Author: admin

The Western connection in the assassination of Serbia’s Prime Minister Djindjic on March 14, 2003

Posted by

0

Posted on the Saker, March 20, 2015

by Nikola Vrzic

Several days ago, on March 12th, Serbia marked another – twelfth – anniversary of the assassination of Serbia’s prime minister Zoran Djindjic. The official narrative of Djindjic, as a reformer who was killed by criminals and Serbian nationalists, this year was confronted with evidence revealing the story as much more complex, with a strong presence of Western, primarily British and US secret services…

The official version of Djindjic’s death, established on a day of his assassination in 2003 and later confirmed by the court, says that Djindjic, pro-Western reformer, “the quisling of Belgrade” as Neil Clark called him in The Guardian on March 14 2003, was killed by members of (Belgrade suburb) Zemun criminal clan and “red berets”, Serbian secret police unit for special operations which had fought in wars in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Criminals, the story goes, wanted Djindjic dead as they wanted to avoid their imminent arrest, while the “red berets”, allegedly supported by nationalistic circles in Serbian society (in the army, in political parties, Serbian orthodox church…), wanted Djindjic dead for his cooperation with The Hague Tribunal and, broadly speaking, betraying Serbian national interests by collaborating with the West.

Djindjic was killed as his motorcade came to the building of Serbian government. According to the official version, he got out of his car, walked (on crutches, he previously injured his left leg playing football) to the door which was closed, turned against the door in an attempt to open it himself by pushing it with his back, and at that point he was shot with a single bullet (which was never recovered). After Djindjic was shot, there was a second shot which injured Djindjic’s bodyguard Milan Veruovic and, piercing his body, ended in a stone wall next to the door where Djindjic was shot.

That is the official version.

This is where our investigation started.

In a recently published book “The Third Bullet. The Political Background of the Assassination of Zoran Djindjic” by Milan Veruovic, Djindjic’s wounded bodyguard, and the author of this article, journalist Nikola Vrzic, the official version of Serbian PM’s assassination is scrutinized through comprehensive analysis of all the evidence presented to the court, testimonies, police documents…, and, as a result, the book refuted the official version of Djindjic’s assassination both in terms of what really happened on March 12 2003, as well as regarding the political motives that led to his death. In short, conspiracy seems to be much, much wider, going beyond Serbia’s borders.

Both witnesses’ testimonies and material evidence show there were three, not just two bullets fired on that day, which means – to make a longer story short – there was another sniper; again, both witnesses and all the material evidence prove that Djindjic was shot by that other sniper, as he did not turn his back to the government building trying to open the door himself (with nine bodyguards around him) – the door, in fact, was open – but he was shot facing the government building, meaning, from exactly the opposite direction than officially acknowledged; Djindjic’s entry wound (33×20 mm), consistent with damages on his clothes, is significantly larger than Veruovic’s entry wound (6×7 mm), which also proves that they were shot from two different rifles of different calibers, with Veruovic’s wound being consistent with the caliber (diameter of a bullet) 7,62 mm of the only rifle that was, officially, used on March 12 2003; as far as that rifle is concerned, the comparison of Serbian police’s documentation with the documentation of German police (which examined the rifle afterwards) show strong indications that different rifle was planted instead of the one originally found; in a days after Djindjic was shot, a man from Croatia, with criminal contacts, was identified as possibly being one of the assassins, however, Serbian police did not even present his photograph to the witnesses and did not follow up on this lead, but, instead, directed the public attention to an innocent Belgrade man in order to divert the attention from the Croatian trail; furthermore, the police concealed the automobile used by the Croatian man, and this automobile – black “Volvo” 240 – belonged to one of Serbian security services…

To cut a long story short, the official version proved to be the official lie about Djindjic’s assassination.

Which leads to the crucial question – who is guilty for this lie? One answer is obvious: police who investigated the crime, prosecutors and judges who confirmed the false official version, despite all the evidence and testimonies suggesting the opposite. Above them, Djindjic’s successors in his party and Serbian government, who had provided strong political support for the false official version, actively participating in establishing this, i.e. their version of Djindjic’s assassination.

These successors of Zoran Djindjic, it should be noted, are among the most pro-Western political forces in Serbia.

