PIPISTRO

just something to say

Archive for the ‘Iran’ Category

Alone

leave a comment »

alieno2Desperate to climb a greasy pole, Netanuts says: “Ladies and gentlemen, Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself […] I want there to be no confusion on this point. Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone.” (Source Ha’aretz, Oct. 8, 2013)
Well.
1. Any similar offensive (against an imaginary threat) is the equivalent of a war of aggression. Otherwise the world could be and will be blackmailed by any psychopath at choice.
2. In this respect, the buffoon wouldn’t be able to surpass a Nuremberg-style process, nor any process. Insofar as the old claim about “wiping-someone-off-the-map” is a blatant lie, a plain scrutiny of reality, reports, facts and some 70 million Iranians, should be enough to nail either the warmongering clown and its unfortunate supporters. Even in the USA. (Syria docet.)
3. From a general point of view, Israeli acquiescence on anything is clearly (and morally) so much relevant as the amount of its citizens compared with the world population and their welfare (aproximately, 1/1000.)
4. Someone should suggest that, in the end, one thing is stand alone, another is stay alone.

Written by pipistro

October 9, 2013 at 5:16 pm

Posted in Iran, Israel, War

Tagged with , , , ,

Zionbies

with one comment

I don’t buy that. All of us are quietly looking at the Israelis while they threaten to bomb 65 million people. They talk down to the world and say: beware folks, we’re losing our patience!
They are losing what? We may not care, but in the meanwhile, it is we who are losing, somewhat, our dignity. We keep on standing still. (“It won’t happen. It’s clearly a bluff”)…
But the Zionist octopus is steadily at work on the other side of the ocean, and makes the US Empire tremble, inasmuch as three hundred million people listen to various puppets who pledge to follow the will – and meanwhile pocket the money – of some warmongers, often with double citizenship and dubious morality.
Someone menaces the planet. And still, a few people in the US make tricks to pander the enemy and earn some change.
And thus the entire world trembles. Everyone has seen the influence of a bunch of thugs to the halfwit who once lead the empire, not so long ago. We’ve seen the fate of Iraq. We look at Afghanistan.
Then it stops. It’s been a long way, but it ends.
I have a dream.
All in a sudden, to begin with 310 million American people, little less than 7 billion people perceive that the world can’t be blackmailed by those hooligans, any more.
As a matter of fact, the situation we’re in, is a clear anachronism in the third millennium, and survives solely because the US – whose leaders have been mislead by a bunch of warmongers – plays dirty in the Middle East scenario.
But – it’s perceivable – we’re dealing, by this time, with a gang of zombies.

Written by pipistro

September 7, 2012 at 4:18 pm

Posted in Iran, Lobby, USA, War

Tagged with , , ,

I ran into a nightmare

leave a comment »

Israel is trying to convince her American generous “macrò” to throw the Middle East, and the world as well, into a hell of a situation.
In fact, be he Obama or any other unabashed servant of the Israel lobby, sooner or later a reckless warmonger in the U.S. will be willing to undersell the world in order to please the Zionist hawks along their crazy initiative against some 65 millions Iranian people.
Meanwhile, the irresponsible lightness of EU towards the problem, will remind us of the similar attitude we had in sight of the rising Nazi folly which lead to the horrors of WWII.
Though we are all intimately pretty sure that nothing should really happen, maybe we’ve underestimated the fact that Israel is facing her last chances to survive in the long period in the region. In fact, as things are going in the Land of Canaan, the Zionist regime has its years, if not its days, counted, inasmuch as they have rather lose everything – even the blank cheque Israel has got from the West after the Holocaust – without giving up the insane “dream” of an anachronistic and racist state in the third millennium, in spite of the global steps made toward equality and democracy.
Waging war to Iran could then turn the situation upside down in the mind of the Zionist hawks. Thus leading to a redistribution of the cards on the table of the Middle East scenario. And in this regard, maybe they think it’s better the Armageddon than let to democracy their self constructed ghetto.
It’s just a matter of time. Will be Samson willing to die with the Philistines? Maybe. And you?

