ZA&dunia: November 2013

Jumat, 29 November 2013

AS DAN ISRAEL SELALU SAJA MENGGUNAKAN DOUBLE BAHKAN MULTIPLE STANDAR...... UNTUK TERUS MEMBUAT KEKACAUAN DI TATANAN DUNIA...??>> KONON PERJANJIAN GENEVA II UNTUK NUKLIR IRAN SUDAH DISEPAKATI OLEH SEMUA PIHAK DK-PBB YAKNI 5 NEGARA ANGGOTA TETAP + 1.... ?? >> TAPI BIASA -LAH.... NEGARA YANG MERASA SUPER INI SELALU MENCARI-CARI TAFSIR SENDIRI... DAN MEMBANGUN OPINI2 ABSURD... YANG TUJUANNYA .... MENGACAUKAN MASYARAKAT DUNIA.. AGAR TETAP ADA CELAH UNTUK MELAKUKAN KEKACAUAN DINEGERI ORANG LAIN...???>> PERILAKU JAHAT DAN DENGKI SERTA POLITIK YANG PENUH KESERAKAHAN ITU... SELALU SAJA MEMBUAT TAFSIRAN YANG DISENGAJA DENGAN TUJUAN MEMBUAT KEKACAUAN BARU...???>> YANG SANGAT DISAYANGKAN ADALAH INTELEKTUAL2 MEDIA DAN KELOMPOK2 POLITISI KRIMINAL TERSELUBUNG ITU... MEMANG BERADA DIDALAM SELUBUNG TUBUH PEMERINTAHAN DAN BADAN2 RESMI AS...???>> MAKA TAK HERAN BILAMANA KEJAHATAN2 DAN ISSUE2 .. .PEPERANGAN... ITU SELALU BERSUMBER DARI NEGERI TERSEBUT... WALAUPUN ... KAUM TERPELAJARNYA SANGAT BANYAK... NAMUN SEPERTINYA... TANPA MORAL.. DAN TAK MENGENAL ETIKA.. KEMANUSIAANNYA.... .DALAM SETIAP PETUALANGANNYA... ??>> ... MAKA TAK HERAN JIKA BEBERAPA PRESIDENNYA DIBUNUH DENGAN TERENCANA RAPI... DAN JUGA PEMBUNUHAN RAKYATNYA DENGAN ISSUE2 DUSTA-INSIDERS JOBS-KONSPIRASI-DAN KEBOHONGAN..SERTA REKAYASA PENCIPTAAN KEJAHATAN POLITIK... YANG DIJADIKAN AJANG BISNIS... YANG MEMBERIKAN KEKAYAAAN BERLIMPAH KEPADA SEMENTARA KAPITALIS2... DAN DIPIHAK LAIN .... KORBAN KEMANUSAAN YANG TIADA TERKIRA...??>> SUNGGUH JAHAT... DAN SANGAT IRONIS....??? .. MENGAPA YAH MEREKA SEPERTI DEMIKIAN...??>> SUNGGUH SUATU FENOMENA YANG SANGAT ... MENYERAMKAN DALAM TATANAN SEJARAH HIDUP KEMANUSIAAN.... DARI ZAMAN KE ZAMAN....??>> ...Isu tentang senjata nuklir Iran sebenarnya tidak berdasar sama sekali. Program nuklir Iran sepenuhnya dalam pengawasan IAEA untuk keperluan damai. Sama seperti program nuklir damai di negara-negara lain. Bahkan beberapa negara lain yang secara diam-diam memiliki senjata nuklir tanpa persetujuan PBB, aman tidak tersentuh: Jepang, Brazil, Afrika Selatan, Korea Utara, Pakistan, India dan Israel. Namun isu senjata nuklir Iran diperlukan Amerika karena Iran, yang salah satu landasan idiologinya adalah pembebasan Palestina dari pendudukan Israel, dianggap sebagai musuh nyata bagi dominasi Amerika-Israel....>>> ....any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.”..>> "Perselisihan" kecil itu sontak membuat "kesadaran" saya kembali tergugah, bahwa sebuah "konspirasi" kemungkinan telah dijalankan dalam perundingan nuklir Iran tersebut. Pikiran saya pun kembali ke sekitar bulan September dan Oktober, ketika Amerika secara tiba-tiba membatalkan rencana serangan militer terhadap Syria yang telah dipublikasikan besar-besaran. Sebulan kemudian Presiden Barack Obama menelpon Presiden Iran Hassan Rouhani dalam satu momen yang dianggap sebagai "momen paling penting tahun ini". Dilanjutkan kemudian dengan ke-aktifan Amerika dalam perundingan nuklir Iran di Genewa yang ditandatangani Minggu lalu (24/11). ..>> Pada hari Selasa (26/11) Iran mengecam intepretasi perjanjian yang dirilis Amerika melalui situs resmi Gedung Putih dengan menyebutnya sebagai pernyataan pers yang "invalid". “Apa yang telah dirilis oleh situs resmi Gedung Putih sebagai "lembar-lembar nyata" merupakan intepretasi sepihak dari teks sebenarnya yang ditandatangani di Geneva dan sebagian dari penjelasan dan kalimatnya bertentangan dengan teks "Joint Plan of Action", dan disayangkan lembaran-lembaran itu telah diterjemahkan dan dirilis oleh beberapa media massa sebagai Perjanjian Genewa, yang sebenarnya tidak benar,” kata jubir kemenlu Iran Marziyeh Afkham di Teheran, Selasa (26/11)...>> With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders. The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports. And now, the US fully admits that the CIA and US State Department are openly arming, funding, and equipping fighters in Syria. The Washington Post's September 2013 article, "U.S. weapons reaching Syrian rebels," admits: The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war...>>> Dalam sebuah wawancara dengan Wall Street Journal yang dilansir oleh al-Alam pada Ahad, 24/11/13, melaporkan, al-Waleed bin Talal mengutuk kesepakatan antara Iran dan Barat atas program nuklir Tehran yang tidak akan mencakup penghentian pengayaan Uranium di Republik Islam. Dikatakannya, "Saudi dan Israel memiliki kepentingan sama, dan mengutuk setiap perjanjian yang tidak menyangkut penghentian kemampuan Iran untuk memperkaya uranium". Waleed bin Talal juga mendukung pernyataan Perdana Menteri Israel yang menyebut bahwa presiden Iran Hassan Rouhani adalah serigala berbulu domba...>> As the chief of Saudi Intelligence, Prince Bandar is now building a new strategy that would see Riyadh’s central foreign-policy goal of toppling Assad realized. As long as that goal comes to fruition, the secular or radical orientation of the militias really does not make a difference. Bandar’s aim is to broaden Saudi Arabia’s regional clout so as to position himself strategically when the next royal succession takes place. As Washington and Riyadh evidently have no interest in a political solution, a new pretext would be required to escalate the conflict to force Assad out. If chemical weapons are used again, Assad can either be blamed for their use or blamed for allowing rebels to capture his stockpiles. Intervention can be justified on the basis of “punishing” Assad or under the mandate of peacekeeping and humanitarianism....>>>

Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not "Breakthrough"

November 26, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - "...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal."

-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, page 52.

Which Path to Persia? .pdf
....

Written years ago, as the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel were already plotting to overrun Iran's neighbor and ally Syria with Al Qaeda to weaken the Islamic Republic before inevitable war, this quote exposes fully the current charade that is the "Iran nuclear deal."

