Suspected Boston Marathon bomber killed last week had links to CIA...more to the story than meets the eye

credit: eventbrite.com

"According to documents received by Izvestia, a Russian language newspaper, Tamerlan Tsarnaev was recruited by Georgia's Caucasus Fund, its an organization run by the US non-profit Jamestown Foundation - a known front for the CIA. Jamestown’s board of directors includes Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter. Brzezinski, is a high-level globalist operative who initiated the CIA’s recruitment of Mujahideen (holy fighters) in Afghanistan that ultimately produced Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. CIA director William Casey and Russian dissident Arkady Shevchenko were instrumental in creating the organization.

"The documents were leaked from the files of Georgia's Ministry of Internal Affairs, Counterintelligence Dept. and reported to Izvestia, stating "that between January and July of 2012, Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended the CIA-sponsored workshops and seminars conducted by the NGO Fund of Caucasus."

The Caucasus Fund was established in November 2008, following the Georgian - Ossetian conflict, where the main purpose of the organization, according to Izvestia, is to “to recruit young people and intellectuals of the North Caucasus to enhance instability and extremism in the southern regions of Russia,” essentially "recruiting residents North Caucasus to work in the interests of the United States and Georgia."

"The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly complained to the United States State Department over what it feels is the Jamestown Foundation's meddling in its domestic affairs."

Sources:
Report: Boston bomber tied to conservative think tank - Dgital Journal

Tamerlane Tsarnaeva recruited via the Georgian Foundation - Izvestia.ru

John Kerry On Benghazi: "We Got A Lot More Important Things To Move On To" (REAL CLEAR POLITICS)

Well by all means Mr. Secretary, tell us how you really feel.

This was John Kerry’s first congressional appearance as Secretary of State, with the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday

Kerry chided the lawmakers “let’s put this behind us,” as there have been zero arrests and zero accountability on the Benghazi cover up — but...whistleblowers are now starting to come forward and with House Oversight Chairman Issa, the House Oversight Committee will start to get some answers to exactly what happened in Benghazi. Of course the current administration and State Dept would like to the use "the current" events around the globe to steer attention away from this matter, as Chairman Issa said, its not going to happen.

View the video and transcript between Kerry and Congressman Rohrabacher:

REAL CLEAR POLITICS
Posted on April 18, 2013

                     

[Video courtesy of RepDanaRohrabacher April 17, 2013]

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): Mr. Secretary, we think that there was a coverup of some kind of wrongdoing that led this administration to lie to the American people about the nature of the attack immediately after the attack and for a week after that attack. We need to have these questions answered. We need to talk to the people who are on the scene. Can you give us a commitment now that for this administration you will be coming up with the request, the honest request of this investigative committee as to who was evacuated and how to talk to them so we can get a straight answer and an understanding of what happened in Benghazi?

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: Well, before I became Secretary, Congressman, I believe I got the answers to who was evacuated and had a pretty good sense of what happened there. But now that I am the Secretary and I am responsible to you and the Congress, I can promise you that if you're not getting something that you have evidence of or you think you ought to be getting, we'll work with you. And I will appoint somebody to work directly with you starting tomorrow, with you, Mr. Chairman, to have a review of anything you don't think you've gotten that you're supposed to get. Let's get this done with, folks.

ROHRABACHER: Thanks.

KERRY: Let's figure out what it is that's missing, if it's legitimate or if it isn't. I don't think anybody lied to anybody. And let's find out exactly, together, what happened, because we need -- we got a lot more important things to move on to and get done. (House Foreign Affairs Committee, April 17, 2013)

India's 'one month wives' sex tourism EXPOSED

[to clarify, this practice is FORBIDDEN in Islam and illegal in India]

Teenager exposes India's 'one month wives' sex tourism
A 17-year-old girl has exposed the scale of Islamic sex tourism in India where Muslim men from the Middle East and Africa are buying 'one month wives' for sex.

By Dean Nelson,
The Guardian
April 14, 2013

Inspector Vijay Kumar who is in charge of the 'one month' wives case Photo: DEAN NELSON

Campaigners for Muslim women's rights said while short term 'contract marriages' are illegal in India and forbidden in Islam, they are increasing in Hyderabad, in southern India, where wealthy foreigners, local agents and 'Qazis' – government-appointed Muslim priests – are exploiting poverty among the city's Muslim families.

The victim, Nausheen Tobassum, revealed the scale of the problem when she escaped from her home last month after her parents pressurised her to consummate a forced marriage to a middle aged Sudanese man who had paid around £1,200 for her to be his 'wife' for four weeks.
She told police she had been taken by her aunt to a hotel where she and three other teenager girls were introduced to a Sudanese oil company executive. The 'groom', Usama Ibrahim Mohammed, 44 and married with two children in Khartoum, later arrived at her home where a Qazi performed a wedding ceremony.

According to Inspector Vijay Kumar he had paid 100,000 Rupees (around USD $1,840.00 ) to the girl's aunt Mumtaz Begum, who in turn paid 70,000 Rupees to her parents, 5,000 Rupees to the Qazi, 5,000 Rupees to an Urdu translator and kept 20,000 Rupees herself. The wedding certificate came with a 'Talaknama' which fixed the terms of the divorce at the end of the groom's holiday.

"The next day he came to the house of the victim girl and asked her to participate in sex but she refused. She is a young girl and the groom is older than her father," Inspector Kumar told The Telegraph.

Her parents reassured him they would persuade their daughter and told her she would be punished if she did not. Instead she ran out of their tiny one room home in Hyderabad's Moghulpuri neighbourhood and was rescued by a police patrol. The police arrested the groom, the victim's aunt and the Qazi, and issued a warrant for her parents' arrest – Nausheen is a minor under Indian law and cannot marry until she reaches 18. Her parents are now in hiding but will be charged with arranging a child marriage, 'outraging the modesty' of a woman, and criminal conspiracy.

Inspector Kumar said there are dozens of illegal short term contract marriages in the city, and that the Sudanese man they arrested had come to Hyderabad after a friend in Khartoum told him he had taken a '40 day wife' during an earlier visit.