And this brings us to the, possibly, crucial aspect of the story. West’s involvement in the events preceding Djindjic’s assassination, as well as after it, in the establishment of the false official version, is profound.

Based on public documents, Serbian police and secret service documents, court testimonies, US diplomatic cables revealed by the WikiLeaks, we can be certain that:

– CIA’s agents in Hungary helped in arranging the protection of the crucial “protected witness” Ljubisa Buha Cume, former boss of Zemun criminal clan, who started the chain of events that led to Djindjic’s murder. British intelligence service also played its part in protecting this man, by arranging his transfer from Turkey to Slovakia when Zemun clan’s hitmen were after Buha.

– CIA had its agent inside the Zemun clan, Cedomir Mihajlovic (alias Igor Baruh). British service, according to court testimonies, also had the clan under the surveillance, and even had the information they were about to assassinate Djindjic – this according to Vladimir Popovic, former Djindjic’s associate with whom Djindjic parted in the fall of 2002.

– This man, Vladimir Popovic, who came to the government building exactly 5 minutes after Djindjic’s assassination and who can be regarded as the creator of the official version, was accused by former Serbian secret police chief Jovica Stanisic for being recruited by the British intelligence. Stanisic said this in the statement to the Serbian police when he was arrested. Popovic himself, in his court testimony, spoke about his contacts with British intelligence.

– UBPOK, Serbian police unit that conducted the investigation, was created shortly beforehand under the British auspice.

– Anthony Monckton, who was revealed as the MI6 agent in Serbia, also participated in the investigation, according to The Sunday Times and The Guardian.

– Special prosecutor Jovan Prijic, the author of the indictment based on the false official version, enjoyed political protection from then US ambassador in Belgrade Michael Polt, EU high representative Javier Solana and other Western diplomats, which was revealed when the government of Vojislav Kostunica tried to remove Prijic from the office. Eventually he was removed, however, on a condition to remain leading prosecutor in Djindjic’s case.

– US diplomatic cables, revealed by WikiLeaks, showed that US embassy in Belgrade, supervising the trial, was in constant contact with the presiding judge in Djindjic case, even consulting with him about who will, among Zemun clan members, become a protected witness, i.e. collaborator of the prosecution.

– Finally, German intelligence, during Djindjic’s lifetime, conducted a security check of his places of work and residence, which could mean that they knew exactly from which locations his life could be threatened. Their report was never presented to the Serbian authorities. Germans also officially participated in the investigation of Djindjic’s assassination.

And then, there is also Djindjic’s policy. Even though he was brought to power in Serbia with Western help, by the beginning of 2003, from being part of the solution when he was removing Slobodan Milosevic, he became part of the problem, endangering pax Americana in the Balkans by demanding Kosovo to remain part of Serbia and to immediately start negotiations on Kosovo’s final status, which was strongly opposed by both the US and the EU. He demanded Serbian police to return to Kosovo, according to the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1244. He threatened with the independence of Serbian republic in Bosnia in the case of Kosovo’s independence sponsored by Western powers. He refused to hand over the archives of Serbian police and army to The Hague Tribunal, refusing also to extradite Serbian generals which were about to be indicted by the Tribunal.

Before he was killed, Zoran Djindjic had been labeled as a “new Slobodan Milosevic” for his confronting the West.

After his death, this Djindjic’s policy of confronting the West was completely overturned by his successors, who made every attempt to make the public forget about Djindjic’s clash with the West prior to his assassination. Furthermore, Western engineering of Serbian political scene accelerated in the years following Djindjic’s death, eventually resulting in total consensus in Serbia’s parliament on country’s EU integrations.

Last, but not the least, after Djindjic’s death every party in Serbia held the power at some point. During this turmoil, everything could change but two things: Serbia continued to approach NATO – this also started after Djindjic’s assassination – and nobody dared to publicly question the official version of the murder of Zoran Djindjic. There must be a strong reason for this.

