Jornal do Brasil, one of the largest-circulation newspapers in Brazil, conducted a very substantive and timely interview with the former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, about the Iran-Turkey-Brazil Joint Declaration. The interview was published in Portuguese on May 29; we were able to obtain a copy of the English-language original, and append that text below.
At the risk of sounding immodest, it is nice to have a Nobel laureate echoing one’s principal analytic arguments. Among Baradei’s major points in the interview:
–Regarding the Iran-Turkey-Brazil Joint Declaration—which, in many respects, is patterned after the so-called Baradei proposal for refueling the Tehran Research Reactor—
“I was frankly not surprised that the offer came through. I was surprised at the reaction that some countries would continue to say that they want to apply sanctions, because, the Iranian issue, if you remove over half of the material that Iran has to Turkey, that is clearly a confidence-building measure regarding concerns about Iran’s future intentions…to say that we are going to apply sanctions nonetheless despite this deal, I think would be completely counterproductive”.
–Contrary to alarmist assessments of Iran’s proximity to being able to fabricate nuclear weapons, Baradei says that
“there is absolutely no imminent threat that Iran is going to develop the bomb tomorrow from the material that they have in Iran…I haven’t seen since I was in the agency six months ago any indication that Iran is working on an actual nuclear weapon. So, the idea of Iran as an imminent threat having nuclear weapons in the next month or two is totally exaggerated and I think that assessment is still shared by all the Western intelligence services. There is a fear about Iran’s future intentions, which as I said can only be resolved through negotiations and trust, but nobody is suggesting that Iran is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons.”
– There are, of course,
“Security Council resolutions that say Iran should stop enrichment completely as a confidence building measure, but we all know that these issues can only be resolved through negotiations…We know in negotiations that you will not get everything before the start of the negotiations. In fact, that insistence to get everything before you start negotiating, the result of that was six years of wasted time on resolving the Iranian issue. We wasted six years in the past because the Western approach was that Iran should give everything before the start of the negotiation.”
–With regard to the Obama Administration’s hard-line response to the Iran-Turkey-Brazil Joint Declaration and continuing push for new sanctions against Iran,
“My worry is that if you go and adopt sanctions you will really get a major rift between the North and the South. If you have countries like Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, and the rest of the South on one side supporting an Iranian deal and pulling for negotiations and the West completely taking another view and saying let’s just go for sanctions, that rift has never materialized in my view and it would be quite dangerous that you continue to have a fault-line between the North and the South on an issue which we all know can only be resolved through negotiations.”
–On the recent involvement of Brazil and Turkey in diplomacy dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue, Baradei argues that
“the international community should have as many responsible players as possible in every part of the world. Turkey is part of the Middle East so it is legitimate that Turkey should be involved in a conflict in Iran, which is its neighbor. Brazil is a major player right now in the world and should be an economic powerhouse but also a political powerhouse and should be involved. One of the issues still debated is that the Security Council is not representing the world of 2010, it’s still representative of the world of 1945, nonetheless, I very much welcome involvement by as many responsible players as possible, particularly countries from the South. If we want to have an international border that is based on equity and fairness we have to take into account not only the Western approach but also the perception of the South, in countries like Brazil, South Africa, all these countries which are emerging economic powers should also exert their soft-power and their influence in making sure that we have a world that is balanced and at peace with itself.”
–And, on the military option,
“it would be madness to attack Iran right now. As I have said before and continue to say now, it could turn the Middle East into a ball of fire, it would not resolve the Iranian issue but it would be an incentive and invitation for Iran—even if they are not working or developing the ambition to build a weapon—to develop a nuclear weapon. It could delay an Iranian nuclear program for a year or two but definitely they would come back with a clear mission of developing a nuclear weapon. When you bomb a country and dissolve its dignity, you should not be surprised if a country comes back and develops the most powerful weapon they could have. We should learn from history that humiliating a country, isolating a country is not a solution, in fact you empower the hard-liners. Of course, the implication of this for the rest of the Middle East I shudder to think of in terms of oil and instability. I hope that will never be an option seriously considered…adopting any military options would be a disaster.”
