The Long History of Lies about Iran

This article written by Muhammad Sahimi and published by  "Information Clearing House" -"Antiwar" needs to be read carefully by all those who are still trying to find reasons for the assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States has a plan to attack at least five countries. Syria and Iran are on the top and name of Pakistan is also there.

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 haslikened Iran to the Nazi regime, our era to 1938, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler, anoutrageous 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 believesal-Qaeda, rather than Iran, was behind the attack, and Saudi Arabia’s interior minister Prince Nayefabsolved 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 asKenneth 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 the allegations, 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 wascriticized.

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.

Muhammad Sahimi is Professor of Chemical Engineering & Materials Science and the NIOC Chair in Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California. In addition to his regular contributions to antiwar.com, he is also co-founder and editor of the website Iran News & Middle East Reports.

 Indian Response to Gwadar Port Transfer

In a February 27th communiqué to a leading member of the Raj Sabha, India’s upper house of parliament, Indian Defense Minister AK Antony outlined a proposal to establish two new missile test sites for its increasingly-sophisticated arsenal of conventional and nuclear-capable missiles.(http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=92660). The first will be constructed on property near the banks of the River Krishna in the coastal state of Andhra Pradesh. The other is planned for Rutland Island in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India’s easternmost territory in the Bay of Bengal. The new facilities, when completed, would complement the Defence Research and Development Organization’s current location on Wheeler Island off the coast of Orissa, which has been the mainstay of the organization’s missile tests.

Plans to build two additional facilities to accommodate India’s ambitious missile program appear, at first glance, to be a function of necessity. After all, a single missile range may prove inadequate as further tests are required to incorporate India’s newest ballistic and cruise missiles into its military force posture. However, the timing of the announcement (only nine days after the long-awaited transfer of Pakistan’s deep-sea port at Gwadar to China) and the location of the missile test sites (particularly the Andaman and Nicobar Islands near the Strait of Malacca) suggests the announcement serves a broader, more strategic purpose for India.

Why Gwadar Makes India Nervous

Although Chinese control of the Gwadar port came as no surprise to Indian policy makers and regional security analysts, the official ceremony on February 18 transferring operational rights of the deep-sea port to the China Overseas Port Holding Company clearly marked a new chapter for Chinese involvement in South Asia and the Indian Ocean littoral. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari – who attended the signing ceremony along with the Chinese Ambassador in Islamabad and Pakistani Foreign Minister Hinna Rabbani Khar – noted that the Chinese operation of the port provides a “new impetus” to Sino-Pakistani relations. (http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/index.php?lang=en&opc=3&sel=2&pId=1462&pressReleaseYear=2013&pressReleaseMonth=02)

The significance of the move was not lost on Defense Minister Antony who, in January, claimed the development at Gwadar was “a matter of concern” for Indian the military. (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/chinese-presence-at-gwadar-port-is-a-matter-of-concern-antony/article4386103.ece)

The geopolitical implications of the Gwadar port deal have been clear for some time. Establishing a secure, overland energy route from the Persian Gulf to underdeveloped and energy-starved provinces in western China would alleviate Beijing’s dependence on maritime trade through the vulnerable Strait of Malacca, a narrow sea-lane which could be blocked by an adversary during a crisis. Overcoming this “Malacca Dilemma” would mitigate China’s reliance on the good graces of the U.S. Navy, which has been the guarantor of open sea lines of communication in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean since the fall of Imperial Japan in 1945. As the Chinese economy’s demand for energy expands in the coming decades, ensuring the unabated flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to Chinese consumers will increasingly become a core national interest. (http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1148093/gwadar-seaport-holds-key-chinas-energy-search)