Western Connection in the Assassination of Serbia’s Prime Minister Djindjic

March 25-26, Washington DC, U.S.-Russia Forum: Advancing a Constructive Agenda for U.S.-Russian Relations

Posted by

0

Sponsored by the Eurasia Center, US-Russia.org, & Russian Center NY

US-Russia Forum
Advancing A Constructive Agenda for U.S.-Russia Relations
March 25-26, 2015
The United States Senate Office Building
The Russian Cultural Centre in Washington, DC

AGENDA FOR THE US-RUSSIA WORLD FORUM

REGISTRATION FOR THE US-RUSSIA WORLD FORUM
Please be advised that there is no registration fee to attend both Forum days except $100 for the Russian Embassy reception on March 26.

Program Schedule

Wednesday, March 25, 2015
The Russian Cultural Centre
1825 Phelps Place, NW, Washington, DC
10:00 AM – 5:00 PM

Advancing US-Russia Educational and Science Cooperation:

Steven Barnes – George Mason University
Steve Breyman – Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Sergei Chasovskikh – Georgetown University
Sharyl Cross – St. Edwards University
Igor Efimov – George Washington University
Rita Guenther – National Academy of Sciences
Maija Kukla – National Science Foundation
Edward Lozansky – American University in Moscow, Moderator
Michail Myagkov – Skolkovo
Artem Oganov – Stony Brook University & Skolkovo
Igor Okunev – Russian State University of International Relations (MGIMO)
Andrey Rezaev – St. Petersburg State University
Natalia Romashkina – National Research Nuclear University
Kevin Ryan – Harvard University
Michael Stopford – University of Nebraska
Nathaniel Trumbull – University of Connecticut
Nikolai Vasilyev – Harvard Medical School
Kendrick White – University of Nizhni Novgorod & Marchmont Capital Partners

Reception to follow
5:30 – 7:30 PM: Reception at The Russian Cultural Centre 

Thursday, March 26, 2015
Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216
Constitution Avenue between 1st and 2nd Streets, NE, Washington, DC
2:30 – 6:00 PM with coffee break

Military conflict in Ukraine. Major Crisis in US – Russia relations. Searching for the way out.

2:30 – 4:00 PM:
His Excellency Sergei Kislyak, Russian Ambassador to US – Welcoming Remarks
Steven Cohen – New York and Princeton Universities
Gilbert Doctorow – European Committee for East – West Accord
Edward Lozansky – American University in Moscow, Moderator
John Mearsheimer – University of Chicago
Dana Rohrabacher (R -CA) – Member of Congress, TBC

4:00 – 4:20 PM: – Coffee Break

4:20 – 6:00 PM:
The Ukrainian Crisis: Alternative Media, Alternative Narratives.

Charles Bausman – Russia-Insider.com
James Carden – American Conservative
Katrina vanden Heuvel – The Nation, Moderator
Robert Parry – Consortium News
Ray McGovern – RayMcgovern.com
Patrick Smith – Salon.com

6:30 – 9:30 PM Reception at the Russian Embassy

 

Forum agenda:
http://www.eurasiacenter.org/2015%20US-Russia%20Forum%20Agenda%20Final.docx

Registration
http://www.eurasiacenter.org/2015%20US-Russia%20Forum%20Registration%20Form.doc

 

 

 

Argo vs. Waking up in Tehran — what happened in 1979? Hollywood propaganda vs. historical reality

Posted by

0

The book Waking Up in Tehran by Margot Lachlan White, which David Swanson describes as a “magnificent modern epic”, was apparently never published. What happened to her and the book? It is not hard to imagine the pressure from Israel and the United States to make sure it did not see the light of day, especially in light of the experiences she describes. There are a few reviews online and a podcast interview.

It’s more timely than ever to get this book published and/or posted online.

Posted on War is a Crime.org, January 11, 2013
Waking up in Tehran
by David Swanson

According to one theory, U.S.-Iranian relations began around November 1979 when a crowd of irrational religious nutcases violently seized the U.S. embassy in Iran, took the employees hostage, tortured them, and held them until scared into freeing them by the arrival of a new sheriff in Washington, a man named Ronald Reagan.  From that day to this, according to this popular theory, Iran has been run by a bunch of subhuman lunatics with whom rational people couldn’t really talk if they wanted to.  These monsters only understand force.  And they have been moments away from developing and using nuclear weapons against us for decades now.  Moments away, I tell you!