The West has no intention of striking any lasting deal with Iran, as nuclear capabilities, even the acquirement of nuclear weapons by Iran was never truly an existential threat to Western nations or their regional partners. The West's issue with Iran is its sovereignty and its ability to project its interests into spheres traditionally monopolized by the US and UK across the Middle East. Unless Iran plans on turning over its sovereignty and regional influence along with its right to develop and use nuclear technology, betrayal of any "nuclear deal" is all but inevitable, as is the war that is to shortly follow.

Exposing the duplicity that accompanies Western "efforts" to strike a deal will severely undermine their attempt to then use the deal as leverage to justify military operations against Iran. For Iran and its allies, they must be prepared for war, more so when the West feigns interest in peace. Libya serves as a perfect example of the fate that awaits nations reproached by the West who let down their guard - it literally is a matter of life and death both for leaders, and for nations as a whole.

Continuity of Agenda: Syria Catastrophe Engineered Under Bush, Executed Verbatim Under Obama

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2013/09/continuity-of-agenda-syria-catastrophe.html

The rise of Al Qaeda in Syria and the predictable bloodbath that followed is the documented work of US, Israel, & Saudi Arabia.

September 13, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - Tens of thousands of deaths, devastated cities, and the scattering of terrified Syrian minorities add up to a catastrophe that has unfolded in Syria over the last 2 years. International organizations including the UN call it the worst humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century, and despite this, have put little effort into tracking down the actual genesis of the conflict, the key players perpetuating the violence, and in prescribing the obvious solutions to this conflict. With a recent initiative by Russia and Syria blunting the West's pro-war drive, Western propagandists have attempted to reassert their crumbling narrative regarding the conflict, past, present, and future.

The Genesis of Syria's Conflict

We are told by Western politicians and Western media houses that the conflict in Syria began with a spontaneous "peaceful," "pro-democracy" uprising influenced by similar demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt. We are told that these peaceful protests were brutally crushed by the Syrian government and resulted in the militarization of the so-called "opposition."

This is a verified lie.

In an April 2011 AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, admitted that [emphasis added]:

"US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years [starting in 2009] to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments."The report went on to admit that the US (emphasis added) "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there." Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect."

Not only were the protests in Syria planned, funded, and directed by the US State Department, years before the so-called "Arab Spring" began, but so were the alleged protests that "triggered" events in Syria - namely similarly engineered protests in Tunisia, Egypt, and the violent US-led subversion carried out in Libya.

What's more disturbing is that the US-engineered "protests" were not designed to overthrow targeted governments, but instead to serve as a smokescreen for similarly pre-planned armed subversion. As early as 2007, under then President George Bush, the arming, funding, and otherwise supporting of sectarian extremists across the Middle East to undermine Lebanon, Syria, and Iran was put into motion.

Admissions by administration officials, intelligence agents, and the very militant groups the US was funding and preparing for armed subversion in 2007 were documented in Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh's New Yorker extensive 9-page report, "The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" In it he would state clearly that:

"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

Six years later, it could not be more obvious that indeed, militants aligned to Al Qaeda have been armed, equipped, and unleashed in an unprecedented wave of US-Saudi-Israeli state-sponsored terrorism against Syria and neighboring Lebanon. With safe havens in NATO-member Turkey, US-occupied Jordan, and pouring in from Saudi-friendly regions of Lebanon, it could not be clearer who is behind the rise and perpetuation of Al Qaeda in Syria.

And even in Hersh's 2007 report, "The Redirection," it is made clear that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia had already begun financing and preparing the sectarian extremist "Muslim Brotherhood" in Syria for the upcoming sectarian bloodbath the West had on the drawing board. Hersh would report:

"[Walid] Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would be “the ones to talk to,” Jumblatt said."

The article would continue by explaining how already in 2007 US and Saudi backing had begun benefiting the Brotherhood:

"There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents."

And yet today, the West feigns ignorance to what they claim is the inexplicable, unfortunate, "unforeseeable" rise and perpetuation of Al Qaeda and their defacto political arm, the sectarian Muslim Brotherhood.

Who's Behind Al Qaeda in Syria

Al Qaeda in Syria constitutes the summation of the so-called "opposition." Despite rhetoric of the contrary, all credible reports actually citing evidence, including sources from across the West, have determined that Al Qaeda is the "opposition."

The New York Times would literally proclaim in their April 2013 article, "Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy," that:

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

The West has admitted throughout the conflict that it, along with its regional axis, including Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, have been funneling in hundreds of millions of dollars, equipment, and thousands of tons of arms at a time to militants operating in and along Syria's borders.

In the Telegraph's March 2013 article titled, "US and Europe in 'major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb'," it is reported:

It claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November

The story confirmed the origins of ex-Yugoslav weapons seen in growing numbers in rebel hands in online videos, as described last month by The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers, but suggests far bigger quantities than previously suspected.

The shipments were allegedly paid for by Saudi Arabia at the bidding of the United States, with assistance on supplying the weapons organised through Turkey and Jordan, Syria's neighbours. But the report added that as well as from Croatia, weapons came "from several other European countries including Britain", without specifying if they were British-supplied or British-procured arms.

British military advisers however are known to be operating in countries bordering Syria alongside French and Americans, offering training to rebel leaders and former Syrian army officers. The Americans are also believed to be providing training on securing chemical weapons sites inside Syria.

The New York Times in their March 2013 article titled, "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid," admits that:

With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.

The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.

And now, the US fully admits that the CIA and US State Department are openly arming, funding, and equipping fighters in Syria. The Washington Post's September 2013 article, "U.S. weapons reaching Syrian rebels," admits:

The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

Clearly, based on previous admissions, claiming this is a "major escalation" is a verifiable lie. The US has already sent the total summation of material support to terrorists operating in Syria over the past 2-3 years it could possibly muster - recent admissions are solely for public consumption. The failure of this material support to turn the tide in the fighting is precisely what triggered the recent fabrications of chemical weapons use in Syria and the subsequent, Iraq-esque attempt to justify direct US military intervention.

One must wonder, how if the US has been funding "moderate rebel groups," to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and arming them with thousands of tons of weaponry at a time, has Al Qaeda still emerged as the prominent militant group inside Syria? How has Al Qaeda managed to raise the funds and execute this unprecedented logistical feat of a multinational invasion of Syria if the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and Qatar are solely funding "moderates?" Bake sales and carpooling?

Clearly there were never any "moderates." And just as was plotted under Bush in 2007, extremists - Al Qaeda extremists - were intentionally armed, funded, and funneled into Syria to destabilize the nation through a sectarian bloodbath starting in 2011 under the Obama administration and callously portrayed as a "pro-democracy" uprising "brutally crushed" by the "evil Assad regime."

The US' direct, premeditated support of sectarian extremists starting in 2007 and continuing up to and including today, not only solves the "mystery" of Al Qaeda's perpetuation in Syria, it also exposes the fraud of Western democracy - where two diametrically opposed presidents carried out a singular geopolitical agenda, merely behind the cover of their respective rhetorical right/left political platforms. The American people were never really given a choice despite the illusion of "elections" and "political representation."