Safeguarding China’s maritime trade routes and Gulf energy supplies will likely compel the PLA-N in the long-term to project power into the Indian Ocean region, long the uncontested domain of the U.S. Navy and, to a lesser degree, the Indian Navy. Operation of the port at Gwadar, in addition to a similar arrangement at the Chinese-built deep-water port at Hambantota on the southern coast of Sri Lanka, may grant the PLA-N future sites for refueling, resupplying, and repairing a future blue-water fleet – all from India’s backyard. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/business/global/16port.html?_r=0)

Andaman and Nicobar Islands: Location, Location, Location

An enhanced capability for the PLA-N in the Indian Ocean aggravates a nightmare scenario for Indian military strategists, in which India must fight a multi-front war against Pakistan and China on land and at sea. Given each country’s sizable nuclear deterrent, such an event is extremely unlikely. Since the stakes are so high, however, India had to respond to the Gwadar deal in a way that reestablished strategic parity with China, while at the same time falling short of overreacting. In the existing geopolitical environment, the planned missile test sites at the Andaman and Nicobar Islands should come as no surprise.

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands occupy some of the most valuable strategic real estate in the world. The archipelago sits astride the eastern mouth of the Strait of Malacca, and only 500km separate Port Blair – the territorial capital of the island chain – from the energy-rich Burmese coast. Geography demands that any sea traffic between the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean must pass these islands, conferring a tremendous source of leverage and power projection capability to whoever controls them. Their strategic significance was underscored in 2001, when the Ministry of Defense established the Andaman and Nicobar Command at Port Blair, India’s first integrated theater command. (http://ids.nic.in/WebAbhiIDS/brief.html)

Whether it was a strategic signal or a coincidence that India’s announcement to build a missile test site near the Strait of Malacca came so soon after China took control of the Gwadar port facility, it is nevertheless a noteworthy, if subtle, reminder that the strategic relationship between India and China is becoming increasingly complex. It is likely inevitable that the interests of these two countries – with massive populations and increasingly dynamic economies – will become increasingly incongruous with time. While nothing suggests that the trajectory of the bilateral relationship between Beijing and New Delhi is devolving into an adversarial one any time soon, interests in the Indian Ocean littoral between the two countries are already divergent in key areas.

It remains to be seen whether bilateral relations between China and India remain cooperative or turn into something more combative. While much focus has been paid to long-standing border disputes in Askai Chin and Aruchnal Pradesh as potential flash points  it could turn out that places like Gwadar, Hambontato, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are even greater sources of tension and distrust in the Sino-Indian relationship. History suggests that naval disputes tend to be more benign than conflicts on land, which bodes well for maritime security in the Indian Ocean. Nevertheless, if the last few weeks are any indication, the strategic interplay between these two rising powers is likely to continue at sea for some time.

Courtesy: Eurasia Review

US-Saudi-Israeli Proxy War in Syria

Article "The World Must Unite against the US-Saudi-Israeli Proxy War in Syria" written by Tony Cartalucci and picked up from Information Clearing House should be an eye opener for the Muslim Ummah. If Syria is under attack today monarchies of the region can also meet the same fate.

United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel have conspired to destroy Syria by way of arming sectarian extremists since 2007. The West now admits it, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have provided thousands of tons of weapons to militants in Syria – while also conceding that Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, Jabhat al-Nusra is the best armed, most well equipped militant front in the conflict.

US, Saudi, Israeli-backed terrorists are now committing a myriad of horrific atrocities against all of Syria’s population, including Sunni Muslims – meaning neither “democracy” nor even “sectarianism” drives the conflict, but rather the destruction of Syria in its entirety. 

US State Department acknowledges Syria faces threat from Al Qaeda, demands blockade of arms/aid from reaching government to fight terrorists the US State Department admits are present in every major Syrian city.

Since 2007, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel have been documented as conspiring to overthrow the Syrian government by way of sectarian extremists, including groups “sympathetic to Al Qaeda,” and in particular, the militant, sectarian Muslim Brotherhood. While the West has attempted to portray the full-scale conflict beginning in Syria in 2011 as first, a “pro-democracy uprising,” to now a “sectarian conflict,” recent atrocities carried out by US-Saudi-Israeli proxies have shifted the assault to include Sunni Muslims unable or unwilling to participate in the destruction of the Syrian state.

