn’t that a threat to soil your pants? The criminals and tormentors were actually threatening to leave, pull up stakes, if the country failed to behave in a gracious and grateful manner. Never mind that most Iraqis to this day never saw us as liberators!

Reality quiz

What would you do if you were the victim of a brutal home invasion; if the home invaders raped your wife and daughter, killed your animals, beat the s**t out of you, and robbed you blind, to boot–oh, and reduced your house to rubble–and then they declared with a straight face that if you were not grateful for all that, if you didn’t beg them to stay “they’d leave? How’s that for the mother of all Orwellian nonsense? How’s that for off-the-charts cynical audacity?

It’s fairly obvious that if a country 1000 if not a million times more powerful and advanced than the US invaded this nation under false pretenses, reduced our infrastructure to rubble, subjected the population to the rigors of a harsh, often criminal occupation, plunged most of the inhabitants into the hell and uncertainties of constant warfare, privation, and unemployment, most of the population would be resentful if not mad enough to take the first weapon they could find to fight back. What’s so darn difficult to understand? Gratitude? You gotta be kidding.

Yet such perversions of logic are common in the United States. For the utterly confused public is the perfect soil in which to plant such enormous lies. Doubtless only under conditions of almost generalized brainwash can the revolting media creatures that pass for journalists and commentators in the US foist such a huge con on the public mind with nary an audible protest.

Yeah, it’s pathetic alright. And it carries tremendous historical consequences. More importantly, if we don’t do something effective about it, something that goes well beyond mere whining, it will happen again. This time the countries marked to receive America’s beatific generosity, again under all sorts of lies and pretexts, are Syria and Iran–and who knows which other hapless nation will be next.

By Patrice Greanville

19 June, 2012
The Greanville Post