Israel's Role: The Silent Accomplice and Unilateral Warmonger

Perhaps the most dangerous, and yet-to-be-played card in the West's hand, is Israel. Israel poses as a silent observer of the Syrian conflict - taking military action unilaterally in what it tenuously claims is preemptive "self-defense." In reality, it is part of a joint US-Saudi-Israeli axis that has sought to undermine and overthrow Syria and Iran since at least 2007.

Israel is playing a very specific role to keep it isolated from the West and its Arab partners in the region for as long as possible - both to lend extremist forces operating in and around Syria legitimacy they otherwise would not have with overt Israeli backing, as well as to portray Israel as the "victim" of staged or intentionally provoked attacks from within Syria, Lebanon and even Iran. Such "victimization" would allow Israel to retaliate and give Western nations desperately needed justification to also intervene and save their failed proxy war.

This is not mere speculation, but rather a conclusion based on documented policy papers produced by the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution, one of many think-tanks engineering US-Saudi-Israeli policy.

One such policy paper, the 2009 Brookings "Which Path to Persia?" report, explicitly states the compartmentalized role Israel would serve in planned subversion and aggression versus Iran and how Israel could offer the West a "foot in the door" to wider military intervention in the region. It states [emphasis added]:

"...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) " -page 84-85, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.

And:

"Israel appears to have done extensive planning and practice for such a strike already, and its aircraft are probably already based as close to Iran as possible. as such, Israel might be able to launch the strike in a matter of weeks or even days, depending on what weather and intelligence conditions it felt it needed. Moreover, since Israel would have much less of a need (or even interest) in securing regional support for the operation, Jerusalem probably would feel less motivated to wait for an Iranian provocation before attacking. In short, Israel could move very fast to implement this option if both Israeli and American leaders wanted it to happen.

However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion)." -page 91, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.

Similar calls to use Israel, and its regional partner, NATO-member Turkey, to conduct similar provocations versus Syria have been made by Brookings more recently in a report titled, "Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution."

In the report, Brookings describes how Israeli efforts in the south of Syria, combined with Turkey's aligning of vast amounts of weapons and troops along its border to the north, could help effect violent regime change in Syria:

"In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly." -page 6, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Israel then, still maintaining this posture and attempting to distance itself from the current political struggle over Syria may still be planning intentional or even staged provocations. A recent warning from Russia involving a false flag attack carried out by terrorists inside Syria against Israel provides a very plausible scenario that would give Israel rhetorical justification to strike Syria in hopes of starting a wider war involving pre-positioned Western forces now on standby.

American "Exceptionalism:" The rotting fruits of dead empires, Hitler's Germany, and racist British imperialism

In a recent speech made by US President Barack Obama, he claimed that the United States was "exceptional," echoing the delusions of grandeur of corporate-financier interests and the think-tank policy makers in their orbit. "American Exceptionalism," proclaims that the US is somehow different than all other nations, and by inference, better. It gives the United States the ability to circumvent international law it itself has contrived, to do as it wills both within and beyond its borders, because it "knows better" than the rest of the world.

Its standing alone on the issue of Syria, with even the American public rejecting wholly the concept of another war based on clearly fabricated evidence, shows just where the wellspring of "American Exceptionalism" lies - among the corporate financier elite who invented it.

It is a revolting concept that echos the racist imperialism of Britannia and the unhinged belligerence of Nazi Germany, used to justify the violation of human rights through the subjugation by invasion, occupation and wholesale exploitation of other nations. It seeks to justify what evidence, reason, logic, and global consensus has otherwise opposed, and is the last rhetorical resort for a crumbling empire unable to justify its actions any other way.

A nation basing its actions upon the world stage through such justifications is a dangerous one that depends on the illusion of its superiority. As that illusion crumbles, it will seek to reassert it through increasingly desperate and abhorrent mechanisms. This includes false flag attacks to trigger wars where it can justify the flexing of its military might, and thus scare the international community back in line.

With the West pledging to continue the arming and funding of terrorists in Syria, thus jeopardizing the safety of UN inspectors who will eventually attempt to survey, secure, and neutralize Syria's chemical weapons, we can see there is no genuine intent to end the violence in Syria with anything less than regime change in favor of Western interests. The goal was never humanitarian in nature, only the propaganda used to perpetuate the conflict was "humanitarian." A nation that would intentionally create a humanitarian catastrophe to then use as a pretext for further war is a nation exceptional only in regards to the depths of its own depravity. Like their historical predecessors citing "superiority" and "exceptionalism," the interests driving America now are destined for their own ignominious place upon the scrap heap of history. The question is, how much damage will they cause between now and then?

PERJANJIAN NUKLIR IRAN, JALAN DAMAI ATAU PERANG?

http://cahyono-adi.blogspot.com/2013/11/perjanjian-nuklir-iran-jalan-damai-atau.html#more

Baru 2 hari perjanjian nuklir Iran ditandatangani oleh pihak-pihak yang terlibat dalam perundingan di Genewa, namun "perselisihan" antara Amerika dan Iran sudah terjadi kembali.

Pada hari Selasa (26/11) Iran mengecam intepretasi perjanjian yang dirilis Amerika melalui situs resmi Gedung Putih dengan menyebutnya sebagai pernyataan pers yang "invalid".

“Apa yang telah dirilis oleh situs resmi Gedung Putih sebagai "lembar-lembar nyata" merupakan intepretasi sepihak dari teks sebenarnya yang ditandatangani di Geneva dan sebagian dari penjelasan dan kalimatnya bertentangan dengan teks "Joint Plan of Action", dan disayangkan lembaran-lembaran itu telah diterjemahkan dan dirilis oleh beberapa media massa sebagai Perjanjian Genewa, yang sebenarnya tidak benar,” kata jubir kemenlu Iran Marziyeh Afkham di Teheran, Selasa (26/11).

"Perselisihan" kecil itu sontak membuat "kesadaran" saya kembali tergugah, bahwa sebuah "konspirasi" kemungkinan telah dijalankan dalam perundingan nuklir Iran tersebut. Pikiran saya pun kembali ke sekitar bulan September dan Oktober, ketika Amerika secara tiba-tiba membatalkan rencana serangan militer terhadap Syria yang telah dipublikasikan besar-besaran. Sebulan kemudian Presiden Barack Obama menelpon Presiden Iran Hassan Rouhani dalam satu momen yang dianggap sebagai "momen paling penting tahun ini". Dilanjutkan kemudian dengan ke-aktifan Amerika dalam perundingan nuklir Iran di Genewa yang ditandatangani Minggu lalu (24/11).

Semua itu pun secara efektif berhasil mengubah Amerika, dari sosok yang gila perang, menjadi pecinta perdamaian nomor satu di dunia.

Kemudian muncul sebuah artikel di blog Land Destroyer yang dimuat ulang di situs thetruthseeker.co.uk tgl 27 November 2013, atau sehari setelah pernyataan pers kemenlu Iran tersebut di atas. Artikel itu berjudul "Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not “Breakthrough”" yang ditulis oleh kolumnis Tony Cartalucci. Dalam tulisan itu dicantumkan satu teks dari laporan tahun 2009 lembaga kajian yang dekat dengan kalangan neokonservatif Amerika, Brookings Institution, berjudul “Which Path to Persia?”:

“…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.”

Secara ringkas teks tersebut menyebutkan bahwa "untuk memerangi Iran diperlukan satu kondisi yang dipercayai oleh publik dunia bahwa Amerika telah memberikan kepercayaan yang tulus kepada Iran mengenai program nuklirnya, namun dikhianati oleh Iran yang ternyata berambisi untuk memiliki senjata nuklir".