Such attacks included a mortar bombardment of Damascus University, killing 15 and injuring dozens more, as well as the brutal slaying of two prominent Sunni Muslim clerics – the latest of which was beheaded, his body paraded through the streets of Aleppo, and his head hung from the mosque he preached in. While the West attempts to mitigate these events by labeling the victims as “pro-government,” the reality is that the forces fighting inside Syria are funded, armed, directed, and politically supported from abroad – and therefore do not represent any of the Syrian people’s interests, including those Syrians who do not support the government.

It is abundantly clear that the West’s goal is neither to institute “democracy,” nor even take sides in a “sectarian conflict,” but rather carry out the complete and permanent destruction of Syria as a nation-state, sparing no one, not even Sunnis.

Such a proxy war exists contra to any conceivable interpretation of “international law.” The world is left with a moral imperative to not only denounce this insidious conflict brought upon the Syrian people, compounded and perpetuated entirely by external interests, but demands that concrete action is taken to ensure that this act of aggression is brought to an end.

The US, UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have admitted to colluding together, flooding Syria with thousands of tons of weapons via Jordan to Syria’s south, and NATO-member Turkey to Syria’s north. And in an otherwise inexplicable conundrum, while the likes of US Secretary of State John Kerry insist this torrent of weapons is being directed to “moderates,” neither the US nor its allies are able to explain why Al Qaeda terror front Jabhat al-Nusra has emerged as the most heavily armed, best equipped militant organization in the conflict.

AP reported specifically in their article, “Officials: Arms shipments rise to Syrian rebels,” that:

US Secretary of State John Kerry said on the sidelines of a Syrian opposition meeting in Italy last month that the weapons are ending up in the hands of secular groups. “I will tell you this: There is a very clear ability now in the Syrian opposition to make certain that what goes to the moderate, legitimate opposition is in fact getting to them, and the indication is that they are increasing their pressure as a result of that,” he said, without elaborating.

But even AP admits that:

Syrian opposition activists estimate there are 15-20 different brigades fighting in and around Damascus now, each with up to 150 fighters. Many of them have Islamic tendencies and bear black-and-white Islamic flags or al-Qaeda-style flags on their Facebook pages. There is also a presence of Jabhat al-Nusra, one of the strongest Islamic terrorist groups fighting alongside the rebels.

The US State Department’s own statement regarding the designation of al-Nusra as a listed Al Qaeda terror organization states:

Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr.

According to the US State Department, al-Nusra is carrying out hundreds of attacks with a wide array of weaponry, across the entire nation of Syria, indicating a massive front and implying an equally massive network of logistical support, including foreign sponsorship. What’s more, is that the US State Department acknowledges al-Nusra’s presence even in cities close to Syria’s borders where the CIA is admittedly overseeing the distribution of weapons and cash. The New York Times, in their June 2012 article, “C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition,” reported that:

A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.

And in New York Times’ more recent March 2013 article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.,” it is admitted that weapons are being funneled into Syria across both its borders with Turkey and Jordan:

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

The article would also state:

Although rebel commanders and the data indicate that Qatar and Saudi Arabia had been shipping military materials via Turkey to the opposition since early and late 2012, respectively, a major hurdle was removed late last fall after the Turkish government agreed to allow the pace of air shipments to accelerate, officials said.

Simultaneously, arms and equipment were being purchased by Saudi Arabia in Croatia and flown to Jordan on Jordanian cargo planes for rebels working in southern Syria and for retransfer to Turkey for rebels groups operating from there, several officials said.

The US State Department acknowledges that the well armed, prominent terror front al-Nusra is operating in the very areas the CIA is feeding weapons and cash into.