According to another theory — a quaint little notion that I like to refer to as “verifiable history” — the CIA, operating out of that U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1953, maliciously and illegally overthrew a relatively democratic and liberal parliamentary government, and with it the 1951 Time magazine man of the year Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, because Mossadegh insisted that Iran’s oil wealth enrich Iranians rather than foreign corporations.  The CIA installed a dictatorship run by the Shah of Iran who quickly became a major source of profits for U.S. weapons makers, and his nation a testing ground for surveillance techniques and human rights abuses.  The U.S. government encouraged the Shah’s development of a nuclear energy program.  But the Shah impoverished and alienated the people of Iran, including hundreds of thousands educated abroad.  A secular pro-democracy revolution nonviolently overthrew the Shah in January 1979, but it was a revolution without a leader or a plan for governing.  It was co-opted by rightwing religious forces led by a man who pretended briefly to favor democratic reform.  The U.S. government, operating out of the same embassy despised by many in Iran since 1953, explored possible means of keeping the Shah in power, but some in the CIA worked to facilitate what they saw as the second best option: a theocracy that would substitute religious fanaticism and oppression for populist and nationalist demands.  When the U.S. embassy was taken over by an unarmed crowd the next November, immediately following the public announcement of the Shah’s arrival in the United States, and with fears of another U.S.-led coup widespread in Tehran, a sit-in planned for two or three days was co-opted, as the whole revolution had been, by mullahs with connections to the CIA and an extremely anti-democratic agenda.  They later made a deal with U.S. Republicans, as Robert Parry and others have well documented, to keep the hostage crisis going until Carter lost the 1980 presidential election to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan’s government secretly renewed weapons sales to the new Iranian dictatorship despite its public anti-American stance and with no more concern for its religious fervor than for that of future al Qaeda leaders who would spend the 1980s fighting the Soviets with U.S. weapons in Afghanistan.  At the same time, the Reagan administration made similarly profitable deals with Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq, which had launched a war on Iran and continued it with U.S. support through the length of the Reagan presidency.  The mad military investment in the United States that took off with Reagan and again with George W. Bush, and which continues to this day, has made the nation of Iran — which asserts its serious independence from U.S. rule — a target of threatened war and actual sanctions and terrorism.

Ben Affleck was asked by Rolling Stone magazine, “What do you think the Iranians’ reaction is gonna be?” to Affleck’s movie Argo, which depicts a side-story about six embassy employees who, in 1979, avoided being taken hostage.  Affleck, mixing bits of truth and mythology, just as in the movie itself, replied:

“Who the FUCK knows – who knows if their reaction is going to be anything? This is still the same Stalinist, oppressive regime that was in place when the hostages were taken. There was no rhyme or reason to this action. What’s interesting is that people later figured out that Khomeini just used the hostages to consolidate power internally and marginalize the moderates and everyone in America was going, ‘What the fuck’s wrong with these people?’ You know, ‘What do they want from us?’ It was because it wasn’t about us. It was about Khomeini holding on to power and being able to say to his political opponents, of which he had many, ‘You’re either with us or you’re with the Americans’ – which is, of course, a tactic that works really well. That revolution was a students’ revolution. There were students and communists and secularists and merchants and Islamists, it’s just that Khomeini fucking slowly took it for himself.”

The takeover of the embassy is an action virtually no one would advocate in retrospect, but asserting that it lacked rhyme or reason requires willful ignorance of Iranian-U.S. relations.  Claiming that nobody knew what the hostage-takers wanted requires erasing from history their very clear demands for the Shah to be returned to stand trial, for Iranian money in U.S. banks to be returned to Iran, and for the United States to commit to never again interfering in Iranian politics.  In fact, not only were those demands clearly made, but they are almost indisputably reasonable demands.  A dictator guilty of murder, torture, and countless other abuses should have stood trial, and should have been extradited to do so, as required by treaty.  Money belonging to the Iranian government under a dictatorship should have been returned to a new Iranian government, not pocketed by a U.S. bank.  And for one nation to agree not to interfere in another’s politics is merely to agree to compliance with the most fundamental requirement of legal international relations.

