Press TV: Iran ‘not intimidated’ by sanctions
As Washington scrambles to assemble tougher sanctions against Tehran, a senior Iranian lawmaker assures that the country will never be ‘intimidated’ into giving up its nuclear rights.
In a speech commemorating the 30th anniversary of the US embassy takeover in Tehran, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel warned Washington against threatening the Iranians with sanctions.
“[The Islamic Republic] will not negotiate on its legitimate rights,” said the former speaker of the Iranian Parliament (Majlis).
His remarks come after US President Barack Obama urged the Tehran government to “decide whether it wants to focus on the past, or whether it will make the choices that will open the door to greater opportunity, prosperity and justice for its people.”
“I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect,” said the US President.
In Iran, Obama’s remarks were seen as a far cry from the oft-stated promises of ‘change’ he made while on the stump.
According to Haddad-Adel, the statements show that Obama’s promises of change were “mere slogans to help him rise to power.”
“What we have seen in the past ten months was just a change of tone in Washington, not a change of US policy,” said Haddad-Adel. “The real change should come in the US approach towards Muslim people and democracy.”
The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has also said that Washington’s stance on Iran has not changed in the least.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran decided from the very beginning to avoid presumption and instead take into consideration the slogan of ‘change’. But what we have witnessed in practice during this period of time has been in contradiction with the remarks that have been made,” Ayatollah Khamenei said.
Washington and a number of European powers have been trying hard in recent days to get Iran to sign an IAEA-drafted proposal on third-party nuclear fuel supply.
Under the plan, as much as 70 percent of Iran’s low-enriched uranium (LEU) would be sent abroad to be turned into fuel rods for medical use at the Tehran research reactor.
Powered by 20-percent enriched uranium, the Tehran research reactor produces isotopes for cancer care to more than 200 hospitals.
Iranian officials have welcomed foreign cooperation on fuel supply, but have rejected the idea of sending out the bulk of its stock in one batch.
===========
RELATED ARTICLE
Press TV: A year after, Obama’s Iran policy unchanged
Filed under: Empire, Middle East, Russia / Caucacus, War | Tags: china, iran, medvedev, nuclear, obama, putin, russia, War
The Russians understand that the U.S is attempting to placate them into supporting new sanctions by offering hollow conciliations like the “moving” of European missile shields and the EU recognizing Georgia as the aggressors of the 2008 conflict— and thus far they are not participating.
Space War: Washington readies fresh Iran sanction
The United States is ready to slap fresh sanctions on Iran in the event international negotiations over its suspected nuclear weapons program fail, a senior US Treasury Department official said Tuesday…
At the same hearing, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg said efforts to rally other veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council behind fresh sanctions, most notably Russia and China, were making progress.
“The Russians seem to be more open to additional sanctions,” Steinberg said pointing to recent comments made by President Dmitry Medvedev.
“You’re seeing a coming together of countries around the world to recognize that this is Iran’s last opportunity and if they fail to take it there is a greater openness to this.
Washington Times: Russia resisting Iran sanctions
Russian FM Lavrov: “At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process,” he told reporters at a joint news conference with Clinton. “Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.” …
….U.S. officials said they were disappointed that Lavrov had come out against even the threat of new penalties.
AP: Russian general challenges US on missiles
Pressing Russia’s position on another prickly issue, Shvaichenko criticized plans aired during the Bush administration to fit some U.S. strategic missiles with conventional non-nuclear warheads, saying the launch of such missiles could provoke a mistaken nuclear strike in retaliation.
A state that detected such a missile heading in its direction “would determine the risk it faced according to a worst-case scenario,” RIA Novosti quoted Shvaichenko as saying — meaning that it would likely respond with nuclear weapons. He said such a shift “would seriously undermine … international security as a whole.”
Filed under: Arctic, Central Asia, China / SE Asia, Empire, Latin America, Middle East, Resource Wars, Russia / Caucacus, War | Tags: afghanistan, Arctic, china, iran, NATO, obama, russia, War
The United States is continually expanding the presence of their forces to several points throughout the globe. The locations of these engagements form a “belt of conflict” which stretches the length of the globe. Now, the conflict in these areas is escalating to a point at which, some time in the future, the possibility of an international conflict with nuclear overtones can be seen. From military bases in Colombia, destabilization of Bolivia and Venezuela, funding and arming separatist groups in Africa, manufacturing humanitarian precepts for Sudanese involvement, the continuing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, strategic maneuvering in the Caspian basin, attempts to gain control of the “string of pearls” and the escalating competition over Arctic resources– the U.S is pursuing a policy of confrontation for the sole purpose of gaining access to natural resources, subverting potential international coalitions and securing freedom of international military deployment.