Image: (Left) West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s 2007 report, “Al-Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq” indicated which areas in Syria Al Qaeda fighters filtering into Iraq came from. The overwhelming majority of them came from Dayr Al-Zawr in Syria’s southeast, Idlib in the north near the Turkish-Syrian border, and Dar’a in the south near the Jordanian-Syrian border. (Right) A map indicating the epicenters of violence in Syria indicate that the exact same hotbeds for Al Qaeda in 2007, now serve as the epicenters of so-called “pro-democracy fighters” and also happen to be areas the US CIA is admittedly distributing weapons and other aid in. 

Such a reality directly contradicts the US State Department’s official position, and no explanation is given as to how “moderates” can be provided with such extensive support, and still be eclipsed militarily and logistically by terror-front al-Nusra. That is, unless of course, the US, British, Saudi, and Qatari weapons aren’t simply just handing the weapons directly to terrorists, precisely as planned as early as 2007.

The Destruction of Syria Began in 2007, Not 2011

While the West has attempted to reclaim Syria as part of its sphere of influence for decades, concrete plans for the latest proxy war were laid at least as early as 2007. It was admitted in 2007 that the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel conspired together to fund, arm, and direct sectarian extremists including militants “sympathetic” to Al Qaeda, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, against the governments of Iran and Syria. In Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s 2007 New Yorker article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” the conspiracy was described as follows:

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

Hersh also cited US, Saudi, and Lebanese officials who indicated that, “in the past year, the Saudis, the Israelis, and the Bush Administration have developed a series of informal understandings about their new strategic direction,” and that, “the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The report would also state:

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.

Mention of the Muslim Brotherhood already receiving aid even in 2007 was also made:

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a branch of a radical Sunni movement founded in Egypt in 1928, engaged in more than a decade of violent opposition to the regime of Hafez Assad, Bashir’s father. In 1982, the Brotherhood took control of the city of Hama; Assad bombarded the city for a week, killing between six thousand and twenty thousand people. Membership in the Brotherhood is punishable by death in Syria. The Brotherhood is also an avowed enemy of the U.S. and of Israel. Nevertheless, Jumblatt said, “We told Cheney that the basic link between Iran and Lebanon is Syria—and to weaken Iran you need to open the door to effective Syrian opposition.”

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

The Wall Street Journal in 2007 would also implicate the Muslim Brotherhood and more specifically, the so-called “National Salvation Front,” in its article, “To Check Syria, U.S. Explores Bond With Muslim Brothers.” It appears then that the so-called “opposition” is a creation and perpetuation of the West and its ambitions, not the aspirations of the “Syrian people.”

It is clear that the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel planned to use sectarian extremists against the nation of Syria starting at least as early as 2007, and it is clear that now these sectarian extremists are carrying out the destruction of Syria with a massive torrent of weapons and cash provided by the US and its regional allies, just as was described by Hersh’s report.

A Moral Imperative to Save Syria 

Syria is under attack by an insidious, premeditated foreign assault, intentionally using terrorist proxies in direct and complete violation of any conceivable interpretation of both national and international law. The world has a moral imperative to support the Syrian people and their government as they fight this assault – both politically and logistically. While US Secretary John Kerry is unable to account for how his nation’s support for moderates has left Al Qaeda’s al-Nusra front the premier militant faction in Syria, he has demanded that Iraq help stem the flow of alleged aid Iran is providing the Syrian government as it fights these terrorists.

Does US Secretary of State John Kerry deny that Syria is fighting a significant (and continuously growing) Al Qaeda presence within their borders, which according to the US State Department’s own statement, is operating in every major city in the country? What conceivable explanation or excuse could be made to justify the blockading of aid sent to Syria to fight Al Qaeda terrorists? In fact, why isn’t the US aiding the Syrian government itself in its fight against Al Qaeda – a terrorist organization the US has used as an excuse to wage unending global war since 2001 when Al Qaeda allegedly killed some 3,000 American civilians?