Argo devotes its first 2 minutes or so to the 1953 background of the 1979 drama.  Blink and you’ll miss it, as I’m betting most viewers do.  For a richer understanding of what was happening in Iran in the late 1970s and early 1980s I have a better recommendation than watching Argo.  For a truly magnificent modern epic I strongly encourage getting a hold of the forthcoming masterpiece by M. Lachlan White, titled Waking Up in Tehran: Love and Intrigue in Revolutionary Iran, due to be published this spring.  Weighing in at well over 300,000 words, or about 100,000 more than Moby Dick, Waking Up in Tehran is the memoir of Margot White, an American human rights activist who became an ally of pro-democracy Iranian student groups in 1977, traveled to Iran, supported the revolution, met with the hostage-takers in the embassy, became a public figure, worked with the Kurdish resistance when the new regime attacked the Kurds for being infidels, married an Iranian, and was at home with her husband in Tehran when armed representatives of the government finally banged on the door.  I’m not going to give away what happened next.  This book will transport you into the world of a gripping novel, but you’ll emerge with a political, cultural, and even linguistic education.  This is an action-adventure that would, in fact, make an excellent movie — or even a film trilogy.  It’s also an historical document.

There are sections in which White relates conversations with her friends and colleagues in Iran, including their speculations as to who was behind what government intrigue.  A few of these speculations strike me as in need of more serious support.  They also strike me as helpful in understanding the viewpoints of Iranians at the time.  Had I edited this book I might have framed them a little differently, but I wouldn’t have left them out.  I wouldn’t have left anything out.  This is a several-hundred-page love letter from a woman to her husband and from an activist to humanity.  It is intensely romantic and as honest as cold steel.  It starts in 1977.

Continue reading →

Christian Science Monitor: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said that Israel should be “wiped off the map”

Posted by

0

In honor of Persian New Year, here is a 2012 article from the mainstream American news.

From the Christian Science Monitor – CSMonitor.com

Iran’s nuclear program: 4 things you probably didn’t know

Tensions over Iran‘s nuclear program, which some in Israel and the US say is meant to produce nuclear weapons, continue to run high in the West. Most recently in a Iranian New Year’s sermon, Ayatollah Khamenei promised that Iran would respond “on the same level” as any attack against it.  But even as Israeli and Iranian officials take turns rattling their sabers, several key points remain misunderstood.  Do the US and Israel believe that Iran has a nuclear weapons program?  Did President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really promise to “wipe Israel off the map”?  The answers may surprise you.

By Arthur Bright, Correspondent posted June 8, 2012 at 2:11 pm EDT

1.President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

One frequently proffered explanation for why a war with Iran is needed is because President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants Israel “wiped off the map,” and that with a nuclear weapon, he could.  But some argue that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement was mistranslated from less incidiary language.

Ahmadinejad’s alleged condemnation of Israel came at a “World Without Zionism” conference in Tehran in Oct. 2005, in which he was quoted by an English-language Iranian news site as saying “Israel must be wiped off the map.”  But as several analyses of the original Farsi statement show, this appears to be a mistranslation.

Arash Norouzi of the Mossadegh Project noted in 2007 that Ahmadinejad “never… uttered the words ‘map,’ ‘wipe out,’ or even ‘Israel'” in his statement.  Rather, he argued, the translation should have been that “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”  (Both The Washington Post and The Atlantic came up with similarly variant translations.)

This is a key difference, Mr. Norouzi argued, because Ahmadinejad used the “vanish from the page of time” idiom elsewhere in his speech: when describing the governments of the Shah of Iran, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein.  While war and revolution were involved in the three regimes’ collapse, none of them, Norouzi argued, were “wiped off the map.”  Rather, they underwent regime change.  This suggests in turn, he said, that Ahmadinejad was calling for regime change in Israel, not nuclear genocide.  Juan Cole, another critic of the speech’s translation, compared Ahmadinejad’s statement to Reagan-era calls for the end of the Soviet Union.

Critics note that the translation is a matter of semantics and that regardless, they show Ahmadinejad’s hostility to Israel.  Ahmadinejad did not help the case for mistranslation when in subsequent interviews he refused to clarify whether he truly meant that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth.  But the ambiguity of the words and the indications from context suggest that “wiped off the map” is not the best translation for his statement.