Ditulis tahun 2009, ketika US bersama Saudi Arabia dan Israel tengah aktif mempersiapkan serangan terhadap sekutu utama Iran, Syria, dengan menggunakan unsur-unsur teroris Al Qaeda. Serangan itu merupakan serangan pendahuluan untuk melemahkan Iran sebelum serangan langsung terhadap Iran akhirnya tidak bisa dielakkan.

Isu tentang senjata nuklir Iran sebenarnya tidak berdasar sama sekali. Program nuklir Iran sepenuhnya dalam pengawasan IAEA untuk keperluan damai. Sama seperti program nuklir damai di negara-negara lain. Bahkan beberapa negara lain yang secara diam-diam memiliki senjata nuklir tanpa persetujuan PBB, aman tidak tersentuh: Jepang, Brazil, Afrika Selatan, Korea Utara, Pakistan, India dan Israel. Namun isu senjata nuklir Iran diperlukan Amerika karena Iran, yang salah satu landasan idiologinya adalah pembebasan Palestina dari pendudukan Israel, dianggap sebagai musuh nyata bagi dominasi Amerika-Israel.

Jadi buat apa, setelah bersusah payah selama bertahun-tahun menciptakan ketegangan isu senjata nuklir Iran, Amerika tiba-tiba saja mau repot-repot berdamai dengan Iran?

REF:
"Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not “Breakthrough”"; Tony Cartalucci; Land Destroyer; 26 November 2013

"Iran Strongly Rejects Text of Geneva Agreement Released by White House"; Fars News Agency; 26 November 2013

DI BALIK LAYAR PERUNDINGAN NUKLIR IRAN

http://cahyono-adi.blogspot.com/2013/11/di-balik-layar-perundingan-nuklir-iran.html#.UpijySdeFkg

Kesepakatan nuklir Iran yang dicapai oleh negara-negara anggota tetap DK PBB + Jerman dengan Iran hari Minggu lalu (24/11), tidak mungkin tercapai tanpa adanya perundingan rahasia yang sangat panjang antara para pejabat Amerika dan Iran.

Secara umum dalam kesepakatan tersebut ditetapkan bahwa Iran berhak mengembangkan program nuklirnya namun hanya untuk keperluan damai dengan pembatasan pengayaan uranium hingga 5% (untuk membuat senjata diperlukan kadar uranium 20%). Selain itu Iran juga memperlonggar pengawasan internasional dengan mengijinkan para pengawas nuklir internasional mengadakan kunjungan terhadap seluruh fasilitas nuklir Iran setiap saat. Sebagai imbalannya sanksi-sanksi ekonomi yang selama ini diterapkan negara-negara barat terhadap Iran dibatalkan secara bertahap, di antaranya meliputi pencairan rekening-rekening pendapatan minyak Iran yang dibekukan barat yang nilainya mencapai $4 miliar atau lebih dari Rp 40 triliun, pembatalan pembatasan perdagangan emas, petrokimia, mobil dan onderdil pesawat.

Lebih dari itu, kesepakatan tersebut membuka peluang bagi pulihnya hubungan diplomatik Amerika-Iran yang terputus setelah Revolusi Iran tahun 1979.

Informasi adanya pertemuan rahasia antara para pejabat Iran dan Amerika di samping pertemuan resmi negara-negara DK PBB plus Jerman dengan Iran di Genewa sebenarnya telah bocor ke media massa mapan Associated Press. Namun atas permintaan Presiden Barack Obama yang tidak ingin pembicaraan nuklir dengan Iran mengalami kegagalan, informasi itu disembunyikan dari perhatian publik. Associated Press dan
Al-Monitor (situs berita berbasis di Washington, Amerika) baru memberitakan informasi tersebut pada hari yang sama dengan kesepakatan nuklir Iran, hari Minggu (24/11).

Associated Press melaporkan bahwa pertemuan-pertemuan rahasia tersebut dilaksanakan di beberapa negara, termasuk di antaranya Oman. Di antara pejabat Amerika yang terlibat adalah Deputi Menlu William Burns dan Jake Sullivan yang merupakan penasihat luar negeri Wapres Joe Biden. Sedangkan Al-Monitor menambahkan di antara pejabat Amerika tersebut adalah pejabat senior National Security Council Puneet Talwar. Menurut laporan Associated Press pertemuan-pertemuan rahasia itu berlangsung sebanyak 5 kali dimulai bulan Maret lalu, atau 3 bulan sebelum terpilihnya Hassan Rouhani sebagai Presiden Iran. Namun baik Associated Press maupun al Monitor tidak menyebutkan pejabat-opejabat Iran yang terlibat dalam pertemuan-pertemuan tersebut.

Pertemuan-pertemuan rahasia tersebut, sebut Associated Press, telah memberi jalan bagi tercapainya kesepakatan nuklir Iran di Genewa hari Minggu lalu. Namun pertemuan-pertemuan tersebut juga menjelaskan mengapa menlu Perancis Laurent Fabius, yang tersinggung dengan adanya pertemuan-pertemuan sepihak Amerika-Iran, memveto kesepakatan yang sudah nyaris ditandatangani pada putaran perundingan sebelumnya.

"Meski pengumuman ini baru tahap awal, namun telah berhasil meraih sebuah kesepatan besar," kata Barack obama dalam keterangan persnya tentang kesepakatan tersebut. "Untuk pertama kalinya dalama satu dekade, kami telah berhasil menghentikan program nuklir Iran dan unsur-unsur kunci dalam program itu akan ditarik ulang," tambahnya.

Sementara di Iran, para anggota tim negosiasi yang dipimpin menlu Mohammad Javad Zarif mendapat sambutan hangat bak pahlawan. Mereka bahkan mendapat pujian dari pemimpin tertinggi Iran Ayatollah Mohammad Khamenei yang sebelumnya merasa pesimis akana tercapai kesepakatan yang menguntungkan Iran.

Ketika massa mengelu-elukan kedatangan tim negosiator Iran di bandara Teheran, nilai tukar mata uang Iran, rial, melonjak hingga 3%.

“Ini hanyalah tahap awal. Kita mulai bergerak pada arah kepercayaan diri yang pulih, arah dimana dahulu kita abaikan," kata menlu Iran usai kedatangannya kembali di Teheran.

Kesepakatan hari Minggu tercapai setelah perundingan alot selama 3 putaran yang berpuncak pada perundingan tengah malam yang berlangsung di sebuah hotel bintang 5 di Genewa, Swiss, yang dipimpin oleh kepala urusan luar negeri Uni Eropa Catherine Ashton. Menlu Inggris William Hague, Menlu Perancis Laurent Fabius, Menlu Jerman Guido Westerwelle, Menlu Rusia Sergey Lavrov dan Menlu Cina Wang Yi, turut hadir dalam perundingan tersebut. Namun kesepakatan akhir baru tercapai setelah pertemuan intensif yang hanya dihadiri oleh Menlu Amerika John Kerry, Menlu Iran Zarif dan Catherine Ashton.

SAUDI YANG KELEBAKAN

Sementara itu Saudi Arabia yang menganggap Iran sebagai musuh terbesarnya menunjukkan sikap mendua tentang kesepakatan nuklir Iran tersebut. Di forum resmi Saudi menyatakan mendukung kesepakatan tersebut, namun di belakang para pejabat Saudi mengutuk keras kesepakatan tersebut.