Does Secretary Kerry believe that further arming “moderates” is a legitimate strategy to counter Al Qaeda’s growing presence in Syria when these “moderates” openly defend Al Qaeda’s al-Nusra? The US’ own hand-picked “Syrian opposition leader,”  Mouaz al Khatib, demanded the US reconsider its designation of al Nusra as a terrorist organization. Retuers reported in their article, “Syrian opposition urges U.S. review of al-Nusra blacklisting,” that:

The leader of Syria’s opposition coalition urged the United States on Wednesday to review its decision to designate the militant Islamist Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist group, saying religion was a legitimate motive for Syrian rebels.

“The decision to consider a party that is fighting the regime as a terrorist party needs to be reviewed,” Mouaz Alkhatib told a “Friends of Syria” meeting in Morocco, where Western and Arab states granted full recognition to the coalition seeking to oust President Bashar al-Assad.

The US is directly responsible for the emergence and perpetuation of Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in Syria. The statements of Secretary John Kerry are made merely to maintain an increasingly tenuous “plausible deniability.” The precedent being set by the US and its allies is one of using full-scale proxy invasions that if successful in Syria, will be directed into Iran, up through the Caucasus Mountains in Russia, and even onto China’s doorstep via extremists the West is cultivating amongst the Uighurs. It is also clear that the West is directly responsible for the extremists within their own borders, and that these extremists are being used as a political tool against the people of the West, just as they are being used as a mercenary force abroad.

A united front between nations against this wanton state sponsorship of terrorism is needed – with nations pledging political and logistical support to the Syrian people to defeat this open conspiracy.

Individually, we can identify, boycott, and permanently replace the corporate-financier interests who conceived of and are driving this agenda. Failure to stop such wide scale criminality against the Syrian people now, will only invite greater criminality against us all in the near future.

Pakistan: Implications of Monsanto Protection Act

Monsanto is today a global leader in the areas of agricultural production, pharmaceuticals and food and nutrition the world over. Based in St. Louis, USA, this $8.6 (US) billion Life Sciences Company has been responsible for many revolutionary products and technological breakthroughs in the agricultural sciences.

On October 01, 1998, Monsanto acquired Cargill hybrid seed business in Pakistan. Monsanto also acquired Dekalb Genetics and Asgrow business worldwide, giving Pakistan an access to wide range of superior genetics. Monsanto deals with proprietary Corn, Sunflower and Forage Sorghum hybrid seeds. As part of a commitment, Monsanto is the only multinational producing and marketing Wheat, Cotton and Rice certified seeds. Monsanto is the first company to invest in research, production, processing, quality assurance and developing a viable marketing infrastructure.

Article Monsanto Protection Act: A Post-Mortem for Our Legal System, written Clay Rossi and circulated by Information Clearing House should be an eye opener for the Government of Pakistan and Pakistanis.

It’s time for a brief postmortem on the events leading to the passage of the Monsanto Protection Act (MPA). Now that President Obama has signed the legislation which included the MPA into law, there are certain facts that need not be forgotten for the next time (and there will be a next time) big business buys itself judicial immunity from Congress.

As a refresher, the MPA prevents federal courts from interfering with the sale or planting of genetically modified seeds regardless of the evidence presented to the court about the health and safety effects of those seeds.

For starters, remember that Monsanto purchased bi-partisan support for this abomination. It was Missouri Senator Roy Blount, a Republican, who worked with Monsanto on crafting the legislation and Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat, who introduced the provision.

Moral of the story is that loyalty to rank-and-file party members or constituents concerns didn’t matter is the face of Monsanto dollars. Also the White House failed to stop the measure despite petitions and protests urging President Obama to stand up against the measure. This is a bleak fact.

Next, remember that the health concerns are real. Those who question the safety of GMO foods are not fringe luddites. How do we know that for sure? Because Monsanto itself refuses to serve GMO food in its company commissaries. When confronted with that troubling fact, the Monsanto position was that “We believe in choice.” How exactly the prohibition on GMO in the food it serves to its own employee is “choice” defies logic.

