Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Congress and Israel Aim to Sabotage Iran Nuclear Deal
Iran
Congress and Israel Aim to Sabotage Iran Nuclear Deal
by Stephen Lendman
Longstanding US policy toward Iran calls for regime change - by war if other methods fail.
Thursday's nuclear framework deal changes nothing. It's unclear what Washington will agree on during discussions toward trying to finalize agreement terms by June 30.
John Kerry runs US foreign policy. He's committed to a special US/Israeli relationship. His Senate pro-Israel voting record was second to none.
He was a leading voice for strengthening Israel's security throughout his Senate tenure.
He remains so at State. Earlier, he opposed Iran's nuclear program altogether. He called it "unacceptable."
He lied saying it compromised the security of Israel, the region, America and elsewhere.
Given Iran's many concessions to reach a preliminary framework deal, it's unclear precisely to what degree he eased his former hardline position.
He, Obama and virtually the entire Congress strongly support Israel.
Netanyahu, likeminded Israeli hardliners, congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats intend going all-out to sabotage any final Iranian nuclear deal by June 30 or later.
AIPAC owns Congress. It stipulates six conditions for a final deal with Iran:
1. Dismantling its centrifuge infrastructure to assure "no uranium pathway to a nuclear weapon."
2. Dismantling its Arak heavy water facility - or converting it to a light water reactor to assure "no plutonium pathway to a nuclear weapon."
3. IAEA inspectors "must have timely access to any suspect location (including restricted military sites)" to prevent (nonexistent) Iranian cheating.
4. "Iran must fully explain its (nonexistent) past weaponized efforts."
5. Sanctions relief must be gradual "to allow time to judge Iranian compliance."
6. "Given Iran's (nonexistent) history of cheating, an agreement constraining (its) nuclear program must be enforced for decades, not years."
AIPAC demands more, including:
• giving Congress final say over nuclear terms agreed on - if consummated by June 30 or thereafter;
• under provisions of the proposed Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, no statutory sanctions relief if a joint congressional resolution rejects final agreement terms;
• Congress alone should decide up or down on permanent sanctions relief; and
• Israeli demands should be supported across the board.
AIPAC and lunatics infesting Washington irresponsibly call Tehran a regional threat - deal or no deal.
They want Iran marginalized, contained, weakened, denied its fundamental rights and eliminated as an Israeli political rival.
They want war if objectives aren't reached other ways. Two proposed Senate bills are hardline.
The Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act (NWFI) requires new sanctions if Tehran leaves negotiations or violates terms agreed on (true or false).
The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (INAR). prohibits sanctions relief for 60 days with Congress having final say.
Obama said he'll veto both bills. Reports indicate they're close to veto-proof support.
On April 14 Senate Foreign Relations Committee members will vote on INAR.
House members overwhelmingly support anti-Iranian legislation. Speaker John Boehner said:
"Congress must be allowed to fully review the details of any agreement before any sanctions are lifted."
"(M)y longtime concerns about the parameters of this potential agreement remain, but my immediate concern is the administration signaling it will provide near-term sanctions relief."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker (R. TN) issued a statement reflecting the views of most other Senate members, saying in part:
"A nuclear-armed Iran would lead to a less safe and less secure world, which is why the stakes are so high in the pursuit of a strong agreement that is fully enforceable, verifiable and is in our national security interests."
"(W)e must remain clear-eyed regarding Iran’s continued resistance to concessions, long history of covert nuclear weapons-related activities, support of terrorism, and its current role in destabilizing the region."
"If a final agreement is reached," Congress should have final up or down say.
Israel intends exerting intense pressure to kill anything in an eventual Iranian deal it rejects.
Netanyahu and likeminded Israeli lunatics fabricate threats they nonsensically claim jeopardize Israel's survival.
Commenting on framework terms reached, Netanyahu issued his first public statement, saying:
"This deal would pose a grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very survival of the State of Israel,"
"The deal would not shut down a single nuclear facility in Iran, would not destroy a single centrifuge in Iran and will not stop R&D on Iran's advanced centrifuges."
"On the contrary, the deal would legitimize Iran's illegal nuclear program."
"It would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure. A vast nuclear infrastructure remains in place."
"The deal would lift sanctions almost immediately - and this at the very time that Iran is stepping up its aggression and terror in the region and beyond the region."