Beberapa waktu yang lalu seorang pangeran Saudi yang juga mantan kepala inteligen menegaskan bahwa negaranya tidak menginginkan sanksi ekonomi dihapuskan terhadap Iran. Dengan kata lain, ia tidak menginginkan adanya kesepakatan dalam perundingan nuklir Iran.

Sementara itu dalam sebuah wawancara dengan media Amerika Wall Street Journal yang dilansir Islam Times hari Senin (25/11), Pangeran Saudi al-Waleed bin Talal mengutuk kesepakatan tersebut. Lebih jauh ia bahkan mengakui negaranya memiliki kesamaan sikap terhadap program nuklir Iran dan mengulangi tuduhan PM Israeal Benjamin Netanyahu yang menyebut Presiden Iran sebagai "srigala berbulu domba".

"Saudi dan Israel memiliki kepentingan sama, dan mengutuk setiap perjanjian yang tidak menyangkut penghentian kemampuan Iran untuk memperkaya uranium," kata Waleed bin Talal.

"Untuk pertama kalinya, kepentingan Arab Saudi dan Israel hampir paralel. Saat ini Saudi Arabia mencoba memberikan tekanan maksimum terhadap Amerika Serikat yang menyerah dan bicara lembut terhadap Iran," tambahnya.

Pangeran super kaya raya itu menegaskan bahwa opsi militer untuk menetralisir potensi nuklir Iran adalah lebih baik dari kesepakatan diplomatik yang buruk.

REF:
"Secret US-Iran talks cleared way for historic nuclear deal"; Julian Borger and Saeed Kamali Dehghan; gaurdian.co.uk; 24 November 2013
"Pangeran Saudi: "Hasan Rohani Serigala Berbulu Domba""; islamtimes.org; 25 November 2013

1 komentar:

bintang baihaqi mengatakan...: Keberkahan semoga tercurah utk Bangsa dan Rakyat Iran dan seluruh bangsa-bangsa yang anti zionis israel-wahabi.; 27 November 2013 20.23

Program Nuklir Damai Iran

Pangeran Saudi: "Hasan Rohani Serigala Berbulu Domba"

http://www.islamtimes.org/vdceee8xpjh8wxi.rabj.html

Islam Times- Pangeran super kaya raya itu menegaskan bahwa opsi militer untuk menetralisir potensi nuklir Iran adalah lebih baik dari kesepakatan diplomatik yang buruk.

al-Waleed bin Talal

Pangeran Arab Saudi, al-Waleed bin Talal mengakui adanya kesamaan kepentingan antara Riyadh dan Tel Aviv mengenai Iran dan mendukung serangan militer terhadap Republik Islam untuk menetralisir potensi nuklir Tehran.

Dalam sebuah wawancara dengan Wall Street Journal yang dilansir oleh al-Alam pada Ahad, 24/11/13, melaporkan, al-Waleed bin Talal mengutuk kesepakatan antara Iran dan Barat atas program nuklir Tehran yang tidak akan mencakup penghentian pengayaan Uranium di Republik Islam.

Dikatakannya, "Saudi dan Israel memiliki kepentingan sama, dan mengutuk setiap perjanjian yang tidak menyangkut penghentian kemampuan Iran untuk memperkaya uranium".

Waleed bin Talal juga mendukung pernyataan Perdana Menteri Israel yang menyebut bahwa presiden Iran Hassan Rouhani adalah serigala berbulu domba.

Lebih lanjut dikatakannya, Israel dan Arab Saudi sama-sama berbagi kepentingan atas Iran dan menyebutnya sebagai hal yang luar biasa dan mengatakan, "Untuk pertama kalinya, kepentingan Arab Saudi dan Israel hampir paralel".

"Saat ini Saudi Arabia mencoba memberikan tekanan maksimum terhadap Amerika Serikat yang menyerah dan bicara lembut terhadap Iran," tambahnya.

Pangeran super kaya raya itu menegaskan bahwa opsi militer untuk menetralisir potensi nuklir Iran adalah lebih baik dari kesepakatan diplomatik yang buruk.[It/Onh/Ass]

Ready to detonate: Saudi-backed rebels strap bombs to Geneva-2 talks

Nile Bowie

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2013/10/ready-to-detonate-saudi-backed-rebels.html?utm_source=BP_recent

As Syria’s rebels refuse to take part in Geneva-2, Saudi Arabia has emerged as the primary state-backer of rebel groups now trying to escalate the Syrian conflict and topple Assad by force.

When Vladimir Putin met with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia in August, the newly appointed Intelligence Chief reportedly tried to cut a deal with Moscow by promising to buy billions in Russian arms and pledging not to challenge Russian gas sales to Europe in exchange for withdrawing support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Though later refuted by the Kremlin, the media reports suggested that Bandar told Putin to forget about any political solution to the Syrian conflict.

In addition to being the main propagator of a militant anti-Shiite form of Islam that many rebel fighters subscribe to, the Saudi monarchy has become the chief financier of anti-Assad movements aimed at toppling the Syrian government and weakening its allies in Iran and Hezbollah. Russian diplomatic sources claim that the August 21 chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus was carried out by a Saudi-black op team with support from the Liwa Al-Islam group, a hardline militia headed by the son of a Saudi-based Salafi cleric.

Following the attack in August, Saudi Arabian diplomats pressured Obama to take military action – the collective message was, "You can't as president draw a line and then not respect it."

The Saudi strategy consisted of staging the August 21 attack that Assad’s forces would be credited with, and using it to support foreign intervention to topple Damascus.

The landmark chemical weapon disarmament deal hatched by Russia tripped the House of Saud and prevented US unilateral actions against Syria, but Assad’s opponents are by no means ready to explore a political solution to the conflict.

Washington claims to be working towards Geneva-2, but, like many rebel groups, maintains that Assad should resign before any talks take place. Essentially, this position is a form of blackmail of Russia and Assad’s allies – it calls for either the Western-backed opposition in exile to absorb executive power, or a prolonged military conflict. Assad’s opponents are not serious about a political solution, as demanding that one party resigns as a precondition before the other party can negotiate completely undermines the premise of dialogue to begin with.

A civil war within a civil war

The main feature of the Syrian battleground is that armed groups of the opposition are becoming more and more split and prone to infighting.

Recent fighting between the Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant group against battalions linked to the Western-backed Free Syrian Army have killed dozens in Aleppo; this discord between rebel groups paints of a picture of what Syria could look like even if Assad is toppled.

The levels of instability seen today in Libya and Iraq are an indication of how bad things can get when lawless militias are empowered in the absence of a central governing authority. If Assad’s opponents had their way in Syria, dozens of groups would take advantage of the post-Assad power vacuum to vie for control. This means that although the Baath-dominated political establishment would be toppled, it would certainly not result in an end to the conflict, only the beginning of a new and more ruthless chapter.

The Free Syrian Army is increasingly losing clout on the ground as rival groups refuse to take orders from their command structure, which is gradually being viewed with suspicion by other rebel battalions due to its links with Washington.