If Monsanto’s refusal to eat its own product is too circumstantial for your tastes, how about a French study from September which showed that Monsanto GMO corn led to tumors and sever organ damage in lab rats. This same company who is all about “choice” spent over $7 million last year to defeat California’s Proposition 37 which would have provided labeling so that consumers would have a “choice” to eat GMO or not eat GMO.

Finally, the danger of this precedent can be put simply: that “court challenges are a privilege, not a right.” 

Have we truly reached the point where irresponsible corporations can not only buy their way out of trouble, but also where they can buy the right to make trouble (or sickness or environmental devastation) with impunity beforehand? Regardless of whether it is proven that GMO foods are a health risk, Monsanto has already done great harm to our legal system with its efforts to shield itself in the fight against GMO.

Only the future can tell us what is in greater danger, GMO-corn-fed rats or our legal system.

 Democracy in Pakistan a Distant Dream

I am obliged to place this article on my blog because it is one of the Indian point of views pertaining to Pakistan’s forthcoming elections. It has been authored by Jagdish N. Singh and originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in). There is also a disclaimer ‘Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

In the just-completed tenure of an elected civilian government in Pakistan some well-meaning analysts have come to discern the seeds of democracy in the country. Their argument goes that it is for the first time that a civilian government has managed to complete its full tenure surviving a long tradition of the powerful Pakistan Army’s intrigues (for a coup) and a new trend of judicial over-activism. The government to be formed after the forthcoming parliamentary elections in May 2013 would therefore automatically feel far more confident to strengthen democracy.

One, however, finds that democracy continues to be a distant dream in Pakistan. The government that completed its tenure recently was democratic only in form. Like all its predecessors, it miserably failed to promote what a democratic state is supposed to first and foremost, namely, foster the multi-faceted development of all its citizens.

It is well documented that during its five years in office Pakistani citizens have continued to be denied their basic freedoms. There has been little improvement in the life of the minorities — Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, the Baha’is, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Ahmadis, Shias and Mohajirs, that is, both non-Muslims and non-Sunni Muslims. Pertinently, one of the most disastrous consequences of the continuing denial of freedoms to the minorities is that most of those affected have either resorted to exodus or religious conversion to skip their ordeal. This has altered Pakistan’s religious demography beyond recognition. According to authentic studies, in undivided British India, non-Muslims formed more than a quarter of the population in territories that later became Pakistan. On partition, they came to account for about 14 per cent of Pakistan’s population, albeit concentrated mainly in East Bengal. Today, in a population of 17,56,46,000, Sunni Muslims constitute 77 per cent and Shias 20 per cent. Non-Muslims — Hindus, Christians and others — are three per cent. Hindus constitute about 1.6 percent of the total population.

The predicament of Pakistani citizens can be attributed to the politics of Islamist radicalization in the country. Over the years a notorious Deobandi Sunni stream of the puritanical Wahabi-Salafi order, equipped with a distorted version of Islam, has expanded its social base in the country. In order to capture or retain political power, politicians of all hues as well as the ambitious Army have sought to cultivate or keep in good humour this Islamist social base by accommodating its agenda at the cost of the interests of all other segments of Pakistani society.

In 1956 General Ayub Khan had the constitution of Pakistan declared an “Islamic Republic.” In 1959 he circulated a paper defending the theoretical necessity of an “Islamic Ideology in Pakistan. He had a new course , ‘Islamiyat’ added to the school curriculum, according to which Pakistan was not but the culmination of a ‘dream’ that originated in AD 712, when the first Arab armies landed on the coast of Sind under Muhammad bin Qasim.”