2.Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

Whatever words Ahmadinejad used to describe his attitude towards Israel, it is undeniable that he is not the true leader of Iran.  That role is filled by the country’s supreme leader and foremost religious figure, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  Mr. Khamenei’s words are highly influential among religious Shiites –thus making his 2005 fatwa against nuclear weapons a significant factor in discussing Iran’s nuclear program.

A fatwa is a ruling on Islamic law issued by a recognized religious figure.  While generally nonbinding, fatwas have influence among the faithful, and fatwas issued by Iran’s supreme leader have more influence than most in Iran, both politically and religiously.  So when on Aug. 9, 2005, Khamenei issued a fatwa against the production and use of nuclear weapons, it was not simply a sermon – it carried political weight.  As Jamil Maidan Flores wrote in a commentary last week for the Jakarta Globe, “Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa on nuclear weapons does count for something. He issued it as the supreme spiritual and temporal leader of Iran, and as a marja, a holy man. The fatwa should be binding to all Iranian Shiites, and most binding of all to he himself who issued it.”  Khamenei has repeated his commitment to the fatwa many times since. Most recently, in February he called having nuclear weapons a “sin.”

But there is another Shiite religious concept, that of taghiyeh, which “The Ayatollah Begs to Differ” author Hooman Majd translates as “dissimulation.” A byproduct of the early years of Shia’s split from the Sunni mainstream, taghiyeh allows Shiites to lie in order to avoid death.  Mr. Flores notes that taghiyeh could be a factor in Khamenei’s fatwa on nuclear weapons, if somehow lying about development of such weapons would protect Shiites.  But Mr. Majd notes that taghiyeh is meant only for the purpose of lying about one’s religion to avoid death – which is not the case here – and adds that neither Khamenei nor the former supreme leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, ever to anyone’s knowledge made use of taghiyeh.

3.Iran has a legitimate need for more energy, which is driving its nuclear efforts.

Iran has always insisted that its nuclear research was for peaceful purposes only: to provide more energy to a growing Iran.  In all the debate over the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons, it is easy to overlook the fact that Iran does indeed need more power, power which nuclear plants could provide.

While Iran is a major supplier of both oil – it is the fourth largest producer in the world according to the CIA’s World Factbook – it is also a major consumer.  The Green Party of Iran (an environmental party not to be confused with the Green Movement behind the 2009 presidential protests) estimated in 2000 that Iran ranked second only to the US in gasoline consumption.  But despite Iran’s huge oil production, it lacks the facilities to refine it into gasoline, forcing it to import a barrel of oil for every eight it exports.  According to Majd, some Iranians blame their lack of refining infrastructure on Western sanctions.

Iran is also the world’s fifth largest producer of natural gas globally according to the CIA’s World Factbook.  But it consumed 137.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas in 2010, almost as much natural gas as it produced that year. (Editor’s note: This sentence was revised to correctly reflect Iran’s natural gas production in 2010.)

4.The US and Israel both say Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

It is perhaps the most important fact that is often ignored in the debate over war with Iran: Both US and Israeli intelligence agree that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Just last month, National Intelligence Agency Director James Clapper wrote in a report to the Senate Armed Services Committee that “Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons… should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

When asked in a hearing by Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan to confirm that “Iran has not yet decided to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Clapper did so, saying “That is the intelligence community’s assessment …,” and he reiterated that he has doubts about whether Iran is attempting to create a nuclear weapon when pressed further by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R) of South Carolina.  Gen. Roland Burgess of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who also appeared at the hearing, agreed with Clapper’s assessment.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made statements even more to the point than Clapper’s in January.  In the January 8 edition of CBS‘s Face the Nation, Mr. Panetta said flat out, “Are they [Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”

Israeli intelligence also does not believe that Iran is currently pursuing a nuclear weapon.  In January, Haaretz reported that Israel believes Iran “has not yet decided whether to translate [its efforts to improve its nuclear power] capabilities into a nuclear weapon – or, more specifically, a nuclear warhead mounted atop a missile.”  That same month, Israeli military intelligence chief Gen. Aviv Kochavi told a Knesset hearing that Iran is not working on building a nuclear bomb, reported Agence France-Presse.

Reposted under Fair Use Rules.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0608/Iran-s-nuclear-program-4-things-you-probably-didn-t-know/President-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-never-said-that-Israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map.