The complete interview follows below.
Jornal do Brasil: As you know, the debate over Iran’s nuclear program has taken some unexpected turns ever Iran agreed to a nuclear swap deal mediated by Brazil and Turkey in Tehran. One day after the announcement of this deal, United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, announced that the Security Council had agreed on a draft resolution for sanctions against Iran. What is your interpretation of the Tehran Deal? Did it surprise you?
Baradei: No it didn’t surprise me at all because as you know, I have been working on this deal since last October, when I was the director-general of the atomic agency. It didn’t go through because there was reluctance by Iran at that time to ship the material out of Iran. It took quite a few months and interventions and the good offices of Brazil and Turkey to get Iran finally to agree to ship the material to Turkey out of Iran as a confidence building measure and to diffuse the crisis and give a chance for negotiation which is the key to the solution of the Iranian issue. So, I am not surprised at all, in fact I was quite pleased to see this deal come through by the good offices of Brazil and Turkey. I have been in contact even after I left office with both Celso Amorim and the Foreign Minister of Turkey encouraging them to continue their efforts. I was frankly not surprised that the offer came through, I was surprised at the reaction that some countries would continue to say that they want to apply sanctions, because, the Iranian issue, if you remove over half of the material that Iran has to Turkey, that is clearly a confidence-building measure regarding concerns about Iran’s future intentions. The material that will remain in Iran is under IAEA safeguards and seals. There is absolutely no imminent threat that Iran is going to develop the bomb tomorrow from the material that they have in Iran. In fact, it should be perceived as a first good confidence measure, a first effort by Iran to stretch its hand and say we are ready to negotiate. As you know, a few months ago, in September, Obama rightly said that he was ready to negotiate with Iran without preconditions. It took Iran quite a while because of the domestic political situation to reciprocate. Now they have reciprocated and I expected that offer would be picked up and should be the beginning of negotiations. Of course there are a number of other issues like why Iran continues to say that they are going to enrich up to 20%, because if they get the fuel for the reactor, then why are they going to continue? There is of course Security Council resolutions that say Iran should stop enrichment completely as a confidence building measure, but we all know that these issues can only be resolved through negotiations. The problem with Iran and the West is a question of confidence, which can only be built through negotiations. That is how you build gradual trust. That is how you built trust between Brazil and Argentina on the nuclear issue a ways back. But to say that we are going to apply sanctions nonetheless despite this deal, I think would be completely counterproductive. It’s always to me like not accepting yes for an answer. We know in negotiations that you will not get everything before the start of the negotiations. In fact, that insistence to get everything before you start negotiating, the result of that was six years of wasted time on resolving the Iranian issue. We wasted six years in the past because the Western approach was that Iran should give everything before the start of the negotiation. You get what you want as an outcome of the negotiation. You get something at the beginning, but you keep negotiating until you reach a deal. I hope that message will finally sink in that the people saying that we need to adopt sanctions will rethink their position because sanction in my mind is a dead-end street, it will lead to further confrontation and it will not in my view resolve the issue.
Jornal do Brasil: A little less than a year ago Obama made his famous Cairo speech in which he reached out to the Muslim world and said that “the cycle of suspicion and discord between the two worlds must end”. Do you think the American government’s current posture towards Iran indicates that Obama has backtracked from that message? Or is there a subtle divergence between Obama’s policies and Hillary Clinton’s policies?
Baradei: I’m not sure that this is a reversal of Obama’s commitment. I hope that is not the case. I also don’t think that the Iran issue is in a way representative of the US approach towards the Muslim world at large. As you know, there are some neighboring countries that are also concerned about the Iranian program so you should not generalize and say that the approach towards Iran reflects the approach towards the entire Muslim world. But there is suspicion, there is no question, and my worry is that if you go and adopt sanctions you will really get a major rift between the North and the South. If you have countries like Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, and the rest of the South on one side supporting an Iranian deal and pulling for negotiations and the West completely taking another view and saying let’s just go for sanctions, that rift has never materialized in my view and it would be quite dangerous that you continue to have a fault-line between the North and the South on an issue which we all know can only be resolved through negotiations.