"If a Sudanese wants to have sex, he has to pay three times more [in Sudan] because there are far fewer girls there, or he takes a second wife. In India the girls are coming for a cheaper rate and they are beautiful. Even if they are only staying for a few days they are doing this kind of illegal marriages for sex," he said.

He said the visitors want to marry because they believe prostitution is forbidden under Islam. Poor families agree to contract marriages because they have many daughters and cannot afford to pay for all their weddings.

Instead, they have a series of one-month contract 'marriages' to fund their own genuine wedding.

Shiraz Amina Khan of Hyderabad's Women and Child Welfare Society, said there were up to 15 'contract marriages' in the city every month and that the number is rising because.

"They come to Hyderabad because it has maximum downtrodden families. Thirty to forty per cent of families are going for the option of contract marriages to relieve their poverty. It has to be stopped," she said.

Nausheen Tobassum, who is now living in a government home for girls said in an interview before she was placed in care, that she had filed a complaint to stop the same thing happening to other girls.

"I didn't know what was happening and I agreed in ignorance. They forced me. They changed my date of birth certificate and made a fake one, where I was shown as 24 years old. They exploit girls and that's why I went to police. I had to show courage to go to police against my parents. I don't want to go back to my home, I am scared," she said.

© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2013

Israel gets away with another war crime...what mockery of human rights and international law

Palestinian men gather around a crater caused by an Israeli air strike on the al-Dalou family's home in Gaza City on November 18, 2012. (AFP Photo / Marco Longari)

Israel justified the killing of the al-Dalou family of 10 along with 2 neighbors in the Nov 18 airstrike on their 3 story home during 8-day Israeli offensive into Gaza (Operation Pillar of Defense) and decided NOT to investigate the attack as "Israeli forces did not violate the laws of war or commit any criminal acts in the attack." Well thats just nice and dandy ain`t it, you can just go on and kill just about anyone without any hint of repercussion from the international community. When will this wanton aggression stop if ever?

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) said on Sunday that they were informed of this decision. 'The group stated that the Israeli verdict proved its inquiry was a “smokescreen” to provide “systematic cover for widespread violations of international law.' The PCHR called Israel's decision “a mockery of victims’ rights and international law” and rightfully so. 

The IDF Military Advocate General's (MAG) Corps who issued the decision stated, after examining the claims of alleged violations by the Israeli military during the November offensive on Gaza  “...that there was no basis to open a criminal investigation or to take any additional measures,” the report published on the IDF website reads.

And of course the blame game and flip-flopping on the facts ensued, with Israel’s chief military spokesperson Yoav Mordechai claiming it was the home of a 'known head Hamas rocket unit' as cited by Reuters and only days later saying a member of al-Dalou family was target of the raid. Army spokeswoman Avital Leibovich told AFP on November 27 the father of al-Dalou family was 'affiliated with Hamas` military wing,' "there was no mistake from the IDF."

Then, Leibovich later denied she had identified Muhammad al-Dalou as the target, surprise...surprise. “What I said is that the targets we picked were not innocent civilians,” she told Maan News Agency, refusing to comment on WHO exactly was targeted and whether the person was killed or not.

What deception and utter disregard of human life. And they have the gall to call it 'collateral damage' in the report? Seems like collateral damage is as routine as anything now

“We are calling on the Palestinian leadership to sign and ratify the Rome Statute, become a member of the ICC and ask the prosecutor to open an investigation into Israeli violations of international Human Rights and Humanitarian Law,” the rights advocate concluded.

Just so if you all have forgotten, in November 2012, the eight-day Israeli offensive in Gaza killed about 170 Palestinians, including many women and children, and injured over 1,400 others that is WELL DOCUMENTED by world press organizations unlike our mainstream media here in the US.

The only thing at hand now of any use is for the Palestinian leadership to sign and ratify the Rome Statute, becoming a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and asking the prosecutor to open an investigation into Israeli violations of international human rights and humanitarian law that have gone unabated forever now. However, the issue at hand now is if the impotent lame duck Palestinian Authority (PA) headed by Mahmoud Abbass doesn`t refer this to UN ICC and other UN agencies, then he should resign and just give the Palestinian people their dignity and respect they finally deserve.

On the flip side, there is politics with the ICC in the Hague as we saw with Muammar Gaddafi and his 'alleged war crimes' against his people...thats for another time guys to comment on.

Read: Israel not to probe ‘unfortunate’ killing of 10 members of Gaza family (RT NEWS)

Israel will NOT investigate killing of 10 members of Gaza family in airstrike during last 8-day Israeli offensive in Gaza Nov 2012 (RT News)

RT NEWS
April 14, 2013

A Palestinian rescue worker carries the body of a child from the al-Dallu family into the hospital in Gaza City on November 18, 2012, after seven members of the al-Dallu family, including four children, were among nine people killed when an Israeli missile struck a family home in Gaza City. (AFP Photo / Mohammed Abed)

The Israeli Military’s legal arm has decided not to open a criminal probe into the deaths of 10 members of the Palestinian al-Dalou family killed in the IDF’s air-strike on their home during the Gaza war last year.

The airstrike on the al-Dalou home “does not raise suspicion of the commission of a criminal offense and that the unfortunate result occurred despite the efforts made to minimize the collateral damage to uninvolved civilians,” the IDF Military Advocate General's (MAG) Corps stated, after examining the claims of alleged violations by the Israeli military during the November offensive on Gaza.

“The MAG decided that there was no basis to open a criminal investigation or to take any additional measures,” the report published on the IDF website reads.

On November 18, during the eight-day deadly confrontation between Israel and Hamas militants, an Israeli warplane bombed the home of the al-Dalou family in Al-Nasser neighborhood, central Gaza City.

The attack turned the three-storey home into rubble, killing ten members of the household, including five women and four children. Two more civilians from the family living next door were also killed in the attack.

Palestinian men gather around a crater caused by an Israeli air strike on the al-Dallu family's home in Gaza City on November 18, 2012. (AFP Photo / Marco Longari)

Shortly after the strike, Israel’s chief military spokesperson Yoav Mordechai said that the intended target was the home of Yahia Rabia - reportedly the head of Hamas' rocket unit. “Although I don't know the outcome, there were civilians harmed by this,” Mordechai said, as cited by Reuters.