Islamist factions such as Jabhat Al-Nusra, the Farouq Brigade, and Jaish Al-Islam seek to form a new caliphate with Damascus as its capital. This new state would be subservient to Saudi Arabia and its brand of ideological Wahhabism and it would reject an inclusive secular framework; it would be hostile to Alawites, Shiites, Christians, and anyone branded an “unbeliever.”

In this scenario, Syria would become a global hub for jihad and those foreign fighters who took part in the war would return to their home countries and potentially carry out similar tactics used in Syria, posing a potential threat. The Pandora ’s Box of radicalism has already been opened in Syria, and the only chance of closing it will come through a partnership between the Syrian government and those groups who allege to be moderates.

Moderate war criminal vs. Radical war criminal

The distinction is often made between the radical Islamist elements and the more secular and moderate elements of Syria’s opposition, but it should not be forgotten that both camps are widely credited with war crimes by various human rights organizations.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) recently published a compelling report detailing a systematically planned campaign against civilians in the pro-government Alawite-stronghold of Latakia, where nearly 200 innocents were killed by means of torture, beheading, and execution. Although the report details how several private donors from Gulf countries contributed funds to rebel groups, the report falls short in its failure to ask tough political questions about the sources of funding.

Syria’s opposition militias are more mercenaries than rebels, and the significant resources they’ve amassed signal massive state-sponsorship. Saudi Arabia and the CIA have been the principal financiers of rebel groups, and although it is publically denied, the massive influx of arms they’ve provided for the conflict have empowered radical elements in Syria – to gloss over these realities would be negligent.

As the chief of Saudi Intelligence, Prince Bandar is now building a new strategy that would see Riyadh’s central foreign-policy goal of toppling Assad realized. As long as that goal comes to fruition, the secular or radical orientation of the militias really does not make a difference.

Bandar’s aim is to broaden Saudi Arabia’s regional clout so as to position himself strategically when the next royal succession takes place. As Washington and Riyadh evidently have no interest in a political solution, a new pretext would be required to escalate the conflict to force Assad out. If chemical weapons are used again, Assad can either be blamed for their use or blamed for allowing rebels to capture his stockpiles. Intervention can be justified on the basis of “punishing” Assad or under the mandate of peacekeeping and humanitarianism.

If the work of the foreign inspectors, tasked with dismantling Syria’s chemical stockpiles, is disrupted, or if either party harms OPCW personnel, this can also be another channel that would allow Washington to threaten Assad with unilateral strikes and other consequences. If the Obama administration is truly interested in resolving this conflict, it should tell Bandar to halt and freeze its aid to the rebels in exchange for dialogue with Assad, with no preconditions under the framework of Geneva-2.

This story originally appeared on RT.com

Nile Bowie is a Malaysia-based political analyst and a columnist with Russia Today. He also contributes to PressTV, Global Research, and CounterPunch. He can be reached at nilebowie@gmail.com.

Iran Strongly Rejects Text of Geneva Agreement Released by White House

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920905001087

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Tuesday called invalid a press release by the White House alleged to be the text of the nuclear agreement struck by Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) in Geneva on Sunday.

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham said on Tuesday.

She said that the four-page text under the name of the Joint Plan of Action (which has been released by the Iranian foreign ministry) was the result of the agreement reached during the Geneva talks and all of its sentences and words were chosen based on the considerations of all parties to the talks. In fact one of the reasons why negotiations between Iran and the G5+1 took so long pertained to the accuracy which was needed for choosing the words for the text of the agreement, Afkham said, explaining that the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.

Afkham said that the text of the Joint Plan of Action was provided to the media a few hours after the two sides agreed on it.

After the White House released a modified version of the deal struck by Iran and the six world powers in Geneva early Sunday morning, the Iranian Foreign Ministry released the text of the agreement.

The full text of the deal is as follows:

Geneva, 24 November 2013

Joint Plan of Action

Preamble

The goal for these negotiations is to reach a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iran's nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons. This comprehensive solution would build on these initial measures and result in a final step for a period to be agreed upon and the resolution of concerns. This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein. This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme. This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This comprehensive solution would involve a reciprocal, step-bystep process, and would produce the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions, as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran's nuclear programme.

There would be additional steps in between the initial measures and the final step, including, among other things, addressing the UN Security Council resolutions, with a view toward bringing to a satisfactory conclusion the UN Security Council's consideration of this matter. The E3+3 and Iran will be responsible for conclusion and implementation of mutual near-term measures and the comprehensive solution in good faith. A Joint Commission of E3/EU+3 and Iran will be established to monitor the implementation of the near-term measures and address issues that may arise, with the IAEA responsible for verification of nuclear-related measures. The Joint Commission will work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern.

Elements of a first step The first step would be time-bound, with a duration of 6 months, and renewable by mutual consent, during which all parties will work to maintain a constructive atmosphere for negotiations in good faith. Iran would undertake the following voluntary measures:

• From the existing uranium enriched to 20%, retain half as working stock of 20% oxide for fabrication of fuel for the TRR. Dilute the remaining 20% UF6 to no more than 5%. No reconversion line.

• Iran announces that it will not enrich uranium over 5% for the duration of the 6 months.

• Iran announces that it will not make any further advances of its activities at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant1, Fordow2, or the Arak reactor3, designated by the IAEA as IR-40.

• Beginning when the line for conversion of UF6 enriched up to 5% to UO2 is ready, Iran has decided to convert to oxide UF6 newly enriched up to 5% during the 6 month period, as provided in the operational schedule of the conversion plant declared to the IAEA.

• No new locations for the enrichment.

• Iran will continue its safeguarded R&D practices, including its current enrichment R&D practices, which are not designed for accumulation of the enriched uranium.

• No reprocessing or construction of a facility capable of reprocessing.

• Enhanced monitoring:

o Provision of specified information to the IAEA, including information on Iran's plans for nuclear facilities, a description of each building on each nuclear site, a description of the scale of operations for each location engaged in specified nuclear activities, information on uranium mines and mills, and information on source material. This information would be provided within three months of the adoption of these measures.

o Submission of an updated DIQ for the reactor at Arak, designated by the IAEA as the IR-40, to the IAEA.

o Steps to agree with the IAEA on conclusion of the Safeguards Approach for the reactor at Arak, designated by the IAEA as the IR-40.

o Daily IAEA inspector access when inspectors are not present for the purpose of Design Information Verification, Interim Inventory Verification, Physical Inventory Verification, and unannounced inspections, for the purpose of access to offline surveillance records, at Fordow and Natanz.

o IAEA inspector managed access to:

centrifuge assembly workshops4;

centrifuge rotor production workshops and storage facilities; and, uranium mines and mills.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

1 Namely, during the 6 months, Iran will not feed UF6 into the centrifuges installed but not enriching uranium. Not install additional centrifuges. Iran announces that during the first 6 months, it will replace existing centrifuges with centrifuges of the same type.

2 At Fordow, no further enrichment over 5% at 4 cascades now enriching uranium, and not increase enrichment capacity. Not

feed UF6 into the other 12 cascades, which would remain in a non-operative state. No interconnections between cascades.

Iran announces that during the first 6 months, it will replace existing centrifuges with centrifuges of the same type.

3 Iran announces on concerns related to the construction of the reactor at Arak that for 6 months it will not commission the reactor or transfer fuel or heavy water to the reactor site and will not test additional fuel or produce more fuel for the reactor or install remaining components.

4 Consistent with its plans, Iran's centrifuge production during the 6 months will be dedicated to replace damaged machines.