Jornal do Brasil: In the past you have dismissed the notion of an attack on Iran and referred to the war in Iraq, where 70 thousand civilians died on the suspicion that the country had nuclear weapons. Do you fear that Israel is closer today to attacking Iran than it was a few years ago and what would be the probable consequences of an attack?
Baradei: I don’t think they are, I can’t read their intention but I hope they don’t because I think it would be madness to attack Iran right now. As I have said before and continue to say now, it could turn the Middle East into a ball of fire, it would not resolve the Iranian issue but it would be an incentive and invitation for Iran—even if they are not working or developing the ambition to build a weapon—to develop a nuclear weapon. It could delay an Iranian nuclear program for a year or two but definitely they would come back with a clear mission of developing a nuclear weapon. When you bomb a country and dissolve its dignity, you should not be surprised if a country comes back and develops the most powerful weapon they could have. We should learn from history that humiliating a country, isolating a country is not a solution, in fact you empower the hard-liners. Of course, the implication of this for the rest of the Middle East I shudder to think of in terms of oil and instability. I hope that will never be an option seriously considered. We have seen Iraq, as you mentioned. Iraq, under the false pretext of regime change, when after seven years, Iraq is a hotbed of instability, of suicide bombing. I saw yesterday a survey of livable cities. They rated over 200 cities. Baghdad came at the bottom of that list as the least inhabitable in the world because of all the instability and insecurity that exists there. So, the writing is on the wall that adopting any military option would be a disaster.
Jornal do Brasil: According to the IAEA’s last reports, inspectors have not found any evidence that Iran is diverting nuclear fuel or found a military aspect to its nuclear program. At the same time, they can’t really be sure because Iran has not signed the Additional Protocol, which would allow further inspections. Do you think the Iran threat is exaggerated?
Baradei: If you are saying that Iran will develop nuclear weapons tomorrow or that it is an imminent threat, I haven’t seen since I was in the agency six months ago any indication that Iran is working on an actual nuclear weapon. So, the idea of Iran as an imminent threat having nuclear weapons in the next month or two is totally exaggerated and I think that assessment is still shared by all the Western intelligence services. There is a fear about Iran’s future intentions, which as I said can only be resolved through negotiations and trust, but nobody is suggesting that Iran is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons. There are however concerns and certain allegations that Iran is doing some weaponization studies that because of the protocol we can’t verify certain allegations that came to the agency and which it would like to clarify. I am hoping that Iran will cooperate with the agency in as transparent a manner as possible and that also brings me to what you said. With sanctions of course you will not get that cooperation. If you start negotiating then at least you will open the door for Iran to clarify that its program is for peaceful purposes.
Jornal do Brasil: Do you think that the U.S. and other international players should be more tolerant of the growing involvement of emerging countries like Turkey and Brazil in international conflict mediation like the Iran nuclear swap deal?
Baradei: Absolutely. I think the international community should have as many responsible players as possible in every part of the world. Turkey is part of the Middle East so it is legitimate that Turkey should be involved in a conflict in Iran, which is its neighbor. Brazil is a major player right now in the world and should be an economic powerhouse but also a political powerhouse and should be involved. One of the issues still debated is that the Security Council is not representing the world of 2010, it’s still representative of the world of 1945, nonetheless, I very much welcome involvement by as many responsible players as possible, particularly countries from the South. If we want to have an international border that is based on equity and fairness we have to take into account not only the Western approach but also the perception of the South, in countries like Brazil, South Africa, all these countries which are emerging economic powers should also exert their soft-power and their influence in making sure that we have a world that is balanced and at peace with itself.