His successor General Yahya Khan promised that the armed forces would be the guardian of Pakistan’s ideological frontiers. In the 1970s Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto encouraged the concept of pan-Islamism leading to a close linkage between Pakistan’s radical Deobandis and the Saudi Wahhabis. Bhutto gave Pakistan a constitution declaring Islam as the State religion. In September 1972 he had Christian schools and colleges nationalized. His 1973 constitution had the offices of President and Prime Minister reserved for Muslims, making minorities second class citizens. And Bhutto passed a resolution in 1974 declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims.

General Zia ul Haq aligned himself with the Jamaat-e-Islami and started Islamizing Pakistan in general and its army in particular. He introduced additional legislation for discrimination against religious minorities in military service, education and the civilian bureaucracy. General Zia also encouraged the madrassas run by Deobandi groups like the Jamaat-e-Islami and other such groups to start indoctrinating the youth. In 1979 the military regime replaced the existing penal codes with the Hudood Ordinance to implement the Islamic Shari’a law discriminatory to women and non-Muslims.

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto created the Taliban in the 1990s. She protected al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. In 1996 she directed her Director General of Military Operations General Pervez Musharraf to rehabilitate bin Laden (who had then been expelled from Sudan) in the Pak-Afghan border area.

In 1998 her successor Nawaz Sharief directed Federal Information Minister Mushahid Hussain Saeed to call on Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Saeed (Ahl al-Hadith orientation) at his headquarters in Muridke. During his second tenure as Prime Minister, Sharief repeatedly evaded US pressure to allow its special forces to mount an operation from Pakistani territory into Kandahar to kill or capture bin Laden.

The civilian government which has just completed its term conformed to the same pattern of behaviour. In order to cultivate the social base of the Islamists, it also preferred to be seen as backing their agenda here and there. For instance, then Prime Minister Gilani said on January 12, 2012 that there would be no amendment to the country’s anti-blasphemy laws. His Railway Minister Ghulam Mohammed Bilfour of the so-called moderate Awami National Party, headed by the grandson of the ‘Frontier Gandhi’ Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, announced that he would pay $100,000 to anyone who killed the California-based Egyptian Copt (the native Christians of Egypt) who posted his blasphemous film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ on YouTube.

Given all this, it is unlikely that the liberal, democratic forces — including in the media, academia and legal fraternity – will be able to assert themselves in the upcoming parliamentary elections and contribute to altering the present pattern of Pakistan’s leadership behaviour.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

Establishing peace in Afghanistan

With the withdrawal of Nato forces from Afghanistan fears of another civil war in the country are being expressed. Ironically Hamid Karzai was installed and supported by the United Sates but now a scenario is being painted of growing distance between the two partners.

Has heart and mind of Karzai changed or he is trying to create an illusion that he is the best friend of Afghans?

One should never forget that Karzai’s rule is only because of the US support; else he rules only a small part of country. Some cynics even go to that extent of saying that he is President of Kabul not of Afghanistan.

One of the questions often asked is, can an Afghan think like a normal person? Most regrettably the reply is in negative because the country is persistently in the state of war for more than four decades.

Those born and brought up under the prevailing situation think about killing the enemy before he kills them. The level of mistrust is very high because of presence of double agents, working simultaneously for Taliban as well as Nato.

Since other sources of income have virtually vanished due to the horrendous war, loyalties can be purchased with money.

It is not a secret that Afghanistan has once again emerged as one of the largest producer of poppy; hundreds of labs are also operating in the country. For the safe transfer of drugs millions of dollars are paid as transit free to clan chiefs.

The rule is simple either you join the party or be prepared to die because the business has to continue as usual. Previously it was said that power corrupts people but the new term is you can corrupt anyone and everyone by paying money.

It is also on record that soldiers belonging to certain countries are hardly attacked because they take good care of people living in the area. They have help in building schools and hospitals, improving logistics and even generating electricity.

A question remains, why do Afghans hate Nato soldiers in general and US troops in particular?

The reply is simple ‘they consider Nato soldiers occupiers’ and also believe that the entire drama has been staged to get control over their resources.