In return, the E3/EU+3 would undertake the following voluntary measures:

• Pause efforts to further reduce Iran's crude oil sales, enabling Iran's current customers to purchase their current average amounts of crude oil. Enable the repatriation of an agreed amount of revenue held abroad. For such oil sales, suspend the EU and U.S. sanctions on associated insurance and transportation services.

• Suspend U.S. and EU sanctions on:

o Iran's petrochemical exports, as well as sanctions on associated services.5 o Gold and precious metals, as well as sanctions on associated services.

• Suspend U.S. sanctions on Iran's auto industry, as well as sanctions on associated services.

• License the supply and installation in Iran of spare parts for safety of flight for Iranian civil aviation and associated services. License safety related inspections and repairs in Iran as well as associated services.6

• No new nuclear-related UN Security Council sanctions.

• No new EU nuclear-related sanctions.

• The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the

Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.

• Establish a financial channel to facilitate humanitarian trade for Iran's domestic needs using Iranian oil revenues held abroad. Humanitarian trade would be defined as transactions involving food and agricultural products, medicine, medical devices, and medical expenses incurred abroad. This channel would involve specified foreign banks and non-designated Iranian banks to be defined when establishing the channel.

o This channel could also enable:

transactions required to pay Iran's UN obligations; and, direct tuition payments to universities and colleges for Iranian students studying abroad, up to an agreed amount for the six month period.

• Increase the EU authorisation thresholds for transactions for non-sanctioned trade to an agreed amount.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

5 "Sanctions on associated services" means any service, such as insurance, transportation, or financial, subject to the underlying U.S. or EU sanctions applicable, insofar as each service is related to the underlying sanction and required to facilitate the desired transactions. These services could involve any non-designated Iranian entities.

6 Sanctions relief could involve any non-designated Iranian airlines as well as Iran Air.

Elements of the final step of a comprehensive solution*

The final step of a comprehensive solution, which the parties aim to conclude negotiating and commence implementing no more than one year after the adoption of this document, would:

• Have a specified long-term duration to be agreed upon.

• Reflect the rights and obligations of parties to the NPT and IAEA Safeguards Agreements.

• Comprehensively lift UN Security Council, multilateral and national nuclear-related sanctions, including steps on access in areas of trade, technology, finance, and energy, on a schedule to be agreed upon.

• Involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with mutually agreed parameters consistent with practical needs, with agreed limits on scope and level of enrichment activities, capacity, where it is carried out, and stocks of enriched uranium, for a period to be agreed upon.

• Fully resolve concerns related to the reactor at Arak, designated by the IAEA as the IR-40.

No reprocessing or construction of a facility capable of reprocessing.

• Fully implement the agreed transparency measures and enhanced monitoring. Ratify and implement the Additional Protocol, consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Majlis (Iranian parliament).

• Include international civil nuclear cooperation, including among others, on acquiring modern light water power and research reactors and associated equipment, and the supply of modern nuclear fuel as well as agreed R&D practices.

Following successful implementation of the final step of the comprehensive solution for its full duration, the Iranian nuclear programme will be treated in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT.

* With respect to the final step and any steps in between, the standard principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" applies.

Selasa, 26 November 2013

THE FINAL RESULT OF AMERICAN GAMES IN AFGHANISTAN WARFARE THAT THEY CREATED SINCE 911 WTC 2001... BY BIG LIER ISSUES... AND DEMOLISHED WTC TOWER NO 1 AND 2 AND 7... ?? >> ITS DID BY BUSH REGIME AND PEELS- ISRAEL-CIA-MI-6... AS CONSPIRATION OF THE INSIDERS JOB...>> SO HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE DIED AND WOUNDED... AND THE RUINS OF SO A LOT INFRA STRUCTURES.. AND ALSO HUMANITY ....>> REALLY ITS A HUGE CRIME COLONIALIST WAR..AND CRIME FOR MANKIND...??>> USA AND PEELS MUST BE BROUGHT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT.. AND GIFT THE SO STRONGLY HEAVY PUNISHMENT ....>> THIS THE BETRAYEL OF BASIC HUMANITY AND JUSTICE....>> AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE WELKNOWN AS THE MOST EDUCATED PEOPLE AND HAVE THE RICH AND MODERN COUNTRY... BUT UNLUCKY..THEY HAVE THE BADLY BRUTAL MORALITY AND SUCH LIKE MAKING WAR AND UNFAIR... POLITICAL BEHAVIORS..??>> SO WHAT ....??!! >> .... IS IT THE REAL AMERICAN...OR MAY BE WHICH IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT...?? We all know that Americans destroyed Iraq by lying that it had WMD. Similarly, they invaded and destroyed Afghanistan claiming that Ben Laden, then in Afghanistan, was responsible for 9/11, another unsubstantiated claim. Now, after the phony Seal 6 story of killing and dumping Ben Laden’s body in the ocean, they want to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Why? Some say they are in cahoots with UK queen to control the profits from the opium fields, while others also point to Afghanistan’s large uranium mines. On top of that, they also want to continue their crimes without being subject to due process under Afghanistan laws! Low and behold all those so-called supporters of human rights...>> You're right. But let me add some in. A host of political experts and military personnel in the western world are whispering the US is the main loser of these 10 years war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Even though it has inflicted severe damages to the infrastructure of these two countries. The US economy has gone, over 1 million US soldiers have been severely wounded as a result of necessary clashes between Taliban. The pain appears to be greater in the US part as it leads to sporadic internal revolts never seeing since the black liberation movement of the 60s. The only chance of declaring victory for the US while the situation has highly improved on the ground is to be able to stay another 10 years. This is where this pact comes to play and has become important for the US. With also the hope to be able to use it against a Iran. ..>>

Afghanistan rejects US demand on bilateral security agreement

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/22/336039/afghanistan-rejects-us-demand-on-bsa/

Afghanistan has rejected the US demand to sign a security deal with Washington, known as the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), as soon as possible.

The US said on Thursday it wants the key security pact approved and signed by Kabul by the end of 2013.

White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said, “Failure to get this [agreement] approved and signed by the end of the year would prevent the United States and our allies from being able to plan for a post-2014 presence.”

Earlier in the day, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai said during his address to Loya Jirga, or grand council, that the BSA would be signed by the Afghan government after the presidential election.

On Friday, his spokesman, Aimal Faizi, reiterated Karzai’s stance on the issue, saying, “Security, peace and good elections are key to the signing of the BSA.”

“Let's wait and see what will the Loya Jirga decide on the document. If approved, as the president said, it will be signed after elections,” Faizi added.

Loya Jirga is Afghanistan’s assembly of some 2,500 tribal elders and political leaders from across the country who have gathered in the capital Kabul to discuss the BSA.

People in Afghanistan will go to the polls on April 5, 2014, to elect a successor to Karzai.

Under the BSA, US troops would be allowed to remain in Afghanistan beyond the 2014 deadline.

Kabul has agreed to US military operations under special circumstances and American troops' immunity from prosecution in Afghanistan.

Anti-US sentiments have been on the rise in Afghanistan due to the deadly raids carried out by the US and other foreign troops in the war-torn country.

Afghans have also held several demonstrations against the security deal with the United States.

MR/SS

Cheezehead

Nov 22, 2013 7:54 PM

they did the American people a favor by not supporting that agreement: we need to stay home and fix our own problems instead of occupying other nations and fighting wars!