Jornal do Brasil: Have you confirmed your intention to run in the 2011 Egyptian presidential election? I know you have said in the past that certain conditions have to be met to ensure the elections will be fair and transparent. Have you made up your mind yet?
Baradei: No, not yet. I continue of the same view that I will only run if there is a level-playing field, if there are guarantees of a fair and free election with common-sense guarantees that are required in any democracy. I say that I will not be part of a system that, in my view, lacks the legitimacy of fairness and equity. I am still trying here in Cairo to push for change and that is my priority, to be an agent for change and to shift Egypt from an authoritarian system to a democratic system. If that were to happen and if people want me to run, that is a different issue. Right now, I would not even consider running unless we have a full-fledged democratic system and everyone has an equal opportunity.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Alan,
I’m glad you saw that article. The maps should be printed in The New York Times at least once a month.
Personally, I think the unilateral declaration of an independent Palestine that the UN can recognize, would be a sensible way forward. It should have the Green Line as its frontier with Israel.
James – yes I have seen that piece in MER; it’s one of the journals I get and it is often outstanding.
Regarding what Obama should do, his “other track” if you like seems to be revolving around Salam Fayyad’s unilateral declaration of a state. That is only of any use or consequence with a UNSC resolution in support. Previously Israel would have expected the US veto to be a given, but now the prospect of it reaching the UNSC is terrifying them.
On the other side, Fayyad has very little credibility amongst Palestinians. For Obama, Palestinian reconciliation would be crucial to form a core of support around the plan, or something similar that does inspire Fatah, Hamas and the Palestinian street.
Alan: Re your comment at 2.33. I hope you are right, and appreciate your position.
Alan,
Do you think Obama should endorse the Saudi peace plan, or propose something close to it? The Financial Times has called for Obama to set out his own plan to resolve the Israel/Palestine problem.
BTW, have you seen Oren Yiftachel’s ” ‘Creeping Apartheid’ in Israel-Palestine”? In Winter 2009 Middle East Report (www.merip.org). He is a professor of geography at Ben Gurion U and he has some very good maps included with the piece.
http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-06-02/palestinian-arab-mk-haneen-zoabi-viciously-attacked-in-israels-parliament/
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/06/can-the-israeli-government-murder-americans-with-impunity.html
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/06/can-the-israel-government-shoot-americans-with-impunity.html/comment-page-1#comment-198826
Castellio – you may be right. I certainly can’t prove that you’re not, but I’m not yet ready to believe Obama is Bush Mark II or Clinton Mk III. They can’t stand him in Israel, which is a good sign. And the race for facts on the ground is over in my view. It is past ridiculous, and there is no realistic agreement remotely achievable with the status quo, let alone anything less. All it does is make Israel look worse.
Nobody wants more for Palestine than me, it’s my cause, but those wanting to see more from Obama have to realise that it won’t come in a blinding flash of glory. He’d be politically dead if he tried that. It will only change over carefully managed time.
Really, at the moment, he doesn’t need to do anything. Sit there, offer no support for Israel and see which way the wind blows, because it’s blowing favourably, and he can sure rely on Israel to do something reckless. They’ve been looking for a war for months, and Hamas and Hizballah have played a very canny game so far.
Look at it this way – he COULD do things how I describe, and it could make a big difference if he did. But I haven’t the faintest idea whether he will. I’m just putting it out there. Otherwise all we ever do is talk the same old crap and it just gets too depressing.
Greece and Sweden have given support to the Iran-Turkey-Brazil nuclear deal. “Greece, Sweden back Iran declaration” today on PressTV.
Castellio,
Let’s bear in mind that the CIA has no intelligence the Iranian government secretly wishes to build nukes. And ElBaredei confirms he has seen nothing to indicate such a desire. Is Dennis Ross one of those pressuring the CIA to change its assessment of Iran? I would think this is the case.
Liz,
William Hague wrote a very good biography of William Pitt the Younger. You don’t agree Pitt led a coalition against tyranny (to defeat Bonaparte)? I don’t see where race enters into it.