"In a few years, the deal would remove the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program, enabling Iran to have a massive enrichment capacity that it could use to produce many nuclear bombs within a matter of months."
"The deal would greatly bolster Iran's economy. It would give Iran thereby tremendous means to propel its aggression and terrorism throughout the Middle East."
"Such a deal does not block Iran's path to the bomb. Such a deal paves Iran's path to the bomb."
"And it might very well spark a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East and it would greatly increase the risks of terrible war."
World power should pressure Iran "until a good deal is achieved."
"Iran is a regime that openly calls for Israel's destruction and openly and actively works towards that end."
"…I want to make clear to all. The survival of Israel is non-negotiable."
"Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons, period."
"In addition, Israel demands that any final agreement with Iran will include a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel's right to exist."
Separately, Netanyahu told Obama framework terms agreed on threaten Israel's survival.
Fact: Iranian nuclear program framework terms agreed on threaten no one - now or any time ahead.
Fact: Israel's illegal and formidable nuclear, chemical and biological arsenals threaten world peace.
Fact: Iran has as much right to develop and use nuclear power as dozens of other countries not criticized.
Fact: Iran's infrastructure and operations fully comply with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) provisions.
Fact: Israel refuses to sign NPT. It's a known nuclear outlaw.
Fact: No Iranian "aggression" or "terror" exists in the region or elsewhere.
Fact: Iran deplores nuclear weapons. It's the region's leading proponent for abolishing them altogether.
Netanyahu's bluster lost credibility long ago. He and likeminded Israeli lunatics are force to be reckoned with.
Whether they'll wage war on Iran if their objectives aren't achieved other ways remains to be seen.
Israel, its US Lobby and most congressional members intend going all-out to sabotage any final nuclear deal with Iran.
Longstanding anti-Iranian sentiment suggests no fundamental US policy change ahead - deal or no deal.
The risk of America and Israel eventually waging war on Iran to replace its government with a pro-Western one remains high.
The fate of the region hangs in the balance - perhaps world peace.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen [at] sbcglobal.net.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.
by Stephen Lendman
Longstanding US policy toward Iran calls for regime change - by war if other methods fail.
Thursday's nuclear framework deal changes nothing. It's unclear what Washington will agree on during discussions toward trying to finalize agreement terms by June 30.
John Kerry runs US foreign policy. He's committed to a special US/Israeli relationship. His Senate pro-Israel voting record was second to none.
He was a leading voice for strengthening Israel's security throughout his Senate tenure.
He remains so at State. Earlier, he opposed Iran's nuclear program altogether. He called it "unacceptable."
He lied saying it compromised the security of Israel, the region, America and elsewhere.
Given Iran's many concessions to reach a preliminary framework deal, it's unclear precisely to what degree he eased his former hardline position.
He, Obama and virtually the entire Congress strongly support Israel.
Netanyahu, likeminded Israeli hardliners, congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats intend going all-out to sabotage any final Iranian nuclear deal by June 30 or later.
AIPAC owns Congress. It stipulates six conditions for a final deal with Iran:
1. Dismantling its centrifuge infrastructure to assure "no uranium pathway to a nuclear weapon."
2. Dismantling its Arak heavy water facility - or converting it to a light water reactor to assure "no plutonium pathway to a nuclear weapon."
3. IAEA inspectors "must have timely access to any suspect location (including restricted military sites)" to prevent (nonexistent) Iranian cheating.
4. "Iran must fully explain its (nonexistent) past weaponized efforts."
5. Sanctions relief must be gradual "to allow time to judge Iranian compliance."
6. "Given Iran's (nonexistent) history of cheating, an agreement constraining (its) nuclear program must be enforced for decades, not years."
AIPAC demands more, including:
• giving Congress final say over nuclear terms agreed on - if consummated by June 30 or thereafter;
• under provisions of the proposed Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, no statutory sanctions relief if a joint congressional resolution rejects final agreement terms;
• Congress alone should decide up or down on permanent sanctions relief; and
• Israeli demands should be supported across the board.
AIPAC and lunatics infesting Washington irresponsibly call Tehran a regional threat - deal or no deal.
They want Iran marginalized, contained, weakened, denied its fundamental rights and eliminated as an Israeli political rival.
They want war if objectives aren't reached other ways. Two proposed Senate bills are hardline.
The Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act (NWFI) requires new sanctions if Tehran leaves negotiations or violates terms agreed on (true or false).