Written by pipistro

August 12, 2012 at 12:24 am

Posted in Iran, Israel, Lobby

Tagged with , ,

Obama, the song remained the same

leave a comment »

I do not like to be the one who says, “I told you so”, but… on March 1, 2008, I happened to post, under the title, Obama, the song remains the same, that Barack (pronounced: barak) Hussein Obama, was an ironic triptych of names that seemed a path from the preordained failure of Camp David to the Twin Towers, rising from Iraqi former Rais. Nomen omen – I had added – let’s hope not.

But I had also recalled that, looking back to Obama’s comments in May 2007, Shmuel Rosner, Washington correspondent for Haaretz, had noted that the black candidate towards Israel was as strong as Clinton, supportive as Bush and friendly as Giuliani. Concluding that the chap was “pro-Israel. Period.”
In that occasion I underlined, to his credit, in line with the democratic soul which formally had supported him, that it was said (Bill Fletcher Jr. of TransAfrica Forum) that Obama had opposed the invasion of Iraq and had had the courage to say so. But unfortunately it had been apparent, during the course of the year – along the presentation of his presidential candidacy in February 2007 in the USA – that the aspiring-emperor of the West would keep an absolutely uncritical attitude with respect to Israel. Really, an unabashed silence was what Obama had kept, first, in regard to the disproportionate campaign of Lebanon, about the attacks against the infrastructure, the illegal use of cluster bombs and the lies that the Jewish State had offered to justify the destruction wrought on civilian population in that country.

Anyway, in August 2007, the path chosen by Obama to pave its possible access to the White House with the support of the American Jewish community, had been marked. He had quickly denied the careless words spoken previously about the suffering of Palestinians in the Middle East, and he had took distance by Brzezinski, sinful to the highest degree for having abstained from the chorus of criticism against Jimmy Carter on the occasion of the publication of his book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”. So he had kept his way, floating towards Israeli consent, by declaring his trust in the advice of Dennis Ross – former architect of the dubious “peace efforts” by Clinton at Camp David – for the issues related to the Middle East.

How can we be surprised, so, if in sight of a possible second mandate, Obama is not willing to change a successful recipe? Indeed it seems doubtful that such a pattern is to be considered immutable through the time, but as of today I would not feel to make a bet on such a major change of attitude – and relevant interests – in US politics.
Sure, Israel has not even tried to counter the feeling of progressive distrust, or worse, about its politics, if not with the hasbara blackmailing through the media. But still a little more time is needed to increase the percentage of young Americans – be they Jewish or not, it does not matter at all – ready to reject the growing situation of apartheid in Israel-Palestine and the warmongering attitude assumed for the time being against Iran.
But you really think that the western youth of 2012 is willing to wage war to 70 million of educated young people, mostly because of the rhetoric of their leaders? So much for the record, I really don’t believe that. Notwithstanding their ancestors’ past.

Anyway, in 2008 we happened to smell some perfume of change. Maybe a more careful look at the facts, and the sudden turnspeak (“that’s not Orwell”, I quote, “Orwell would never use such a clunky phrase”) of the future surprising winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace, would have unveiled the pretty different reality of the events, or un-events, or turnabouts, that we were to look at.
But if we can’t have a better glimpse to the future, next time we know there will be a little more to do before creating the havoc that we are destined to face because of the rooted unwillingness towards a real change.