Rehmat,
Israel needs to consign the notions of a “Greater Israel” into the rubbish bin. Not too many decades ago, some German leaders thought Germany needed to annex the Ukraine. That notion went into the rubbish bin, but a great cost to the entire world before it went in.
For those following the Cheonan incident, a good article at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/LF04Dg02.html
I’m curious to see if any of this will be picked up by the American mainstream media.
Castellio
I agree with your post of June 3, 2010 at 12:42 pm
In America, Obama is “in office” but Israel lobby is “in power”.
What is changing, Alan, is the ability of Israel to control the story. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKNI5q38ABs
People, even Americans, realize that this old guy (Edward Peck) is speaking the truth. So Obama has to move to be inclusive of the fallout from those voices. That creates a reaction in Israel. However, his essential task remains the same: to cover for Israel.
To do that more effectively he has to acknowledge (eventually) certain things: Israel is a nuclear power, there is an illegal siege. What he won’t acknowledge, however, is perhaps more important: Israel has no fixed borders and continues to expand; US money and support makes the continued military superiority of Israel possible; Israel is a racist state that is committed to expanding its racism and anti-democratic values, Israel is committing a form of collective punishment which targets the weakest, and is ‘way beyond the pale’ in terms of international law.
There will be small steps taken, presented as “breakthroughs”, while Israel continues its race to “change the facts on the ground”, and the real heart of the situation will remain unacknowledged and undiscussed,
The actions against Iran will actually increase in intensity, as Obama tries to buy off the right, and yes, covert actions in Turkey will be reviewed with the option of removing Erdogan.
Not to forget that the White House is only part of the American government, and that congress and the CIA also remain active. Obama is the face, not the motor.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Rehmat – I think it has; Obama isn’t getting 2% approval ratings in Israel for nothing. The Lobby are nobodies without US public support; that’s the target Obama needs to hit first, and he will miss it by a mile if the US goes in too heavy too soon.
Alan….. Nothing has changed between Israel and Obama’s America. US shied away in condemnation of Israel at both UNSC and UN Human Rights Council. Obama during his conversation with Bibi on phone did not condemned Israeli piracy at international water – but just said that he would like to know the facts surrounding the tragic event as soon as possible. After hearing Washington’s timid reactions – Israeli FM Lieberman declared (Haaretz, June 3): “We don’t have to fear any inquiry commission. I told prime minister to create our own “transparent” inquiry commission….”
Today, Iranian nation and millions of Muslims around the globe are commemorating the 21st death anniversary of Imam Khomeini.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/khomeini-imam-of-sun/
Eric – I’ve seen your response on the old thread thanks, and have replied.
Eric/Castellio – I don’t think – yet – we should underestimate the importance of the US refusing to block the mentioning of Israel in the NPT Review Conference outcome document, along with their actual support of the UNSC statement on the flotilla, even though Israel was not mentioned by name.
Both these steps seem to me to be steadily sending messages that things are changing. The heretofore automatic US veto in the UNSC does not appear to be so automatic any more.
Israelis need overt messages of support from the US. It’s their oxygen. If they don’t get it they start thrashing about in these weird paroxysms of political emphysema.
I suppose the question is how far will Obama take it, and how violent the paroxysms in response become. Sooner or later surely even the Israelis will realise how self-destructive it is.
James,
I just meant to show that William Hague is a racist and his views on British history are absurd.
Alan,
I’ve responded to your latest at http://www.raceforiran.com/obama-steps-up-america’s-covert-war-against-iran#comments.
kooshy, thank you for the link to the article about Iranians helping Mississippians to develop health care alternatives.
They need $250,000 each year to make the plan work.
The US government can’t or won’t find the money.
__________________
According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, between 2000 and 2010, 14 Israelis were killed by Qassam rockets fired from Palestinian territories. During that same ten-year period, approximately 4,610 Israelis died in traffic accidents.