However, several days later, the Israeli military stated that one of the Al-Dalou family – 29-year-old Gaza police officer Mohamed Jamal – was the target of the raid.

“The father was a known terror operative affiliated with the military wing of Hamas," army spokeswoman Avital Leibovich told AFP on November 27. “There was no mistake from the IDF. It's tragic when a terror operative is hiding among civilians but unfortunately it is part of Hamas and Islamic Jihad tactics.”

Adding even more controversy to the story, Leibovich later denied she had identified Muhammad al-Dalou as the target.

“What I said is that the targets we picked were not innocent civilians,” she told Maan News Agency, refusing to comment on who exactly was targeted and whether the person was killed.

The controversial raid attracted wide media attention and sparked criticism from rights organizations.

Palestinian men carry the dead bodies of children from the al-Dallu family out from the rubble after an Israeli missile struck a family home killing at least seven members of the same family in Gaza City on November 18, 2012. (AFP Photo/Mahmud Hams)

Human Rights Watch labeled the air strike as “a clear violation of the laws of war” adding that Israel provided no information to support the claim that Mohamed Al-Dalou was directly participating in hostilities. The organization urged Israel to investigate “disproportionate attacks.”

United Nations Human Rights Council also said in its annual report that Israel actions were not in line with the law.

“Even if one member of the Al-Dalou family was affiliated with an armed group, and therefore potentially a legitimate military target, an attack under the given circumstances with the large number of civilians present, would not meet the requirement of proportionality, i.e., the anticipated concrete and direct military gain from the attack would not outweigh the anticipated civilian loss,” the document says.

Israel’s MAG though justifies the IDF action, saying “the attack against the terrorists, who constituted a military target, was aimed to reduce the scope of missile and rocket launchings towards Israel.”

“The Commission found that various precautions had been taken in order to reduce the possibility of collateral damage to uninvolved civilians in the course of the attack, including the choice of ammunition used, and that the operations staff had not foreseen that as a result of the attack, collateral damage would be caused to uninvolved civilians to the extent alleged,” it stated.

The MAG’s report on the findings of its examination does not provide names of the people targeted during the deadly Gaza incident in November.

Israeli legal system provides only ‘illusion of justice’

The Al-Dalou family case is not the only one that has been dismissed by Israeli military investigators, Gisela Schmidt Martin Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) told RT.

Since January, 14 civil cases which the PCHR had submitted on behalf the victims of the 2008-2009 armed conflict in the Gaza Strip have also been dismissed, she said.

“We are facing an ongoing impunity” for both the November 2012 offensive and for the three-week Gaza war, known as operation Cast Lead in Israel, four years ago, the expert pointed out.

“There have been a number of changes to the Israeli legal system, which have made it practically impossible for Palestinian victims to achieve any form of justice,” she stated.

In July last year, the Israeli government approved amendments to the Torts Law, which “basically exempts the State of Israel from any liability arising from any damage caused during a combat action,” Gisela Schmidt said. The definition of such a military operation in Israeli law “is extremely broad and open to a wide interpretation,” she pointed out. “It can even be the case when a soldier claims that he was in fear for his life.”

The PCHR called Israel's decision “a mockery of victims’ rights and international law.” The only way to achieve justice for Palestinian victims in the situation when “the Israeli legal system is providing an illusion of justice” is to go to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the organization believes.

“We are calling on the Palestinian leadership to sign and ratify the Rome Statute, become a member of the ICC and ask the prosecutor to open an investigation into Israeli violations of international Human Rights and Humanitarian Law,” the rights advocate concluded.

Talk about collateral damage, 11 children and a woman killed in NATO airstrike against Taliban commanders

[Civilians continue to die from wanton aggression of NATO forces and yet we wonder why the Afghan population is against us...]

file photo; credit: huffingtonpost

• Local officials said the strike hit houses in the Kunar province, Afghanistan
• Said the woman and children died when their homes collapsed on them
• Six insurgents, including two senior Taliban leaders, died in the strike
• International Security Assistance Force said it is assessing incident

By DAILY MAIL
April 7, 2013

A Nato airstrike killed at least 11 children yesterday during an operation targeting Taliban commanders. At least one woman also died in the strike and more than six others were injured in the strike on a village in Shigal district in Kunar province, on the Pakistani border. Six insurgents, including two senior Taliban leaders, were killed in the attack, the Interior Ministry said.

The Interior Ministry did not mention any civilian casualties but Wasefullah Wasefi, a spokesman for the provincial governor, said civilian homes had been hit during an air attack.
'Eleven children and a woman were killed when an air strike hit their houses,' Wasefi said.
Mohammad Zahir Safai, the Shigal district chief, said the woman and the children were killed when the houses collapsed on them.

A spokesman for the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said they were aware of reports of civilian casualties and were assessing the incident. He said: 'No Isaf personnel were involved on the ground, but Isaf provided fire support from the air, killing several insurgents.

'We are also aware of reports of several civilians injured from the engagement, but no reports of civilian deaths. Isaf takes all reports of civilian casualties seriously, and we are currently assessing the incident. 'The air support was called in by coalition forces - not Afghans - and was used to engage insurgent forces in areas away from structures, according to our reporting.'

Tribal elder Haji Malika Jan told the BBC that fighting began early on Saturday and lasted for at least seven hours.

A Reuters journalist said they saw the bodies of 11 children when they were taken to Safai's office in protest by their families and other villagers on Sunday. The journalist did not see the body of a women and Safai said residents told him of the death. Women's bodies are not displayed, according to custom.

Wasefi also said an American civilian adviser to the Afghan intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security, had also been killed in the operation. He said it had lasted several hours. The Ministry of Interior said the two dead Taliban commanders, Ali Khan and Gul Raouf, planned and organised attacks in Kunar.

Civilian deaths have been a long-running source of friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who banned Afghan troops from calling for air strikes. About ten women and children were killed in February last year in a Nato air strike in the same area of Afghanistan.

The deaths came on the same day that a car bomb killed five Americans, including three U.S. soldiers, a young diplomat and a U.S. Defence Department contractor, in the southern province of Zabul.