Written by pipistro

May 30, 2012 at 8:40 pm

Posted in Iran, Lobby, USA, War

Tagged with , ,

Further reflections (media and international law)

leave a comment »

A destabilizing factor within the Israel-Palestine conflict, has been the division between the followers of the Palestinian dream, skilfully orchestrated by the western mainstream, particularly after the 2006 elections. On the one hand, we find an entity openly collaborationist, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, with the legacy of Fatah, on the other, there’s the faction we are used to summarize (but it’s not entirely correct) as Islamic Resistance, headed by Hamas.
In this respect the Western world has given its worse with the help of the media. In fact, the US-Israeli bloc, with its clients and contingent valets, has omitted to consider the political process initiated by the movement of Hamas, and has stubbornly refused to advance the dialogue and appreciate its proposals. In short, Western countries have embraced U.S. and Israeli propaganda. They made themselves accomplice in the blackmail to the Palestinians, and consented to the unacceptable collective punishment imposed on those, who – anything one can think – had chosen democratically their leadership.
Thus, the definition given by Israel to the Gaza Strip controlled by Hamas, as “hostile entity”, has been a step toward new, disturbing scenarios. To some extent a leap of faith, unsusceptible of analysis. Hard to imagine that this development would have lead to positive consequences. Moreover the usual Ehud Barak, defined by Avnery, of the Israeli left, “criminal of peace” (referring to the facts of Camp David) and later by Hamas – more prosaically – “brutal murderess of children,” had elaborated a plan of gradual strangulation of the Gaza Strip, saying, according to the Palestinian agencies, that he wanted to be sure that very little food and medicines could reach Gaza, and specifying that the Strip should be forbidden from being provided with electricity, pace the message of the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who had to declare the international lack of legitimacy of the siege.

In relation to the intention of starving the population of the Strip – regardless of the provisions of international law, discussed below – the path to peace (I speak of a path, but it is something completely different from those that are normally described as peace processes) needs fixed points determined. It should simplify, with the few tools available. And this after having excluded, a priori, the reserves and the apparent pathology of the mind (and soul), favoring a minimum of ethical behavior, outside of obvious lust for power, for expansion, far from the claims of moral heritage, and from result of millennia of fabulous and anachronistic divine investiture. And even beyond (is intuitive) of a principle now elected as a justification of all evil, that the end – as the disproportionate response to the Qassam craft missiles – justifies the means. The same principle that led people in justify aberrations such as the use of torture and targeted assassinations, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, the brutality of mercenaries and their misdeeds in occupied Iraq, and Afghanistan, and so forth.

Take in good faith a way for peace requires, as we said, some tools. One is the international law. There are rules that must apply to the mere fact that they are basically aimed at the peaceful coexistence of peoples and are in each case the best tool that the international community has managed to develop. But the law is nothing if its application is not fair and, moreover, equally applied to all its members. First of all, if you do not get that these rules are considered mandatory, and if you do not impose the principle that those who claim to be freed from these rules, are not worthy of protection. A goal still unattained. Specifically, the sponsorship of the only remaining superpower, the USA, has introduced an unnatural imbalance in the whole affair Middle East, opposing, its veto to dozens of UN resolutions sponsored or endorsed by the rest of the world. As a matter of fact it is equally important to understand that international law, when filtered by power relations, diplomacy, compromise, greed and bad faith, turns away from his ability to be an instrument of peace, a starting point and a calming element for the prediction of international events, with security and benefits that may ensue.
An illuminating example. The Resolution No. 242 of 22 November 1967 issued by the UN Security Council immediately following the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, later part of the Resolution n. 338, October 22, 1973, is a compromise on the actual words and his most important pronouncements do contradict with the premises. In this case, also law becomes susceptible of discussion, however outlandish, unfounded or pretentious. It becomes a simulacrum of the rule and instead of providing a fixed point becomes useless. In fact, how many people are willing to defend and assert the principle that a rule of law, that tries to commit suicide with a clear contradiction within it, must be interpreted so that its rulings have a concrete meaning (it is an elementary principle general) rather than no one?
Specifically, precisely talking about what is still a pillar of international law recognized and invoked in order to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem, the Resolution 242 had confirmed and emphasized “the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war”, but the subsequent “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from [?] territories occupied in the recent conflict,” has annihilated with its ambiguous wording its terse clarity. The diplomatic artifice that suggested the omission of the definite article (territories vs. the territories) in the Resolution – at least, in his official English text, but not in French – has built the reasons of its ineffectiveness, giving inspiration to a discussion never appeased and entirely specious. Forty years after its enactment, no need to point out that Lord Caradon, the chief author of the text, has declared: “It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted” (Lord Caradon et al., U.N. Security Council Resolution 242: A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity (Washington DC 1981.)
The ambiguity was the result of a compromise. But bringing the still point of law, self-sufficient in itself, to its natural utility (which is to be a rule that can not be neglected,) it would have needed at least, as the next event, the good faith of the related players, to derive the consequences and benefits denied from the outset of its wording. Good faith on which even today cannot be counted. It ‘s an example of how, in fact diminishing the effectiveness of international law, namely the ability to be practical source of obligations, a possible instrument of peace is rendered useless.