In mid-May 2010, about 15 rabbis from around the United States gathered in Washington, DC, to discuss their concerns about Israeli security. Rahm Emmanual, Dennis Ross, and Chuck Schumer, among others, met with the rabbis. It does not appear that a representative of the US Dept. of Transportation, Traffic Safety division, was present at the meeting to advise the rabbis on how they could reduce the number of traffic deaths in Israel.The rabbis went away from the meeting with the promise of $205 million to cover the cost of completing an “Iron dome” to protect Israelis from Qassam rockets fired from Gaza into Northern Israel. Within the week, US Congress approved the expenditure of $205 million for the Israeli Iron dome.
Thus, in addition to its annual payment of about $3 billion to our ally, the US will send to Israel $14,642,857.14 for each Israeli killed by Qassam rockets in the last ten years.
______________________
In the course of his primary campaign, Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Joe Sestak told his audiences about his successful effort to include in the $505 billion Defense Authorization bill $50 million for the treatment of PTSD in US servicemen and servicewomen returning from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
According to recent reports, nearly two million soldiers have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and as many as 35% may return with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and 10 per cent may suffer from blast induced brain damage. Suicide rates are at an all time high. Many have been forced to serve multiple deployments with insufficient down time between deployments. Over 5400 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and over 85,000 wounded, injured or made sick.”
Fifty million dollars will provide $71.43 to treat each of the estimated 700,000 US soldiers suffering from PTSD.
_____________________________
America’s ally Israel also contends with rehabilitation costs for caring for wounded Israeli soldiers. Approximately 600 Israelis (not inclusive of the seven IDF members reported to have been injured in the unfortunate incident in which peace activists attacked IDF commandos 75 miles off the coast of Gaza) have incurred battle-related wounds or other disabilities.
On August 8th, 2006, Dror Kandelshein became one of most seriously wounded of those 600. He sustained a head wound in Israel’s action in Lebanon, an action instigated by Lebanon’s kidnapping of IDF soldiers. (It is long-standing Israeli tradition to bend every effort to ensure that NO Israeli soldier is lost.) Dror’s recovery has been long and arduous, but he still needs specialized treatment. Professor Yoram Kufert, a specialist in physical rehabilitation who heads a treatment clinic in Pisa, Italy, where other Israeli soldiers have gone for treatment, has examined Dror and believes he can help him recover the use of his limbs. However, because Dror cannot fly to Pisa, Kufert would have to travel to Israel to treat Dror.
An American cousin of Dror’s has posted an appeal on Facebook, pleading for financial help for the young Israeli soldier. According to a letter asking for donations for Dror’s care, the Israeli government will not pay the 139,000 euro cost for Dr. Kufert to attend to Dror in Israel because,
“Unlike in Europe, this treatment is not recognised by the Israeli Ministry of Health and therefore the Defence Ministry refuses to provide financing. Unwillingness to create a precedent is the main reason for their refusal.”
www dot facebook dot com/group.php?gid=7965233773
It is unclear if treatments administered in Pisa are covered by Italian health insurance coverage systems.
I finally thought of what this flotilla raid reminds me of – specifically Israel’s indignation that its soldiers were “attacked” in response to nothing more than a flagrant act of piracy in international waters.
Late on night several decades back, a burglar was walking on the roof of an elementary school somewhere on Ohio, working his way toward some skylight he knew was unlocked. Turns out the school hadn’t maintained its roof very well, and his foot went through, causing him to trip and break his leg.
The police and an ambulance came. He was cited for attempted burglary, but the charges were soon dismissed. He sued the school for having failed to maintain its roof, and later settled for all of his medical expenses, legal expenses, and about twenty thousand dollars extra for pain and suffering.