The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (INAR). prohibits sanctions relief for 60 days with Congress having final say.
Obama said he'll veto both bills. Reports indicate they're close to veto-proof support.
On April 14 Senate Foreign Relations Committee members will vote on INAR.
House members overwhelmingly support anti-Iranian legislation. Speaker John Boehner said:
"Congress must be allowed to fully review the details of any agreement before any sanctions are lifted."
"(M)y longtime concerns about the parameters of this potential agreement remain, but my immediate concern is the administration signaling it will provide near-term sanctions relief."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker (R. TN) issued a statement reflecting the views of most other Senate members, saying in part:
"A nuclear-armed Iran would lead to a less safe and less secure world, which is why the stakes are so high in the pursuit of a strong agreement that is fully enforceable, verifiable and is in our national security interests."
"(W)e must remain clear-eyed regarding Iran’s continued resistance to concessions, long history of covert nuclear weapons-related activities, support of terrorism, and its current role in destabilizing the region."
"If a final agreement is reached," Congress should have final up or down say.
Israel intends exerting intense pressure to kill anything in an eventual Iranian deal it rejects.
Netanyahu and likeminded Israeli lunatics fabricate threats they nonsensically claim jeopardize Israel's survival.
Commenting on framework terms reached, Netanyahu issued his first public statement, saying:
"This deal would pose a grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very survival of the State of Israel,"
"The deal would not shut down a single nuclear facility in Iran, would not destroy a single centrifuge in Iran and will not stop R&D on Iran's advanced centrifuges."
"On the contrary, the deal would legitimize Iran's illegal nuclear program."
"It would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure. A vast nuclear infrastructure remains in place."
"The deal would lift sanctions almost immediately - and this at the very time that Iran is stepping up its aggression and terror in the region and beyond the region."
"In a few years, the deal would remove the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program, enabling Iran to have a massive enrichment capacity that it could use to produce many nuclear bombs within a matter of months."
"The deal would greatly bolster Iran's economy. It would give Iran thereby tremendous means to propel its aggression and terrorism throughout the Middle East."
"Such a deal does not block Iran's path to the bomb. Such a deal paves Iran's path to the bomb."
"And it might very well spark a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East and it would greatly increase the risks of terrible war."
World power should pressure Iran "until a good deal is achieved."
"Iran is a regime that openly calls for Israel's destruction and openly and actively works towards that end."
"…I want to make clear to all. The survival of Israel is non-negotiable."
"Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons, period."
"In addition, Israel demands that any final agreement with Iran will include a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel's right to exist."
Separately, Netanyahu told Obama framework terms agreed on threaten Israel's survival.
Fact: Iranian nuclear program framework terms agreed on threaten no one - now or any time ahead.
Fact: Israel's illegal and formidable nuclear, chemical and biological arsenals threaten world peace.
Fact: Iran has as much right to develop and use nuclear power as dozens of other countries not criticized.
Fact: Iran's infrastructure and operations fully comply with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) provisions.
Fact: Israel refuses to sign NPT. It's a known nuclear outlaw.
Fact: No Iranian "aggression" or "terror" exists in the region or elsewhere.
Fact: Iran deplores nuclear weapons. It's the region's leading proponent for abolishing them altogether.
Netanyahu's bluster lost credibility long ago. He and likeminded Israeli lunatics are force to be reckoned with.
Whether they'll wage war on Iran if their objectives aren't achieved other ways remains to be seen.
Israel, its US Lobby and most congressional members intend going all-out to sabotage any final nuclear deal with Iran.
Longstanding anti-Iranian sentiment suggests no fundamental US policy change ahead - deal or no deal.
The risk of America and Israel eventually waging war on Iran to replace its government with a pro-Western one remains high.
The fate of the region hangs in the balance - perhaps world peace.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen [at] sbcglobal.net.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.
For more information:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Economic liberalization of Iran would go a long way towards reduction of Islamic radicalism then any military interventionist policy could ever achieve. Given the History of Iran, they were perhaps the first country in the region to try and establish a democratic order of governance. The Iranian Constitutional Revolution of the 1905-1906 led to the establishment of a parliament during Qajar dynasty rule. This was even in the backdrop of Russian and British occupation of parts of Iran. Russians occupied Northern Iran in 1911 and the British occupied other parts during World War 1 and withdrew only in 1921.