The information. A great tool for knowledge, communication and peace. But if it’s flawed, like the law, by the power relations, is compromised by bad faith and becomes an instrument of ignorance and death. We’re seeing – in fact, grows in front of us – his umpteenth betrayal in relation to the Iranian nuclear issue, for which there is fatalism (“God forbid”), and powerless, looking at the re-release of the Iraqi situation. The conflict is instigated in the media going crazy over the world, depicting as it were fresh water come to a war, a scenario unbearable and unpredictable. Perhaps in this regard we must wake up and look specifically at what is happening day by day under our eyes. Someone is threatening to wage war on a country consisting of 70 million people, mostly young and well educated, who never moved war, nor threat of war to anyone. And on the same track, some other one is building stories of unlikely alliances, aimed at equally improbable ambition for hegemony in the region.

Similar impulses and similar lies have led to the disastrous situation in Iraq and Aghanistan, still unresolved. But evidently there is no limit to the arrogance and stupidity , and no limit to the myopia of those who favour the seeds of another war in the Middle East, as they could earn some possible contingent advantage. Under this aspect is disastrously suspect the EU intervention in Iran’s nuclear debate. Nor we can trust in the recent attitude assumed by IAEA, though it’s not possible to forget the reserves formulated by the former Director General in view of the aggression on Iraq, unfortunately fallen into the void.

The fact that Iran, attacked by the media for years, does not intend to lower the head, even from the aspect of communication, and asserts the possibility of openly fool the logic of double track, which sees U.S. and the West, uncritically aligned, as bearers of different behaviors in similar situations. So the Islamic Republic has officially asked the United Nations inspection on Israeli nuclear capabilities. And I wonder till what extent the old Europe will be willing to turn a blind eye, fancying as legitimate the official policy of Israel, namely of recognized and institutionalized (nuclear) “ambiguity”, when threatening are the winds of war directed, for the same reason, against another sovereign State. A State that officially – at least in a world governed by law – will not surrender to the medieval rule of the strongest. That criticized by Chomsky, namely the infamous imperial pattern: “what we say goes”.