A must read on Turkey and its leader:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/06/02/turkey-forced-israel-to-release-all-flotilla-prisoners/
Castellio,
http://enduringamerica.com/2010/06/02/gaza-flotilla-video-transcript-hillary-clintons-statement-1-june/
Clinton’s remarks were made at a press conference. In fairness, she did add that the US was open to other forms of investigation, which it would discuss with its “the Israelis and our international partners.” (If I’d felt those discussions had a snowball’s chance in hell of leading to some international investigation, I’d have added the sentence to the passage I quoted earlier):
“We support in the strongest terms the Security Council’s call for a prompt, impartial, credible, and transparent investigation. We support an Israeli investigation that meets those criteria. We are open to different ways of assuring a credible investigation, including international participation, and we will continue to discuss these ideas with the Israelis and our international partners in the days ahead.”
Mohamed ElBaradei, while the head of nuclear Watchdog agency – was projected as ‘anti-Semite’ by many Israel Hasbara organs and the news of his removal from IAEA was greeted with great relief in Israel and other ZOG capitals. Now, his views are as much irrelevant as words of Lula or Erdogan. In fact Turkey just received its taste of making “political wrong” actions. Turkey lost four of its citizens on board Gaza Freedom Floatilla.
David Ben Gurion told his fellow Zionist leaders that a peaceul co-existence with its neighbors would amount to the begining of the end of Zionist dream of a “Greater Israel”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/eretz-israel-and-the-two-state-solution/
Eric: Do you have a citation for those words of HRC? If she really said, “We support an Israeli investigation that meets those criteria” then America is in worse shape than even I thought possible.
Demonstrations supporting the Israeli attack on humanitarian relief:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/a-country-over-the-cliff/
To the American media, North Korea’s guilt is beyond doubt, just as North Vietnam’s guilt was beyond doubt, just as Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, just as Israel can terrorise with impunity. However, unlike Vietnam and Iraq, North Korea has nuclear weapons, which helps explain why it has not been attacked, not yet: a salutary lesson to other countries, such as Iran, currently in the crosshairs.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25601.htm
How do wars begin? With a “master illusion”, according to Ralph McGehee, one of the CIA’s pioneers in “black propaganda”, known today as “news management”. In 1983, he described to me how the CIA had faked an “incident” that became the “conclusive proof of North Vietnam’s aggression”. This followed a claim, also fake, that North Vietnamese torpedo boats had attacked an American warship in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964.
“The CIA,” he said, “loaded up a junk, a North Vietnamese junk, with communist weapons—the Agency maintains communist arsenals in the United States and around the world. They floated this junk off the coast of central Vietnam. Then they shot it up and made it look like a fire fight had taken place, and they brought in the American press. Based on this evidence, two Marine landing teams went into Danang and a week after that the American air force began regular bombing of North Vietnam.” An invasion that took three million lives was under way.
The Israelis have played this murderous game since 1948. The massacre of peace activists in international waters on 31 May was “spun” to the Israeli public for most of last week, preparing them for yet more murder by their government, with the unarmed flotilla of humanitarians described as terrorists or dupes of terrorists. The BBC was so intimidated that it reported the atrocity primarily as a “potential public relations disaster for Israel”, the perspective of the killers, and a disgrace for journalism.
If truth be known, the US is a failed state. More about that later. The US owes its image of success to: (1) the vast lands and mineral resources that the US “liberated” with violence from the native inhabitants, (2) Europe’s, especially Great Britain’s, self-destruction in World War I and World War II, and (3) the economic destruction of Russia and most of Asia by communism or socialism.
After World War II, the US took the reserve currency role from Great Britain. This made the US dollar the world money and permitted the US to pay its import bills in its own currency. World War II’s destruction of the other industrialized countries left the US as the only country capable of supplying products to world markets. This historical happenstance created among Americans the impression that they were a favored people. Today the militarist neoconservatives speak of the United States as “the indispensable nation.” In other words, Americans are above all others, except, of course, Israelis.
To American eyes a vague “terrorist threat,” a creation of their own government, is sufficient justification for naked aggression against Muslim peoples and for an agenda of world hegemony.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25603.htm
In case you missed Hillary Clinton’s remarks on how the flotilla incident should be investigated:
“We support in the strongest terms the Security Council’s call for a prompt, impartial, credible, and transparent investigation. We support an Israeli investigation that meets those criteria.”