With the withdrawal the Soviet and British forces, the Qajar Dynasty was ousted and Pahlavis came to become the Shah in 1921. Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty was neutral during the World War 2. During the holocaust years, in 1940, Abdol Hossein-Sardari, the Iranian consul in Nazi-occupied France, saved about 2,000 Jews from Holocaust in France by keeping their identities hidden.
The British and the allied forces had strategic interests in Iran and the Anglo-Iranian oil company owned and operated the Abadan oil Refinery. They gave the Iranians only 10% of the profit. The British and Soviets fearing that the Germans will get hold of the Iranian resources attacked and occupied Iran in 1941 in the Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran. The Iranian shah at the time, Reza Shah Pahlavi had even appealed to the Teddy Roosevelt on the basis of the Atlantic Charter, to provide help against the invasion. President Roosevelt refused. In 1943, American troops joined the British and the Soviets in the Iran to keep the Persian Corridor open.
The withdrawal of allied forces from Iran finally came in 1946. However the Soviets did not withdraw even then and with support from Soviets Azerbaijan was wrested from the Iranians to form a new country on shores of the Caspian Sea. A bit of trivia is that the Iranian government complained to United Nations about the fact that the Soviets did not withdraw in 1946 which is the first complaint by any country to the newly formed UN.
In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh became the democratically elected prime minister of Iran. The British Anglo-Iranian Oil company (AIOC) had developed most oil fields in Iran and only 10 – 16% of the revenue was going to Iranians. This was widely unpopular in Iran and Mosaddegh made the critical folly of trying to nationalize Iran’s oil industry. He was deposed by a CIA led British supported coupe in 1953 to reinstall Shah in power.
The Shah’s rule was fairly autocratic and brutal with SAVAK, a Gestapo styled intelligence apparatus that suppressed political dissent through unfair means. This went on for 26 years till 1979 when the Ayatollah led Iranian revolution happened.
This Iranian Islamic revolution changed the Muslim world for ever. It’s strong currents were felt throughout North Africa and Asia and perhaps was the strongest force behind the currents in today’s world that call forth for Islamic Revivalism as a political force.
1984: West German intelligence sources claim that Iran’s production of a bomb “is entering its final stages.” US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.
1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon.
1995: The New York Times reports that US and Israeli officials fear “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought” – less than five years away. Netanyahu claims the time frame is three to five years.
1996: Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres claims Iran will have nuclear weapons in four years.
1998: Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claims Iran could build an ICBM capable of reaching the US within five years.
1999: An Israeli military official claims that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within five years.
2001: The Israeli Minister of Defence claims that Iran will be ready to launch a nuclear weapon in less than four years.
2002: The CIA warns that the danger of nuclear weapons from Iran is higher than during the Cold War, because its missile capability has grown more quickly than expected since 2000 – putting it on par with North Korea.
2003: A high-ranking Israeli military officer tells the Knesset that Iran will have the bomb by 2005 — 17 months away.
2006: A State Department official claims that Iran may be capable of building a nuclear weapon in 16 days.
2008: An Israeli general tells the Cabinet that Iran is “half-way” to enriching enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon and will have a working weapon no later than the end of 2010.
2009: Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak estimates that Iran is 6-18 months away from building an operative nuclear weapon.
2010: Israeli decision-makers believe that Iran is at most 1-3 years away from being able to assemble a nuclear weapon.
2011: IAEA report indicates that Iran could build a nuclear weapon within months.
2013: Israeli intelligence officials claim that Iran could have the bomb by 2015 or 2016.
ISRAEL:
Military Conflicts initiated by Israel: 30+
Number of Active Nuclear War Heads: 300+
Number of Nuclear Deterrents: 400+
Potential Nuclear Deterrent Manufacturing Capability: 1000+
Inspection Access to Nuclear Facilities by UN Weapons Inspectors: NO
Signed up to Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: NO
Ratification of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: NO
International Transparency on Nuclear matters: NO
IRAN:
Military Conflicts initiated by Iran: 0
Number of Active Nuclear War Heads: 0
Number of Nuclear Deterrents: 0
Potential Nuclear Deterrent Manufacturing Capability: 0
Inspection Access to Nuclear Facilities by UN Weapons Inspectors: YES
Signed up to Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: YES
Ratification of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: YES
International Transparency on Nuclear matters: YES