The Unfair Biased Treatment of the DPRK (North Korea)

Putting the Squeeze on North Korea

By Gregory Elich

Global Research,
February 04, 2013

Tensions are escalating since North Korea’s launch of a satellite into orbit on December 12, 2012. Overwrought news reports termed the launch a “threat” and a “provocation,” while U.S. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor called it “irresponsible behavior.” Punishment for North Korea was swift in coming.

North Korea’s Kwangmyongsong-3 was just one of 75 satellites that a variety of nations sent into space last year, but Pyongyang’s launch, and a failed launch earlier in the year on April 12, were the only ones singled out for condemnation. [1] In Western eyes, there was something uniquely threatening about the Kwangmyongsong-3 earth observation satellite, unlike the apparently more benign five military and three spy satellites the United States launched last year.

We are told that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, the official name for North Korea) used the satellite launch to test ballistic missile technology. But the North Koreans could hardly have sent their satellite into orbit by slingshot. The Kwangmyongsong-3 was equipped with a camera intended to help assess the nation’s natural resources and forest distribution and to collect crop estimates. The Western press was quick to scoff at the satellite as having no rational economic purpose. Although the satellite failed to become operable, a common enough experience for nations putting their first satellite into space, the intent was to support much-needed ecological recovery in North Korea and to aid agricultural planning.

Specialists argue that the DPRK’s Unha-3 missile, used for the launch, is not a suitable candidate for delivering a nuclear warhead. According to analyst Markus Schiller of Schmucker Technologie in Germany, for North Korea to “become a player in the ICBM game, they would have to develop a different kind of missile, with higher performance. And if they do that seriously, we would have to see flight tests every other month, over several years.” [2] The North Korean missile “was developed as a satellite launcher and not as a weapon,” Schiller says. “The technology was suited only for satellite launch.” Brian Weedan, a space expert at the Secure World Foundation, agrees, and points out that the missile took a sharp turn to avoid flying over Taiwan and the Philippines. “That is definitely something more associated with a space launch than with a ballistic missile launch. It’s not what you would expect to see with a missile test.” [3]

The Unha-3 is simply too small for the job of delivering a nuclear warhead, even assuming that the DPRK had miniaturized a nuclear bomb, an endeavor requiring significant time and effort. The North Koreans would also need to develop a long-range guidance system and a reentry vehicle capable of withstanding the heat of returning through the atmosphere. Experts consider the DPRK to be years away from achieving such steps. [4]

In regard to North Korea’s satellite launches, Lewis Franklin and Nick Hansen of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation remark, “The oft-repeated phrase ‘readily convertible to an ICBM’ posed by non-technical policy experts is engineering-wise unsupportable.” They explain that while other nations have utilized ICBMs for sending satellites into space, conversion of a light missile like the Uhha-3 into an ICBM “requires considerable redesign and testing, and no country has taken this route.” [5]

The other aspect of the launch that the U.S found so provocative was its violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1874 of June 12, 2009, which enjoined the DPRK from conducting “any launch using ballistic missile technology.” That resolution was prompted by a North Korean nuclear test. Yet, when Israel, Pakistan and India – all non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – not only performed testing, but proceeded to build substantial nuclear arsenals and missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads, no action was forthcoming. This double standard has not gone unnoticed in the DPRK, which understands that the distinction between the North Korean case and that of Israel, Pakistan and India hinges on the latter three nations being U.S. allies, while for decades it has been the target of Western sanctions, threats and pressure.

Interestingly enough, India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapon-capable ballistic missiles at around the time of North Korea’s failed satellite launch on April 12, 2012. [6] The Indian and Pakistani missiles did not carry satellites; these were purely military tests, a fact which did not perturb the Obama Administration. Criticism was reserved for North Korea alone, while in regard to India’s test, U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner merely noted that the U.S. has a “very strong strategic and security partnership with India.” [7] Following Pakistan’s launch, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland’s only comment was, “What’s most important is that they do seem to have taken steps to inform the Indians.” [8] These mild remarks contrasted with the vociferous abuse poured upon North Korea for its non-nuclear capable missiles carrying satellites.

Since the April ballistic missile launches, India and Pakistan have continued their tests, including India’s test of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile fired from underwater, part of its program to develop submarine-based nuclear missiles. [9] India conducted its underwater ballistic missile test on January 27, only a few days after the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on North Korea for putting a satellite into orbit.

When North Korea launched its satellite, India condemned the launch as “unwarranted,” and termed it an action adversely impacting peace and stability. [10] That same day, India test fired its nuclear-capable Agni-I ballistic missile, again without complaint by the U.S. [11] And just days after passage of the UN Security Council resolution against the DPRK, Japan put two spy satellites into space, both aimed at North Korea. [12] Not surprisingly, these missile launches evoked no complaint from U.S. officials.

South Korea successfully placed its own satellite into orbit on January 30, 2013, with the complete support of the U.S., which only added to North Korea’s growing sense of irritation over the blatant double standard. The hypocrisy is quite breathtaking. The U.S. sits atop the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, possesses the largest military machine on earth, regularly invades or bombs other nations, threatens nations who refuse to bend to its will, turns a blind eye to tests of ballistic missiles by India, Pakistan and Israel, and it condemns the small nation of North Korea for engaging in “provocative” behavior by sending a peaceful satellite into space.

The DPRK bears the distinction of being the only nation to have a UN Security Council resolution in effect banning it from launching a satellite. Yet, the international outer space treaty affirms that outer space “shall be the province of all mankind,” and that “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind.” [13] Note the language used here: “without discrimination of any kind.” This is absolutely unambiguous. The treaty does not say “except when the powerful choose to deny this right to a small nation.”

Western analysts argue that when a UN Security Council resolution contradicts international law, it is the resolution that takes precedence. That view makes a mockery of international law, which ceases to have any meaning when it can be discarded at will by imperial dictate.

The UN Charter tasks the Security Council to deal with matters relating to “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression.” The DPRK Central Committee of the Workers Party of Korea explains that its satellite launches for peaceful purposes “bear no relationship with the issues of international peace and security.” Moreover, the Security Council has never seen fit to take issue with such nations as the United States and Japan “that are speeding up militarization by launching innumerable spy satellites.” [14]

Sensing that the DPRK’s impending satellite launch would present a welcome opportunity, the U.S. started lining up support for imposing further sanctions on the DPRK well before the launch took place. Already the most heavily sanctioned nation on earth, North Korea’s economy could only suffer more damage from new sanctions. That was precisely the Obama Administration’s aim.

In anticipation of North Korea’s missile launch, South Korea under the ever-hostile administration of Lee Myung-bak, worked with other nations to identify the few remaining international bank accounts held by North Korea which had not yet been closed due to U.S. pressure. The hope was that North Korea could be completely blocked from engaging in international trade. The Lee Administration, too, perceived the missile launch as an opportunity to inflict further economic damage on its neighbor to the north. [15]

The Chinese advocated resuming the six-party talks, which were last held in December 2008. “China really believes that we ought to re-engage with North Korea,” U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke remarked, but “we don’t believe that we should be rewarding their bad behavior by sitting down and talking with them.” U.S. diplomats adamantly ruled out talks. During negotiations in December 2012, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice bluntly told a Chinese diplomat that his nation’s resistance to additional sanctions was “ridiculous.” Rice demanded that North Korea face “consequences” for its satellite launch. [16]

U.S. officials are fond of saying that they will not reward the DPRK for its “bad behavior” by talking with its officials, but one cannot help but wonder: just whose behavior is bad? North Korean officials, whose nation exercised its right under international law and put a peaceful satellite into orbit, a right granted to all nations, and who want dialogue, or U.S. officials, who petulantly refuse to engage in negotiations, and who only know how to bully and intimidate?

The first task was to get China onboard with the concept of imposing new sanctions on its neighbor. High-ranking U.S. and South Korean diplomats met with their Chinese counterparts in Beijing on December 17, 2012. The Chinese opposed sanctions, preferring a prudent response. “The Chinese side repeated its stance that it wants to keep peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula,” a South Korean diplomatic source revealed. But the U.S. had “a strong willingness” to impose sanctions. “The U.S. is also sending a message to China that it will have no choice but to beef up its military readiness against North Korea’s threats unless a resolution is adopted at the U.N. Security Council.” [17]

The United States had already taken a number of steps to increasingly militarize its relations with South Korea in recent months, and it is probable that the threat to expand the U.S. military presence in the region finally persuaded the Chinese to back UN sanctions, despite their inevitable destabilizing effect. A U.S. military buildup in the region would serve a double purpose, aimed not only at North Korea but surely China as well. The Chinese were also keen to avoid straining relations with the U.S, an important trading partner.

Once the U.S. and South Korea won Chinese agreement for a UN Security Council resolution, the Obama Administration had a wish list of harsh measures that it wanted to implement via the resolution. U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland announced that the Obama Administration’s plan was “to continue to increase the pressure on the North Korean regime. And we’re looking at how best to do that, both bilaterally and with our partners going forward. Until they get the message, we’re going to have to continue to further isolate this regime.” Responding to a reporter who commented that North Korea “has long wanted direct talks with the U.S.,” and asked if the U.S. would consider that or stick to the six-party format, Nuland dismissively replied, “We and our partners are not in the business of rewarding them.” [18] There would be no talks of any kind.

U.S. negotiators insisted that the UN Security Council pass a resolution rather than a presidential statement, so that it would carry more force. Under pressure, the Chinese relented. The specific sanctions to be imposed were another matter. There the Chinese were more successful. The U.S. wanted to maximize the damage that would be inflicted on the North Korean people. Chinese Ambassador to the UN Li Baodong said, “The initial draft prepared by the UNSC contained a number of sanctions, but China believed that such measures would not be helpful in defusing the situation and would only cause harm to the North Korean economy and the lives of its people. As a result of more than a month of protracted negotiations, these provisions were removed from the final draft of the resolution.” [19]

UN Security Council resolution 2087 passed unanimously on January 22, 2013, ordering the DPRK to cease launching satellites, and that “any further such activities” would result in its “determination to take significant action.” A number of measures were imposed, including travel bans and asset freezes on specified individuals involved in the DPRK’s space program and banking officials assisting in its financial dealings. Asset freezes were also slapped on the North Korean Committee for Space Technology and North Korean banks and firms involved in the space program, essentially blocking those organizations from engaging in normal international financial transactions. [20]

The U.S. and South Korea immediately began planning further sanctions that they could impose on a bilateral basis. The U.S. had already stopped food aid to North Korea many months beforehand. Among the alternatives the U.S. and South Korea discussed were stepping up inspections of North Korean ships and ways to hamper North Korean ships from travelling near the Korean Peninsula. [21] The U.S. Treasury Department wasted little time in implementing its first set of bilateral sanctions, acting the day after passage of the UN Security Council resolution. It announced that all assets under U.S. control would be frozen held by two North Korean bankers and Hong Kong-based Leader International Trading Limited. [22]

South Korea had already revised its Public Order in Open Ports Act so that it required entry clearance for container ships having visited a North Korean port during the prior 180 days; an increase from the earlier 60 day limit. A South Korean official said that Seoul intended to target shipments into and out of the DPRK. “We are considering sanctions in marine transport. Now that we have already set the legal grounds, we will start talks with other countries over additional sanctions.” [23] The intention is to cut maritime supply routes to North Korea.

Pressure on North Korea is two-fold: economic sanctions and military presence. In the midst of UN Security Council deliberations, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta called for the reorientation of NATO, to “broaden the scope of our alliance security discussions beyond European and regional issues.” The U.S. has led the expansion of NATO military operations first in its bombing operations in the Balkans, then later in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The aim is for NATO to support aggressive U.S. military operations, across all continents that adjoin Europe and the Mediterranean. “In particular,” Panetta continued, “I strongly believe that Europe should join the United States in increasing and deepening defense engagement with the Asia-Pacific region…The bottom line is that Europe should not fear our rebalance to Asia; Europe should join it.” [24]

However, there is one thing one can say about the North Koreans. They are never cowed by imperial bullying.

Shortly before passage of the UN Security Council resolution, the DPRK sent a message to the United States, calling for negotiations to settle security concerns. That message apparently went unanswered. [25]

As soon as the UN resolution passed, the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK issued its response, stating that it “flatly rejects the unjust acts of the UNSC aimed at wantonly violating the sovereignty of the DPRK and depriving it of the right to launch satellites for peaceful purposes. The hostile forces are seriously mistaken if they think they can bring down the DPRK with sanctions and pressure.” The Foreign Ministry asserted that the “DPRK will continue to exercise its independent and legitimate right to launch satellites for peaceful purposes while abiding by the universally recognized international law on the use of space for peaceful purposes.” Furthermore, “the DPRK will continuously launch satellites for peaceful purposes.”

Noting that U.S. hostility remains unchanged, the DPRK Foreign Ministry concluded that “the prospect for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula has become gloomier,” and so “there may be talks for peace and stability…but no talks for the denuclearization of the peninsula.” North Korea, it said, “will take steps for physical counteraction to bolster the military capabilities for self-defense, including nuclear deterrence…to cope with the evermore undisguised moves of the U.S. to apply sanctions and apply pressure against the DPRK.” [26] First a peace settlement must be reached; only then can talks on denuclearization can proceed.

Events on the Korean Peninsula are heading in a potentially dangerous direction. New sanctions on the DPRK and the refusal of the Obama Administration to engage in dialogue have eliminated any exit strategy. North Korea, feeling threatened, may conduct another nuclear test to further develop the best defense it has against military aggression and to assert its independence. However, South Korea promises “very grave consequences” if it follows that path. [27] The U.S. has made similarly threatening statements.

According to South Korean presidential national security advisor Chun Yung-woo, consequences must be imposed on the DPRK that it finds intolerable. North Korea must choose between nuclear weapons or its survival, he declared. “No other options must be allowed.” [28]

Ratcheting up pressure on the DPRK, the U.S. and South Korea kicked off joint naval military exercises in the East Sea on February 4, 2013, including the nuclear submarine USS San Francisco. “Through this joint military exercise, we will be able to deliver a message to North Korea that if they engage in a defiant act, it won’t be tolerated,” warned Jung Seung-jo, chairman of the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff. [29]

North Korea has always responded in kind. When approached diplomatically, it negotiates and when threatened, it resists. Neither the U.S. nor South Korea is open to dialogue at the present time. Both are bent on exacerbating tensions.

China is attempting to dissuade the DPRK from carrying out another nuclear test, aware of the dangers that U.S. and South Korean aggressive reaction could present. But even if North Korea refrains from conducting another nuclear test, it is clear that the U.S. is seeking a pretext – any pretext – to squeeze North Korea harder, and it may not take much to plunge the Korean Peninsula into a terrible crisis.

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and on the Advisory Board of the Korea Truth Commission. He is the author of the book Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit.

http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Liberators-Militarism-Mayhem-Pursuit/dp/1595265708 
Notes
[1] http://www.satelliteonthenet.co.uk/index.php/2012

[2] “Experts Say North Korea Still Years Away from Reliable Rockets,” Associated Press, December 12, 2012.

[3] Ken Dilanian, “Experts Debate North Korea’s Missile Goals and Capability,” Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2013.

[4] “Experts Say North Korea Still Years Away from Reliable Rockets,” Associated Press, December 12, 2012.

[5] Steven Haggard, “More on the Missile Test,” Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 19, 2012.

[6] Aleksandr Zakharovich Zhebin, “Pyongyang will Respond to the United Nations with a Nuclear Explosion: North Korea is Abandoning the Promises of Denuclearization,” Nezavismaya Gazeta, January 25, 2013.

[7] Heather Timmons and Jim Yardley, “Signs of an Asian Arms Buildup in India’s Missile Test,” New York Times, April 19, 2012.

[8] Sami Zubeiri, “Pakistan Tests Nuclear-Capable Ballistic Missile,” Agence France-Presse, April 25, 2012.

[9] “India Tests Underwater Ballistic Missile,” UPI, January 27, 2013.

[10] “India Terms North Korean Rocket Launch ‘Unwarranted,” Deccan Herald, December 12, 2012.

[11] “India Successfully Test-fires Agni-I Ballistic Missile,” Press Trust of India, December 12, 2012.

[12] Stephen Clark, “Japan Launches Spy Satellites into Orbit,” Space Flight Now, January 28, 2013.

[13] http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html

[14] Ri Hyon-to, “We Reject the UN Security Council ‘Resolution’ Fabricated Under US Initiative,” Rodong Sinmun, January 29, 2013.

[15] Kim Young-jin, “Seoul Seeks to Freeze NK Accounts,” Korea Times, December 5, 2012.

[16] “N. Korea Not Expected to See U.N. Penalties this Year for Rocket Launch,” Global Security Newswire, December 18, 2012.

“China Resists Moves to Sanction N. Korea: Diplomats,” Agence France-Presse, December 18, 2012.

[17] “U.S. Pressing China to Back U.N. Punishment for N. Korea: Source,” Yonhap, December 18, 2012.

[18] Victoria Nuland, Daily Press Briefing, U.S. Department of State, December 17, 2012.

[19] Park Min-hee, “What Made China Vote for UN Sanctions on North Korea?”, Hankoreh, January 24, 2013.

“China Says New UN Resolution on DPRK ‘Generally Balanced,’ Xinhua, January 23, 2013.

[20] UN Security Council SC/10891, “Security Council Condemns Use of Ballistic Missile Technology in Launch by Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in Resolution 2087 (2013),” January 22, 2013.

[21] “S. Korea, U.S. Ponders ‘Additional Sanctions’ Against N. Korea,” Yonhap, January 23, 2013.

[22] Press Release, “Treasury Sanctions Company and Individuals Linked to North Korean Weapons of Mass Destruction Program,” U.S. Department of Treasury, January 24, 2013.

[23] Park Hyung-ki and Shin Hyon-hee, “S. Korea Analyzed Salvaged N. Korean Rocket Debris,” Korea Herald, December 14, 2012.

[24] Jorge Benitez, “Panetta: NATO Needs to Join U.S. Rebalance to Asia-Pacific,” Atlantic Council NATO Alliance News Blog, January 18, 2013.

[25] “N. Korea Sends ‘Ultimatum’ to U.S. on Nuke Issue: Newspaper,” Yonhap, January 21, 2013.

[26] “DPRK Refutes UNSC’s ‘Resolution’ Pulling Up DPRK over its Satellite Launch,” KCNA, January 23, 2013.

[27] “S. Korea Warns N. Korea Will Face ‘Grave Consequences’ in Case of Nuclear Test,” Yonhap, January 31, 2013.

[28 “S. Korea Calls for ‘Intolerable’ Sanctions Against N. Korea’s Nuke Ambition,” Yonhap, January 30, 2013.

[29] Jeong Yong-soo, “U.S. Sends Submarine to East Sea,” JoongAng Ilbo, February 2, 2013.

Park Byong-su, “Large South Korea-US Military Exercises to Involve Nuclear Submarine,” Hanyoreh, February 2, 2013.

Copyright © Gregory Elich, Global Research, 2013

Arm yourself with the truth - The Long History of Lies about Iran

credit: infowars

'If the lies about Iraq taught us anything, it is that we must pay attention to the massive campaign of lies about Iran'

By Muhammad Sahimi
ANTIWAR
April 3, 2012

There was a flood of articles and analyses on the tenth anniversary of invasion of Iraq on March 19, most of which focused on the lies, exaggerations, and half-truths that the War Party told the American people and the world in the run up to the war. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq have died as a result of the lies. Tens of thousands of people have also died as a result of the NATO aggression against Libya, as well as the war in Syria that is backed by the United States and its allies in that region, namely, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, with the carnage still continuing with no end in sight.

If the lies about Iraq have taught us anything, it is that we must pay due attention to the massive campaign of disinformation and lies that has been waged against Iran for over three decades, in order to “justify” a war with that nation. The campaign began with the hostage crisis after the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was overrun by Islamic leftist students on November 4, 1979, and is still continuing. There are still disinformation and one-sided stories about the hostage crisis, the latest of which is the film Argo. The biggest lie about Iran, which has been perpetuated since at least 1984, is that Iran is only a few months or a year or two away from a nuclear bomb, which has not materialized after nearly 30 years.

The campaign is separate from the secret war that has been waged on Iran for at least a decade, consisting of assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientists, killing of many innocent people by terrorist groups, such as the Jundallah, and waging a cyberspace war against Iran’s nuclear facilities that even a recent NATO study recognized as being tantamount to the use of force and illegal. The campaign of lies about Iran is much deeper and broader than the Iraq campaign, far better organized, and much better funded, with the funding provided by not just the American administrations – such as $400 million provided by the GW Bush administration for destabilizing the Iranian regime – but also the Israel lobby and the War Party. The campaign also includes demonization of Iran by Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has likened Iran to the Nazi regime, our era to 1938, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler, an outrageous claim that has been criticized even in certain pro-Israel circles.

Stephen Walt has already listed top ten media failures about Iran. Here is a list of some of the most outrageous lies about Iran, but the list is by no means complete.

1981: One of the most brazen lies is that the U.S. does not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs. From the CIA coup of 1953 that overthrew the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh and installing and supporting the dictatorship of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for 25 years, to the aforementioned Bush budget for destabilizing Iran, the U.S. has always tried to interfere in Iran. On January 19, 1981, Iran and the U.S. signed the Algiers Accord to end the hostage crisis. In the Accord the U.S. promised that “it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs,” and that it will remove all of its sanctions against Iran. Not delivering on legally-binding promises is by itself a terrible lie.

1984: Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that West German intelligence believed that Iran could have a nuclear bomb within two years. Twenty-nine years later, that bomb has not been produced.

1988: An Iranian passenger airliner carrying 290 people was shot down over the Persian Gulf by the cruiser USS Vicennes, killing all the passengers and crew, including 56 children. To cover up the crime, the U.S. lied twice. It claimed that its cruiser was in the international waters, and that the airliners had been mistaken with a jet fighter. The International Civil Aviation Organization put the cruiser in Iran’s territorial waters, and Admiral William J. Crowe, then Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, also admitted later that the cruiser was in Iran’s territorial water. Newsweek magazine accused the U.S. of a “sea of lies” about mistaking a passenger airliner with a fighter jet.

1996: The Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia were bombed, killing 19 U.S. servicemen. For years the U.S. accused Iran of sponsoring the terrorist attack. But, in his book, The Secret History of Al-Qaeda, Abdel Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of the London-based Al Quds Al Arabi, detailed the involvement of Al-Qaeda in the attack. The 9/11 Commission reported that Osama Bin Laden was seen being congratulated on the day of the bombing. William Perry, who was Defense Secretary at that time, said in 2007 that he believes al-Qaeda, rather than Iran, was behind the attack, and Saudi Arabia’s interior minister Prince Nayef absolved Iran of any role in the attack.

1998: In its indictment of Bin Laden, the U.S. declared that Al-Qaeda, “forged alliances . . . with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group [the Lebanese] Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies.” The allegation of a working relation between Iran and Al-Qaeda was repeated by Steven Emerson and the infamous Islamophobe Daniel Pipes in May 2001.

2001: There were allegations that Iran played a role in the September 11 terrorist attacks. But, the fact is that the Sunni/Salafi Al-Qaeda hates the Shiite Iran, and aside from rabid anti-Iran figures, such as Kenneth Timmerman and Pipes, no one believes that Iran had any role in the terrorist attacks. Then Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was one of the first heads of state to send a message of condolences to the American people. Even George W. Bush and his then Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin said that, “There was no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of September 11,” and Western intelligence agencies believe that there is zero chance of Iran helping Al-Qaeda to stage the terrorist attacks. In fact, in 2003 Iran offered to exchange members of Bin Laden family, who had fled to Iran after the U.S. attacked that nation in the fall of 2001, with the leadership of the Mojahedin-e Khalgh (MEK), an Iranian dissident cult who were in Iraq at that time, but the U.S. rejected the offer because the Pentagon wanted to train and use the MEK as a pressure group against Iran.

2002: In January Israel seized a cargo ship, Karine A, and alleged that it was carrying weapons for the Palestinian Authority with Iran’s help, an allegation that was supported by Colin Powell, then Secretary of State. In addition to the fact that Israel changed its history several times, there were also many holes in the official statements and allegations. After sometime, the allegations faded away and were never mentioned again.