During the 2008 U.S election campaign , senator Obama said a strong president talks to his enemies and so he would ” sit and talk to Iran without pre – conditions “. Demanding Iran to completely suspend its enrichment without the negotiations even start , means president Obama has turned his back on senator Obama`s promise ! Now why president Obama turned his back on senator Obama`s promise to engage with Iran without pre – conditions ? Is the Zionist lobby more effective on president Obama than senator Obama ?
Israeli’s Nuclear Policy: From South Africa to Iran
http://www.lahaine.org/petras/b2-img/petras_southa.pdf
One has only to glance at the news reports of how Clinton dismissed the Turkey-Brazil-Iran diplomatic resolution of the enriched uranium exchange.
Clinton insists on proceeding with sanctions because her paymasters, led by ultra-Israel Firsters like Haim Saban, demand that Iran must be brought to its knees at best and nuked if necessary.
Clinton knows that new sanctions will destroy the negotiated compromise, even if it is on the same terms proposed by the US several months earlier.
A compromise which Israel never accepted and now insists, through each and every major Jewish Organization that the United States should sabotage via new harsh sanctions.
Despite Clinton’s claim of a “consensus” on new sanctions, Russia, China, India ,
the league of Arab States and even France have publicly praised the Iran-Turkish-Brazil diplomatic agreement.
Only the British toadies themselves infested by Zionist parliamentarians at fundraisers toed the Clinton-Obama line. T
he question is whether the US Zionist power configuration, headed by Rahm Emmanuel and Hilary Clinton, will secure the sanctions over and above the wishes of governments representing two-thirds of mankind.
Kooshy: Simply the most uplifting article I’ve read in ages. AP, too? What gives?
Now, why, and I am deadly serious, aren’t they bringing in the Iranians to cap the Gulf of Mexico well?? They may be the only ones who know how to do it… Why doesn’t someone from the WH call them?
Were there comments in this blog about some rodents crawling in Mississippi or Alabama a while ago, or something like that, I can’t remember
Well here is a story which hopefully may resolve some of the issues in south.
For obvious reasons, for once I am glad Iran is not setting up a cement factory in Deep South. I also hope that this Iranian doctors sent to Mississippi will stay away from tea for while
Miss. looks to Iran for rural health care model
By SHELIA BYRD (AP)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h4bai_a5mpTNgaoQLral0iUSh7wQD9G3CCP80
Liz,
The Hague speech is from 2001. ElBaradei’s reputation has been made since then.
Those who follow the story of how Israel attacked the USS Liberty during the 1967 war, killing or wounding more than 200 sailors, should read Philip Weiss’s comments on salon.com today “The U.S.S. Liberty and the culture of impunity”. Cy Vance helped with the cover-up of the deliberate attack on an American ship (ordered by Moshe Dayan).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/mar/04/conservatives.speeches
Liz,
You don’t think William Hague takes ElBaradei seriously? I should think he does take him very seriously.
They are taken seriously largely because of their strength and they are not considered by western regimes or the western media as “civilized, rational, humane, or reasonable”. Mohammed ElBaradei is not taken seriously because he has a Muslim name, he is not white, and he does not always read from the script (unlike Obama).
No, Liz, I wouldn’t go there. Is Hu Jintao taken seriously because he’s white? Or for that matter, Hassan Nasrallah, who is taken very seriously?
It’s because he’s not powerful enough, not because he isn’t white enough. He is a voice of patience and reason in a forum where it’s really only power that counts.
Mohammed ElBaradei is not white enough to be taken seriously by western regimes.
Bravo for printing the full interview. ElBaradei’s viewpoint is always sound. Obama should read this piece.
The Iranian foreign minister in Brussels today said that more sanctions would impede the dipomatic solution of the issue. This would seem self-evident, but that fact will of course escape the comprehension of Hillary Clinton. Got to keep Haim Saban happy.