Click to Rate ReplyRating1

Percy

Nov 22, 2013 7:0 PM

We all know that Americans destroyed Iraq by lying that it had WMD. Similarly, they invaded and destroyed Afghanistan claiming that Ben Laden, then in Afghanistan, was responsible for 9/11, another unsubstantiated claim. Now, after the phony Seal 6 story of killing and dumping Ben Laden’s body in the ocean, they want to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Why? Some say they are in cahoots with UK queen to control the profits from the opium fields, while others also point to Afghanistan’s large uranium mines. On top of that, they also want to continue their crimes without being subject to due process under Afghanistan laws! Low and behold all those so-called supporters of human rights.

Click to Rate ReplyRating8

atamaz jalizin reply to Percy

11/22/2013 8:12:40 PM

You're right. But let me add some in. A host of political experts and military personnel in the western world are whispering the US is the main loser of these 10 years war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Even though it has inflicted severe damages to the infrastructure of these two countries. The US economy has gone, over 1 million US soldiers have been severely wounded as a result of necessary clashes between Taliban. The pain appears to be greater in the US part as it leads to sporadic internal revolts never seeing since the black liberation movement of the 60s. The only chance of declaring victory for the US while the situation has highly improved on the ground is to be able to stay another 10 years. This is where this pact comes to play and has become important for the US. With also the hope to be able to use it against a Iran.

Honest

Nov 22, 2013 6:7 PM

That is not difficult. US should raise the money and other perks. Karzai will definite sell his country.

Click to Rate ReplyRating7

ALIAS

Nov 22, 2013 4:8 PM

Karzai is an US puppet, but nobody's fool. Like the US, he knows how to get the cake and eat it too. But if he can't get the Loya Jirga to give him what he wants, he'll let the US dollars get them for him. Karzai doesn't want to go down as a traitor or be found hanging in a tree. He wants to pass the buck to the next elected satrap, who'll keep feeding off the US all over again. Poor ordinary Afghans who don't care for dictators or democracy, they only want their lives.

Click to Rate ReplyRating15

khosro

Nov 22, 2013 1:58 PM

All those who know Afghanistan nation very well, are not expecting anything else but the "Afghanistan rejects US demand on bilateral security agreement", from them for now and then.

Click to Rate ReplyRating14

Nick

Nov 22, 2013 1:17 PM

Next step will be duffel bags full of dollars delivered by US generals to tribal chiefs for their "agreement."

Click to Rate ReplyRating22

Igorin reply to Nick

11/22/2013 1:30:03 PM

They should take money and still kick USA .... out of Afghanistan.

Click to Rate Rating23

Truth

Nov 22, 2013 1:9 PM

The deal with USA was rejected. It will not be sign even if close of USA soldier immunity to crimes committed by them is scratched.

Click to Rate ReplyRating16

Rabiin reply to Truth

11/22/2013 1:22:57 PM

I am afraid that US will refuse to withdraw its soldiers from Afghanistan despite deal not being signed. USA military-indastrial lords will have do be forced to withdraw US army. Karzai is aware of that.

AFGHANISTAN TOLAK JADI BAWAHAN PERMANEN AMERIKA

Mengikuti tetangganya, Irak, yang menolak menjadi negara 1/2 jajahan Amerika, Afghanistan akhirnya menolak menandatangani perjanjian keamanan dengan Amerika (Bilateral Security Agreement) yang memberikan hak-hak istimewa kepada Amerika.

Dalam pernyataan di hadapan sidang para tetua agama dan masyarakat Lora Jirga yang digelar hari Kamis (21/11) Presiden Hamid Karzai mengatakan bahwa perjanjian keamanan akan ditandatangani oleh pemerintah mendatang setelah pemilu. Sehari kemudian jubir Karzai Aimal Faizi mengulang kembali pernyataan Karzai, "Keamanan, perdamaian dan pemilu yang baik adalah kunci untuk menandatangani perjanjian keamanan.”

http://cahyono-adi.blogspot.com/2013/11/afghanistan-tolak-jadi-bawahan-permanen.html#.UpRb0SeN6So

“Mari kita tunggu apa keputusan Loya Jirga atas dokumen itu. Jika disetujui, sebagai presiden, dokumen itu akan ditandatangani setelah pemilu," kata Faizi.

Padahal pada hari Kamis Amerika sudah menyatakan bahwa Amerika menginginkan perjanjian tersebut ditandatangani pada akhir tahun ini.

Jubir pemerintahan Amerika Josh Earnest, mengatakan, “kegagalan menandatangani perjanjian ini tahun ini akan mencegah Amerika dan sekutu-sekutu menetapkan rencana masa depan setelah tahun 2014.”

Loya Jirga adalah dewan rakyat Afghanistan yang beranggotakan 2.500 ketua suku dan pemimpin politik di seluruh Afghanistan. Mereka berkumpul di Kabul untuk membahasa perjanjian keamanan tersebut. Adapun pemilu presiden Afghanistan akan dilaksanakan tgl 5 April 2014.

Di bawah perjanjian keamanan yang dirancang Amerika berbulan-bulan itu sebagian pasukan Amerika diijinkan tetap tinggal di Afghanistan setelah tahun 2014. Selain itu tentara-tentara Amerika itu diberikan hak immunitas dari hukum Afgahistan. Namun kebencian terhadap Amerika sudah mendarah daging bagi sebagian besar rakyat Afghanistan terkait dengan banyaknya aksi-aksi biadab pasukan Amerika. Berbagai aksi demonstrasi juga telah digelar rakyat Afghanistan menentang perjanjian keamanan tersebut.

Jika Afghanistan benar-benar monolak perjanjian keamanan dengan Amerika, maka hal ini merupakan pengulangan dari apa yang terjadi di Irak sebelum penarikan pasukan Amerika tahun 2011. Kala itu pun Amerika memaksa pemerintah Irak menandatangani perjanjian yang memberi hak keberadaan pasukan Amerika dan kekebalan hukum bagi para personilnya. Namun karena penolakan rakyat Irak serta adanya jaminan keamanan dari Iran, maka Irak pun menolak perjanjian tersebut, dan Amerika terpaksa hengkang dengan tangan hampa setelah menghabiskan triliunan dolar biaya perang dan ribuan personil militernya yang tewas sia-sia.

REF:
"Afghanistan rejects US demand on bilateral security agreement"; PRESS TV; 22 November 2013

At least 18 people have been killed in an airstrike carried out by US-led forces in southern Afghanistan, Press TV reports.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/09/333761/usled-attacks-kill-in-afghanistan/

The attack was launched on Saturday in the Arghandab district in the restive southern province of Zabul.

Local officials said the victims of the airstrike were all members of the Taliban militant group. The Taliban have not yet commented on the report.

On October 31, six people died in a US-led airstrike in Afghanistan’s southeastern province of Paktia. Three people had lost their lives in a similar incident in the eastern province of Wardak on October 28.

Afghans have become increasingly outraged at the seemingly endless number of the deadly US airstrikes.

US drone strikes have been a major source of tension between the Afghan and the US governments as well. Kabul is demanding an immediate end to the airstrikes before signing a bilateral security deal with Washington.

The potential deal will allow the US military to remain in the country beyond a previously-scheduled 2014 withdrawal deadline.