Written by pipistro

May 21, 2012 at 8:00 pm

Posted in Iran, Israel, Palestine

Tagged with , , ,

Nuclear clowning

with 2 comments

In brief. IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog, demands that Iran come clean over its past atomic work, suspected on the base of intelligence suggesting Iran was engaged in weaponization studies, the so called alleged studies. Namely, we must stress, in the past. The West – that is US, its clients and valets – fears Iran could use its nuclear programme to make atomic weapons. Tehran has repeatedly dismissed the intelligence as fabricated, and the allegations that it was seeking to build a bomb as baseless. Western countries such as the United States insist that Tehran should actively disprove the allegations rather than simply dismiss them as untrue. Easy to say, in this respect, that providing the evidence of non existence of something that does not exist is simply impossible. Alas, we got to see the same preposterous claim about alleged Iraqi WMD under heavy pressure from Washington.
It’s easier to suspect that the whole stuff is aimed at frustrating Iranian economic threat to the US & Co. egemony in the Middle East. We’re talking about 70 million young learned people, sitting over a remarkable lot of oil, looking at the Asia market and attracted by newly born western style needs. That’s it. On the path of the after 911, Iran is already under three sets of (US inspired) UN Security Council sanctions over its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment work, which can be used to make nuclear fuel as well as the fissile core of an atom bomb. In this respect Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is aimed at peaceful ends and energy production and has so far rejected halting uranium enrichment as a pre-condition to talks, stressing it has a right to the activity under the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). Moreover the Islamic Republic repeatedly said it is ready to negotiate with world powers to ‘alleviate concerns’ over its nuclear activity.
Three days ago some said, as if it were big news, that inspectors from the UN atomic watchdog were alarmed that Iran has in its possession a document describing the process for making what could be the core of a nuclear weapon. Nothing we did not hear of before, it is the so called uranium metal document, a 15-page document describing process for the reduction of UF6 (Uranium hexafluoride) to uranium metal and machining uranium metal into two hemispheres of the kind used in nuclear warheads. Iran has told the IAEA that the document was received back in 1987 (by the way in 1987 Iran was still at war with Iraq) along with design information for the so-called P1 centrifuges used to enrich uranium, and insists it did not request it. It must be underlined that IAEA reported the existence of such a document since 2006, and received on November 8, 2007, a copy of the relevant 15-page evidence, but later declared that “has seen no indication of any UF6 reconversion and casting activity in Iran” [Report by the Director General of IAEA to the Board of Governors, GOV/2007/58] (1). Much ado about nothing.
This said, in the “Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors” made on June 2, 2008, by IAEA Director General, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, we can read that “To put things into perspective [it must be emphasized] that the Agency currently has no information – apart from the uranium metal document – on the actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components, or of other key components, of a nuclear weapon. Likewise, the Agency has not seen indications of the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies”. And it seems then ludicrous a further worried statement made in order to soften those outcomes, maybe under pressure from some western clowns, that “while the Agency can verify and provide assurances about Iran´s past and present nuclear activities, concerns about Iran´s future intentions go well beyond verification” of the Agency.
_______________________________________________________
(1)
Board of Governors – GOV/2007/58 – Date: 15 November 2007
“A.3. Uranium Metal Document – 25. On 8 November 2007, the Agency received a copy of the 15-page document describing theprocedures for the reduction of UF6 to uranium metal and casting it into hemispheres. Iran hasreiterated that this document was received along with the P-1 centrifuge documentation in 1987. TheAgency has shared this document with Pakistan, the purported country of origin, and is seeking moreinformation. Iran stated that the reconversion unit with casting equipment mentioned in the one-page1987 offer was not pursued with the supply network. Apart from the conversion experiments of UF4 touranium metal at the Tehran Nuclear Research Centre (GOV/2004/60 Annex, para. 2), the Agency hasseen no indication of any UF6 reconversion and casting activity in Iran. It should be noted, however,that a small UF6 to uranium metal conversion line in the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) wasdeclared by Iran in the design information questionnaire for the UCF (GOV/2003/75, Annex 1, para.3). This line has not been built, as verified by the Agency’s inspectors.”

Written by pipistro

June 2, 2008 at 6:44 pm

That’s why

leave a comment »

whySome days ago, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki released an interview for Spiegel on the efforts to resolve the conflict about Tehran’s nuclear program and his country’s right to resist the western threat. By the way he remarked that 50 years ago the nazionalization of Iranian oil was termed by the UN Security Council as a threat to international peace and stability. The preposterous absurdity of the double standard in UNSC Resolutions is not over. While some say that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran’s military infrastructure and the British freeze their relations with Teheran, we sit and wait. Everybody knows why the world is being cast into a hell of a situation in the Middle East and it’s very clear who is the victim and who the executioner. Once more we are the bystanders, the hypocrites, the ones who’re going to apologize saying we did not know.

Written by pipistro

March 28, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Posted in Iran

%d bloggers like this: