US Offers to 'Negotiate' if Iran Surrenders;
Thoughts on Negotiation Tactics; Obama Threatens War
By Mike Shedlock
April 09, 2012 "Information Clearing House" --- President Obama has stepped up the rhetoric against Iran with an offer to "negotiate". His offer is no offer at all, it is a demand to surrender. There will be nothing left to "negotiate" if Iran accepts the offer. This is what Obama demands before "negotiation" begins.
By Mike Shedlock
April 09, 2012 "Information Clearing House" --- President Obama has stepped up the rhetoric against Iran with an offer to "negotiate". His offer is no offer at all, it is a demand to surrender. There will be nothing left to "negotiate" if Iran accepts the offer. This is what Obama demands before "negotiation" begins.
- Immediately close and dismantle a recently completed nuclear facility deep under a mountain
- Give up and ship out of the country its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent purity
- Halt all enrichment even though enrichment to 5 percent does not pose a risk
- Allow inspectors full access to all Iranian sites
- Allow inspectors access to key nuclear scientists even though many Iranian scientists have been killed
The New York Times reports U.S. Defines Its Demands for New Round of Talks With Iran
The Obama administration and its European allies plan to open new negotiations with Iran by demanding the immediate closing and ultimate dismantling of a recently completed nuclear facility deep under a mountain, according to American and European diplomats.
They are also calling for a halt in the production of uranium fuel that is considered just a few steps from bomb grade, and the shipment of existing stockpiles of that fuel out of the country, the diplomats said.
That negotiating position will be the opening move in what President Obama has called Iran's "last chance" to resolve its nuclear confrontation with the United Nations and the West diplomatically. The hard-line approach would require the country's military leadership to give up the Fordo enrichment plant outside the holy city of Qum, and with it a huge investment in the one facility that is most hardened against airstrikes.
There is disagreement among the Western allies about whether Iran's leaders have made a political decision to pursue a nuclear weapon. American intelligence agencies have stuck to a 2007 intelligence assessment, which found that Iran suspended research on nuclear weapons technology in 2003 and has not decided to take the final steps needed to build a bomb. But Britain and Israel in particular, looking at essentially the same evidence, say that they believe a decision has been made to move to a nuclear-weapons capability, if not to a weapon itself.
Some American officials say they have considerable confidence that if Iran moves to build a weapon, they will detect the signs in time to take military action, though others -- notably former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates -- have been more skeptical. American and Israeli officials say they have been more successful in the past few years in intelligence gathering in Iran, both from human sources and drone aircraft, like the stealth RQ-170 Sentinel that was lost over Iran late last year.
Iran's Right to Produce Non-Weapons Grade Nuclear Fuel
Iran has as much right as anyone else to produce non-weapons grade nuclear fuel.
Moreover, having watched the US destroy Iraq for absolutely no reason, one should put itself in Iranian shoes and understand the need for Iran to want to defend itself.
Thoughts on "Negotiation" Tactics
It is common practice in negotiation proceedings to reach for the sky with extreme positions on both sides. It is not common practice to tell the other side we will not even sit down to negotiate if you do not surrender in advance.
Cooler heads might prevail if there was actually something to "negotiate" over.
Obama Threatens War
President Obama made no offer to "negotiate" anything. Rather Obama "Last Chance" message can only be construed as a thinly veiled threat to wage war.
No doubt, the warmongers in Congress and the defense department are angling for just that. However, the US cannot afford and the world does not need another nonsensical war, one that could easily cause the price of gasoline to double or more.
Mike Shedlock / Mish - http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
US Gives Iran 'Last Chance' Warning
Obama demands concessions as crucial talks begin in Istanbul later this week
By Guy Adams
April 09, 2012 "The Independent" -
Iran must immediately close a large nuclear facility built underneath a mountain if it is to take what President Obama has called a "last chance" to resolve its escalating dispute with the West via diplomacy.
Other "near term" concessions which must be met in the early stages of talks to avoid a potential military conflict, include the suspension of higher level uranium enrichment, and the surrender by Tehran of existing stockpiles of the fuel, senior US officials said yesterday.
The demands were outlined as Iranian state TV announced that crucial negotiations over its disputed nuclear programme will begin in Istanbul on Friday, allaying fears that disagreements over the venue would derail the important and long-scheduled talks.
US diplomats, who will join counterparts from the UK, China, Russia, France and Germany, at the bargaining table, told reporters that they will insist on Iran's leadership giving up the Fordow enrichment plant, which is just outside the Shia holy city of Qom.
The facility is buried deep in a mountain, apparently to protect against air strikes, and is at the centre of Israeli fears that the country's military leadership is secretly developing weapons that could mount a long-range strike across international borders.
A senior US official told The New York Times that the White House has "no idea how the Iranians will react" to the demands, and "probably won't know after the first meeting".
But he said that more serious talks cannot proceed unless they are met. Another US source told Reuters that the country must also export its entire stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 per cent purity if they are to stave off potential military action, saying, "20 per cent and closing Fordow are near-term priorities" for the Obama administration.
The negotiations are hugely delicate, both on the international stage and in the US, where in the run-up to November's election, President Obama is anxious to challenge Republican claims that he has been "soft" on Iran.
Many of Mr Obama's predecessors have taken a gung-ho approach to foreign affairs prior to their re-election battles, perhaps banking on the theory that the patriotic fervour of an America at war is more likely to give its incumbent President a second term.
The current debate over Iran isn't quite so straightforward, though.
Firstly, there is no guarantee that the US electorate would back intervention there, given the cost and mixed outcome of their country's interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Secondly, an unpredictable conflict in the Middle East could cause oil prices to spiral, threatening America's economic recovery and directly impacting the financial resources of voters, who are already voicing disquiet at fuel costs that are approaching record levels.
With this in mind, the White House hopes to persuade its allies that a mixture of crushing sanctions and diplomacy can be more effective than intervention. It has repeatedly pressed Israel to hold off pre-emptive military strikes until sanctions are proven to have failed.
US intelligence agencies are convinced that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons programme in 2003. Recent surveillance operations, particularly by drones, have failed to provide any evidence that such operations have actually recommenced.
Iran, for its part, insists that the nuclear programme is designed for power generation and medical and scientific research. It has repeatedly rejected calls by the UN Security Council to suspend nuclear enrichment.
On paper, Iran's government may in any case find it tricky to give in to US demands to close Fordow. After recent domestic developments, they face growing threats to their powerbase, so are anxious to retain the appearance of political strength.
Western Powers Manipulate Syrian Peace Plan To Prepare For War
By Johannes Stern
April 09, 2012 "WSWS" -- In recent days, the Western powers have stepped up efforts to foment civil war in Syria and prepare for imperialist intervention in this strategically important country. Media reports indicate increased fighting between Western-backed armed groups and the Syrian army, accompanied by terrorist attacks on government forces and civilians.
Heavy fighting has taken place in the Aleppo Governorate in northern Syria. The province has a 200-kilometer border with Turkey, where the Western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) is based. According to the news agency AFP, “rebel” forces attacked military intelligence headquarters in Aleppo, the second largest city in Syria, and the FSA launched a dawn assault on the nearby Minakh Air Base.
In another attack at Hreitan, an officer of the Syrian army and two security personnel were killed early Saturday. In Idlib province, one of the FSA’s main strongholds near the Turkish border, Syrian forces shelled an area held by the FSA.
Clashes and terrorist attacks have also taken place in central Syria. In several districts in the city of Hama, fighting was reported between armed groups and the regular Syrian army. The official Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that 5 explosive devices planted by terrorist groups were dismantled in Homs. Over 100 people have reportedly been killed over the weekend, and thousands have fled over the Turkish border in recent days.
The US and its main NATO allies—France, Great Britain, Germany and Turkey—are leading the campaign to destabilize Syria. Together with the reactionary Persian Gulf monarchies, Saudi-Arabia and Qatar, they are funding and arming the so called “rebels.” During the April 1 “Friends of Syria” meeting in Istanbul, the Saudi and Qatari regimes officially announced they would put the Syrian “rebels” on their payroll, thus formalizing their status as a mercenary force of imperialism’s regional proxies.
The current offensive by the “rebels” and the reactions of their Western backers expose the fraudulent character of the six-point peace plan that former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan negotiated with the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad. The imperialist powers never intended to find a political settlement to the conflict, as they claimed, but sought instead to create a pretext for further provocations against Syria, hoping to organize a Libyan-style overthrow of the regime.
On Friday, UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-moon placed all the blame for the violence in Syria on the Assad regime, declaring that attacks by government forces “violate” the UN Security Council statement demanding an end to hostilities. Ban-Ki-moon declared, “The Syrian authorities remain fully accountable for grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. These must stop at once.” He accused the Syrian government of using the April 10 deadline for implementing a cease-fire as an “excuse” to step up the killing.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that Turkey will wait “patiently” to see if Syria sticks to the ceasefire deadline, but added that it may take “certain steps” if the violence does not stop after that. Erdogan did not specify what measures Turkey would take, but he has in the past announced plans to create a buffer zone inside Syria—that is, to seize a portion of Syria’s territory.
In another sign of increasing imperialist sentiment for war with Syria, the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung published an editorial Thursday entitled “The Lessons of Syria.” Suggesting that the search for a peaceful solution of the Syrian crisis was hopeless, it wrote: “Sometimes the use of military power is not only right, but even morally justified, unlike the search for a ‘political solution’ which does not exist.”
The Syrian regime has repeatedly pointed out the criminal actions of the West. On Friday, it sent letters to the president of the UN Security Council and the UN Secretary General, stating that “the terrorist acts committed by the armed terrorist groups in Syria have increased during the last few days, particularly after reaching an understanding on Kofi Annan's plan.”
According to SANA, Syria’s Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ministry spokesman Dr. Makdessi released a statement on Sunday announcing that “Syria has undertaken steps to show good faith concerning Annan's plan and informed him of them,” adding that Syria has drawn his attention “to the escalation of violence by the armed terrorist groups as it announced agreement to Annan's mission.”
Makdessi criticized interpretations of Annan’s speeches at the UN Security Council that maintain that Syria must unilaterally withdraw all troops from its cities on Tuesday, April 10. He stated that this was a false interpretation, especially given that armed “rebel” forces have offered no written guarantees to the Syrian government agreeing to stop their attacks. He also reportedly stressed that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey had given no pledges to stop funding and arming terrorist groups.
The statement declared that Syria would “continue cooperation with Mr. Annan to implement his plan and will inform him of the undertaken steps in the hope of obtaining the aforementioned guarantees.”
In a response to the statement, FSA leader Rifat al-Asaad told Reuters by phone from Turkey that he would not deliver written guarantees. He declared that “the regime will not implement this plan” and that “this plan will fail.” He said that his organization does not recognize the Assad-regime, cynically adding that the FSA will silence its weapons only after the Syrian troops have retreated to their barracks and removed all their checkpoints.
Rifat al-Asaad and his mercenaries have virtually no basis of support amongst the Syrian population, but they feel encouraged by their imperialist backers, who have made clear that they intend to remove Assad regardless.
Kofi Annan made no reference to the Syrian demands and declared he was “shocked by recent reports of a surge in violence and atrocities in several towns and villages in Syria,” He reminded the Syrian government “of the need for full implementation of its commitments,” which can only be understood as a further threat. As UN Secretary General in 2001, Annan himself was one of the main architects of the United Nation's infamous “responsibility to protect” doctrine.
In last year’s imperialist war against Libya, calls for “buffer zones” and “humanitarian corridors” were advanced in the name of the “responsibility to protect” civilians. This was used to justify a war that killed tens of thousands and laid waste to entire Libyan cities. An imperialist attack against Syria would threaten the lives of millions. It would be directed not only against Syria, but also against Iran, Syria’s sole ally in the region, and ultimately against Russia and China, with the danger of triggering a conflict between the major powers.
Copyright © 1998-2012 World Socialist Web Site
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31038.htm
What’s Happening in Syria?
It’s difficult to know what’s happening in Syria not only because of the confusing violence but because the Western news media has lost nearly all credibility when it comes to reporting on Muslim countries, at least those on America’s and Israel’s enemies lists. William Blum explained the dilemma at the Anti-Empire Report.
By William Blum
The Holy Triumvirate — the United States, NATO, and the European Union — or an approved segment thereof, can usually get what they want.
They wanted Saddam Hussein out, and soon he was swinging from a rope. They wanted the Taliban ousted from power in Afghanistan, and, using overwhelming force, that was achieved rather quickly. They wanted Muammar Gaddafi’s rule to come to an end, and before very long he suffered a horrible death. Haiti’s President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was democratically elected, but this black man who didn’t know his place was sent into distant exile by the United States and France in 2004.
These are some of the examples from the past decade of how the Holy Triumvirate recognizes no higher power and believes, literally, that they can do whatever they want in the world, to whomever they want, for as long as they want, and call it whatever they want, like “humanitarian intervention.” The 19th- and 20th-century colonialist-imperialist mentality is alive and well in the West.Iraq and Libya were the two most modern, educated and secular states in the Middle East; now all four of these countries could qualify as failed states.
Next on their agenda: the removal of Bashar al-Assad of Syria. As with Gaddafi, the ground is being laid with continual news reports — from CNN toal Jazeera — of Assad’s alleged barbarity, presented as both uncompromising and unprovoked.
After months of this media onslaught who can doubt that what’s happening in Syria is yet another of those cherished Arab Spring “popular uprisings” against a “brutal dictator” who must be overthrown? And that the Assad government is overwhelmingly the cause of the violence.
Assad actually appears to have a large measure of popularity, not only in Syria, but elsewhere in the Middle East. This includes not just fellow Alawites, but Syria’s two million Christians and no small number of Sunnis. Gaddafi had at least as much support in Libya and elsewhere in Africa.
The difference between the two cases, at least so far, is that the Holy Triumvirate bombed and machine-gunned Libya daily for seven months, unceasingly, crushing the pro-government forces, as well as Gaddafi himself, and effecting the Triumvirate’s treasured “regime change.”
Now, rampant chaos, anarchy, looting and shooting, revenge murders, tribal war, militia war, religious war, civil war, the most awful racism against the black population, loss of their cherished welfare state, and possible dismemberment of the country into several mini-states are the new daily life for the Libyan people.
The capital city of Tripoli is “wallowing in four months of uncollected garbage” because the landfill is controlled by a faction that doesn’t want the trash of another faction. [Washington Post, April 1, 2012]. Just imagine what has happened to the country’s infrastructure.
This may be what Syria has to look forward to if the Triumvirate gets its way, although the Masters of the Universe undoubtedly believe that the people of Libya should be grateful to them for their “liberation.”
As to the current violence in Syria, we must consider the numerous reports of forces providing military support to the Syrian rebels — the UK, France, the U.S., Turkey, Israel, Qatar, the Gulf states, and everyone’s favorite champion of freedom and democracy, Saudi Arabia; with Syria claiming to have captured some 14 French soldiers; plus individual jihadists and mercenaries from Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Libya, et al, joining the anti-government forces, their number including al-Qaeda veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who are likely behind the car bombs in an attempt to create chaos and destabilize the country.
This may mark the third time the United States has been on the same side as al-Qaeda, adding to Afghanistan and Libya.
Stratfor, the private and conservative American intelligence firm with high-level connections, reported that “most of the opposition’s more serious claims have turned out to be grossly exaggerated or simply untrue.”
Opposition groups including the Syrian National Council, the Free Syrian Army and the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights began disseminating “claims that regime forces besieged Homs and imposed a 72-hour deadline for Syrian defectors to surrender themselves and their weapons or face a potential massacre.” That news made international headlines.
Stratfor’s investigation, however, found “no signs of a massacre,” and declared that “opposition forces have an interest in portraying an impending massacre, hoping to mimic the conditions that propelled a foreign military intervention in Libya.”
Stratfor added that any suggestions of massacres are unlikely because the Syrian “regime has calibrated its crackdowns to avoid just such a scenario. Regime forces have been careful to avoid the high casualty numbers that could lead to an intervention based on humanitarian grounds.” [Huffington Post, Dec. 19, 2011]
Reva Bhalla, Stratfor’s Director of Analysis, reported in a December 2011 email on a meeting she attended at the Pentagon about Syria: “After a couple hours of talking, they said without saying that SOF [Special Operation Forces] teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces.”
We know of Bhalla’s comments thanks to the 5 million Stratfor emails obtained by the Internet hacker group Anonymous in December and passed on to Wikileaks. [See the document on WikiLeaks]
Human Rights Watch has reported that both Syrian government security forces and Syria’s armed rebels have committed serious human rights abuses, including kidnappings, torture, and executions.
But only the Holy Triumvirate can get away with the sanctions they love to impose. Assad’s wife is now banned from traveling to EU countries and any assets she may have there are frozen. Same for Assad’s mother, sister and sister-in-law, as well as eight of his government ministers. Assad himself received the same treatment last May. [Washington Post, March 24, 2012] Because the Triumvirate can.
On March 25, the U.S. and Turkish governments announced that they were discussing sending non-lethal aid to the Syrian opposition, implying quite clearly that until then they had not been engaged in such activity. [Washington Post, March 26, 2012]
But according to a U.S. embassy cable, revealed by Wikileaks, since at least 2006 the United States has been funding political opposition groups in Syria as well as the London-based satellite TV channel, Barada TV, run by Syrian exiles, that beams anti-government programming into the country.
The cable further stated that Syrian authorities “would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change.”
Regime change in Syria has been on the neo-conservative wish list since at least 2002 when John Bolton, Undersecretary of State under George W. Bush, came up with a project to simultaneously break up Libya and Syria. He called the two states along with Cuba “The Axis Of Evil.” On a FOX News appearance in 2011 Bolton said that the United States should have overthrown the Syrian government right after they overthrew Saddam Hussein.
Amongst Syria’s crimes have been their close relations with Iran, Hezbollah (in Lebanon), the Palestinian resistance, and Russia, and Syria’s failure to conclude a peace treaty with Israel, unlike Jordan and Egypt; all this constituting evidence to the Holy Triumvirate of Syria, like Aristide, being “uppity.”
The clinical megalomania of the Holy Triumvirate can scarcely be exaggerated. And never prosecuted.
A closing word from Cui Tiankai, Chinese vice foreign minister for United States affairs: “The U.S. has the strongest military in the world and spends more than any other country. But the U.S. always feels unsafe or insecure about other countries. … I suggest the United States spend more time thinking about how to make other countries feel less worried about the United States. [Washington Post, Jan. 10, 2012]
William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2; Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower; West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir; Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire. Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, atwww.killinghope.org. This article was originally published in Blum’s Anti-Empire Report.
![[Passion+of+Vanunu.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOjz9scqWhk6w76GRm0Ypto4gDk40iuItT6UUiCy_ensdhz82MXl9Iynac91TwyMi4fl0ykFgypU6mnEtRz9cfwDm6PQjujadVmJXuuW2km7lL3Fsay0FYXHEPm6WLWHLF7Maz/s1600/Passion+of+Vanunu.jpg)