2002: George Bush made the moronic declaration about the “axis of evil,” making Iran a charter member of the axis, of which Iran’s archenemy Saddam Hussein and his regime were also member. The absurdity and sheer magnitude of the lie about an alliance between Iran and Hussein’s regime was mind boggling. It was meant to demonize Iran and Iranians.

2005: Shortly after Ahmadinejad was elected Iran’s President in June, it was alleged that he had taken part in the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As I discussed elsewhere, Ahmadinejad had in fact been opposed to the takeover.

2005: In October it was claimed by the War Party and the Israel lobby, and aided by the U.S. mainstream media, that Ahmadinejad has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” This was used by the Party and Lobby to push for military attacks on Iran. But, it was shown by many (see here and here, for example) that it was simply a mistranslation of what he had really said. In 2011 even Dan Meridor, Israel’s minister of intelligence and atomic energy, acknowledged that Ahmadinejad never uttered those infamous words. But, the lie is still repeated.

2006: In May the National Post of Canada published an article by Amir Taheri, an exiled Iranian “journalist” who is close to the necons, claiming that the Iranian parliament approved a law that “envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct color schemes to make them identifiable in public,” hence likening it to the special dress code for Jews in the Nazi regime. The National Post even stated that Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, had said the report to be “absolutely true,” and that Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Center had also confirmed it (though Hier denied it later on). It turned out that the story was a pure fabrication by Taheri, who has a long track record of reporting fictions as facts. Even the National Post retracted the story and apologized for publishing it.

2006: The Rupert Murdoch-owned Sunday Times of London alleged that Iran had tried to secretly import uranium from Congo, similar to George W. Bush’s infamous sixteen words, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” which turned out to be a lie. The report turned out to be a fabrication.

2006: Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the then chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, issued a report in August that claimed, “Iran has conducted a clandestine uranium enrichment program for nearly two decades in violation of its IAEA safeguards agreement, and despite its claim to the contrary, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons,” an outrageous lie that prompted the IAEA to send a letter to Hoekstra, rebuking the report, calling it dishonest.

2006: The Daily Telegraph claimed that Iran had tried to get uranium from Somalia’s Islamic forces, another sheer fabrication.

2007: In his infamous diatribes, “The Case for Bombing Iran,” Norman Podhoretz, the Godfather of the Israel lobby, claimed that when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini said at one time that, “I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world,” he had meant Israel. This was sheer lie; the Ayatollah had never uttered the words. It was another fabrication by Taheri.

2007: In the same article Podhoretz also claimed that in 2001 former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani had said, “A day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession … application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.” This was another lie. I happened to be in Tehran, watching Rafsanjani on Iranian television when he uttered the alleged words. What Rafsanjani said was, “There will never be a nuclear exchange between Israel and the Islamic world, because a day will come when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession….” In other words, Rafsanjani was saying that Israel is wise enough not to want a nuclear war with Muslims, although even this correct observation of his was roundly criticized by Iran’s reformists and democratic groups.

2007: In another attempt to use Hollywood for demonizing Iran, the film 300, pitting Persians (Iranians) versus the Greeks, was produced, which was criticized for its clear anti-Persian stance, and making parallels between the ancient war and the present standoff.

2007: Senators Jon Kyle and Joseph Lieberman tried to declare the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) of Iran a terrorist organization. Then Senator Chuck Hagel, the current Defense Secretary, voted against it, saying it is unusual – I say an absurd lie – to declare the regular armed forces of a country a terrorist organization.

2008: The Daily Telegraph claimed that there were “fresh signs” that Iran had renewed work on developing nuclear weapons, which was again a fabrication. Two days later, the paper alleged that the IAEA could not account for 50-60 tons of uranium, which was supposed to be in Isfahan, where “Iran enriches its uranium.” Not only was the claim false, prompting the IAEA to reject theallegations, it was also erroneous in that there is no uranium enrichment site in Isfahan.

2009: The Times of London published a document – later on proved to be forged – that supposedly revealed “a four-year plan [by Iran] to test a neutron initiator [for triggering a nuclear reaction in the bomb." On the same day, the Times’ reporter Catherine Phillips quoted Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, saying brazenly, "Is this the smoking gun? That's the question people should be asking. It looks like the smoking gun. This is smoking uranium."

2010: One of the lies about Iran, perpetuated by successive U.S. administrations, is that the United Nations Security Council and the “international community” – which in reality means the governments of the U.S., Britain, France, and Germany – are “united” against Iran. In reality, two permanent members of the Security Council, China and Russia, and a large number of two important international organizations, namely, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Conference of Islamic Countries do not support the unilateral sanctions against Iran by the U.S. and its allies, nor do they support the constant threats made against Iran. In 2010, when the U.S. began ratcheting up it sanctions, the lie was made more frequently than ever.

2011: Another anti-Iran film, Iranium, was produced by the same Islamophobe group that had produced the films “Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West” and “The Third Jihad.” Iranium was replete with exaggerations and half-truths, if not outright lies, promoted military attacks on Iran, and was criticized.

2012: Too many false claims on Iran’s nuclear program were reported by George Jahn of the Associated Press, and others. Steven Erlanger, a New York Times reporter, was caught lying about Iran’s nuclear program.

2013: There have already been many hysteric warnings by Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) - also known as Institute for Scary Iranian Stories - and its President David Albright, including a recent one in the Wall Street Journal on stopping an “undetectable Iranian [nuclear] bomb,” a totally absurd notion that anyone with the knowledge that Iran’s uranium enrichment program is under full inspection and monitoring of the IAEA knows is untrue.

2013: Edward Jay Epstein wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Iran can buy nuclear bombs from North Korea “overnight,” another totally absurd notion. The Israelis have also not been silent. They now claim that Iran can make a nuclear bomb in 4-6 months, another dire “prediction.” This is at least “better” than the claim in the Washington Post in 2011 that Iran could produce the bomb in 62 days.

The above list is by no means complete, but it demonstrates clearly that the campaign of lies and exaggerations about Iran has been moving forward with full speed for over three decades. The campaign has nothing to do with the nature of the Iranian regime, which does violate the rights of it citizens, though that is an internal matter for the Iranians, but has everything to do with what General James Mattis, the U.S. Central Command commander said recently, namely, bringing Iran to its knees and removing it as a regional power that can resist the hegemonic will of the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East.