Everyone knows that Afghanistan is reach in fossil oil, gas, minerals and above all precious metals. Afghans also believe that instead of creating job opportunities for people everyone is made to fight for his survival, just by killing others.

No doubt Afghans are simple Muslims and don’t like what the Americans have been trying to teach them. They have their own norms and anyone trying to violate these is disliked. The situation often gets real nasty because they are told to do certain things which their society doesn't approve.

In fact various groups have been created and are being supported by the neighboring countries. Oldest and the most amicable relationships have been between Afghanistan and Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iran.

People living in these three countries have been moving freely and conducting trade. One could still recall the days when Pak rupee was used as second currency in Afghanistan.

However, lately Indians are also trying to prove that they are friends of Afghans but also using them against Pakistan, the way United States has used Afghans against Iran.

In this race some of the Central Asian countries have also joined, especially using Afghans living in Northern areas against Pakistan and Iran.

Therefore, establishing peace in Afghanistan will not be possible unless all these stakeholders join hands and also learn to differentiate between friends and foes.

Being a landlocked country Afghans has to come at terms with Pakistan rather than towing the Indian agenda of establishing its hegemony in the region. 

 Pakistan: Fear of terrorism during polls

Many quarters are expressing fear of terrorist attacks during forthcoming general elections. Terrorist has already issued a threat to ex-president Pervez Musharraf who has come back to Pakistan. Earlier some of the Baloch leaders had warned of bloodshed and even killing of clan leaders. The ex-interior minister has been issuing such warnings but often failed in rounding up the perpetrators. 

It has been highlighted repeatedly that Pakistan does face threat from external forces but the real cause of concern is 'embedded enemies' that often occupy key positions.

There are politicians who act as viceroy of regional and global super powers. No one can deny presence and support to the perpetrators by the personnel of law enforcing agencies. And above all the perpetrators develop their hide outs in areas having ethnic concentration and use people as human shields.

The proof of involvement of external forces can be gauged from the delay in installation of caretaker set up. This reminds one of the posts placed on Facebook. "There is so much concern about the names who will be there for 90 days, who would also not be allowed to make some of the strategic decisions as those are prerogative of elected assemblies but there has been least concern about those who will participate in the general elections".

Some of the critics may say, "We don't read every statement posted on Facebook" but these are people who also can't read 'writing on the wall'. When the attention of these elements is drawn towards writing on the wall, most of them ask, where is the wall?

In fact these self proclaimed experts suffer from the worst myopia and can't see beyond their nose. As against this, many of the external elements that have interest in the region are adamant at exploiting Pakistan's positions.

One can say only with great regret that Pakistan's strategic location has become its biggest enemy. All those who wish to establish their hegemony in the region want the rulers to remain subservient.

Among all the countries United States has the largest interest and one of its proofs is the statement of US Ambassador to Pakistan Richard Olson. Ambassador has said lately that his country has no desired outcome from the May 11 elections in Pakistan but stressed on the need for strengthening democracy in the friendly nation.

In a discussion on US-Pakistan relations at a Washington think-tank, Olson observed that there has been a strategic shift in Pakistan's policies towards India and Afghanistan.

The ambassador said both the United States and Pakistan recognized that in the past they had a relationship that tended to go in cycles, "from periods of excessive enthusiasm to periods of neglect". But both sides now wanted to avoid this and take the relationship to a more stable footing and on an even keel.

 However, responding to another question on the region's energy needs, the US ambassador said, "What we would like to see is for the energy supply to run through Afghanistan and through Pakistan to the Indian market."

In the same breath he reiterated that the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline is sanctionable under the Iran Act. "We've had a duty to warn our Pakistani friends that the pipeline that's under consideration is likely to be sanctionable under US law.

 Some of the cynics take this as a warning that if the rules go ahead with the pipeline. Pakistan could not only face economic sanctions but political turmoil, similar to the one faced by the Morsi government in Egypt.

Some even go to the extent that due to poor law and order election may be deferred up to three years, till Nato withdrawal is complete.