RIA Novosti: U.S. could deploy missile shield in Arctic – Russia’s NATO envoy
Ice News: US could launch missiles from the Baltic Sea
GeoPoliticalMonitor.com: U.S weapons end up in al-Qaeda hands
Telegraph: NATO commander warns of conflict with Russia in the Arctic Circle
Rick Rozoff: U.S., NATO Poised For Most Massive War In Afghanistan’s History
Filed under: Middle East, Russia / Caucacus, War, Western Europe | Tags: czech, missile, obama, poland, putin, shield
The moving of the Polish missile shield is little more than a desperate attempt to gladhand the Russians into supporting new sanctions and contiuned actions against Iran’s nuclear program. While this statement has been met with the utopian promises of a ‘reset’ in U.S relations with the Russian Federation, the bases will still remain, “streamlined”, and will still have offensive capabilites aimed at deterring the Russians. Also of note, in this compromise Putin has reverted U.S policy back to missile sheild discussions of 2007, and seems to have reached a tentative agreement to place them in a joint radar station in Azerbijian.
It seems unlikely that even with these concessions the U.S will be able to force Russia away from cooperation with the Iranian nuclear program as FM Lavrov has stated that the Russian position has not changed regarding Iran. In the meantime, many Russian thinkers view these developments correctly, as a shallow and transparent political maneuver designed to illicit cooperation on issues that the U.S can no longer handle alone.
U.S. Redeploys Missile Shield: The Geopolitical Encirclment of Russia
Global Research / Rick Rozoff
U.S. Missile Shield Plans: Retreat Or Advance?
Global Research / Rick Rozoff
Raytheon, Lockheed May Win in Obama Missile Plan
Bloomberg
New US anti-missile system in Israel, Azerbaijan to replace scrapped shield in E. Europe
DEBKA File
2007 FLASHBACK: Put missile shield in Azerbaijan, Russia tells US
Filed under: Central Asia, Middle East, Russia / Caucacus, War | Tags: russia obama war iran nuclear
The Iranian nuclear issue, which caused so much conflict in the Bush administration is now continuing to be pressed by Obama. Although independent entities have declared the Iranian program as being in compliance with IAEA standards, this is still a point of contention and should be viewed as a potential catalyst for conflict between the two superpowers.
US and Russia diverge over Iran
BBC
“Some of the sanctions under discussion, including oil and oil products, are not a mechanism to force Iran to co-operate, they are a step to a full-blown blockade and I do not think they would be supported at the UN Security Council.” -Russian F.M Sergei Lavrov
=================
Putin warns against attack on Iran
ABC (Australia)
“This would be very dangerous, unacceptable. This would lead to an explosion of terrorism, increase the influence of extremists.”
“I doubt very much that such strikes would achieve their stated goal.” -Russian P.M Vladimir Putin
Filed under: Empire, Middle East, War | Tags: afghanistan, left, obama, protests, War
It’s time to make anti-war protests a non-partisan issue. This involves engagement of anti-war groups to keep them moving forward regardless of Obama’s rhetoric or their own dellusions. Many of these groups are now putting their energy behind supporting the latest health care reform instead of continuing agitation of the war issue. Attacks from the left rather than the “no big government–no taxes–no safety net–no market regulation” sector are far more effective and could see substantial results if applied correctly.
Anti-war groups turn against Barack Obama after Afghanistan surge
Telegraph
There is rising disillusion among liberals and peace activists that a president who built his campaign on his opposition to the war in Iraq now views America’s other conflict as a “war of necessity”.
Mr Obama has already added 21,000 extra troops to the 38,000 stationed there by George W Bush. In the next few weeks, he is likely to receive requests from the Pentagon for more when Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanisan, submits a report on the progress of the war…
…On Friday the Pentagon confirmed that August was the deadliest month for US troops since the start of the war in October 2001 to remove the Taliban government, which had refused to hand over Osama bin Laden after the September 11 attacks.
Duty Now For The Future 