Happy Equinox, March 20-21; Happy Persian New Year – Nowruz

Posted by

1

Today is one of the four powerful days in the year, the solstices and the equinoxes. There are two equinoxes – spring and autumn. In the Northern Hemisphere, today is the Spring Equinox. In the Southern Hemisphere, today is the Fall Equinox.

On these days, there is balance between day and night. From ancient times, cultures celebrated these important days. Fortunately, some cultures and people throughout the Earth still celebrate these days as powerful times for creating change and aligning with the Earth and her values.

In Iran, they mark their new year by this date. The new year has various spellings in western script, including Nowruz, NoRuz, NoRooz. One of the ancient themes of Nowruz is the triumph of good over evil. This is what the Earth and its people need. Nothing could be more timely or more important to direct our hearts and prayers to creating that today.

The exact moment of the equinox occurs:

March 20, 22:45 UTC (Universal Coordinated Time)

March 20, 6:45 PM EDT          Washington, DC

March 20, 3:45 PM PDT          San Francisco, CA

March 21, 2:45 AM MSK        Moscow, Russia

March 21, 3:15 AM IRST         Tehran, Iran

March 21, 8:45 AM JST           Tokyo, Japan

 

For more times, use the time conversion tool at

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html

What are Germany and France doing about Minsk 2 violations? — Sample action letter

Posted by

0

Germany and France are guarantors of Minsk 2. Ukraine is violating Minsk 2. Where are the protests by these two countries?

If you oppose what Ukraine is doing, contact the ambassadors for Germany and France in your country, as well as the consulate located in your nearest city.

Here is a letter written to the French Ambassador to the United States Gérard Araud.

—————————————————————

Dear Ambassador Araud:

Ukraine is in gross violation of the Minsk 2 agreement. France is a guarantor of Minsk 2. I urge you and the government of France to take aggressive action now to condemn these violations and the related actions by the United States

The Minsk 2 agreement requires that all foreign military personnel be removed from the country.

  • Pullout of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under OSCE supervision

However, the United States, with President Poroshenko’s support, is moving US military personnel into Ukraine and weaponry for constant NATO exercises starting this week. The Verkhovna Rada is considering a bill legalizing this – in complete defiance of Minsk 2.

There is also the question of whether Kiev has pulled its heavy weaponry from the line of contact, as required by the agreement. In addition, there are continuing violations of the ceasefire by Kiev forces.

The Kiev government and its forces are engaged in genocide and war crimes against Ukrainian citizens. The people of East Ukraine are acting in self-defense. The French government has not recognized that.

As France well knows, there is no Russian aggression against Ukraine; there is no Russian invasion. However, there has been constant aggression by the U.S. in Ukraine for years. This culminated in the Maidan violence and overthrow of President Yanukovich and the ongoing support for the present violence and ethnic genocide against the Ukrainian people. The French people experienced this same violence in the assassination attempts on President De Gaulle traced to NATO, the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, and the FBI.[1]

France must take aggressive action now against these violations of Minsk 2 to stop a European war that could easily turn nuclear.

 

[1]  http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lessons-of-history-in-1966-president-de-gaulle-said-no-to-us-nato/5386501

Back to war? Ukrainian parliament rejects the Minsk agreement

Posted by

0

“No special status or authority, not provided for in the Constitution,” – confirmed speaker Vladimir Groysman

“We can negotiate only when Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts hold elections under the full control of the Ukrainian government” -declared Deputy Speaker Andriy Paruby

From Fort Russ

Back to war?

March 17, 2015
Translated by Kristina Rus

A month after the Minsk agreement the masks are off. New weapons are coming, American instructors are in Ukraine, the IMF credit is approved. Time to get back to killing the kids of Donbass. Where are the sanctions on Kiev?

 Did anyone have any doubts that those who chose bombs instead of talks a year ago will flip and turn into peacemakers? There is no other choice in the alternate reality perpetuated by the Ukrainian media. There is no other choice for the ultra-nationalist Kiev government, like there was no choice for Hitler. It has to follow the program. They only understand the language of force. Only when Novorossia forces enter Kiev will anything change. 

 The only reason they paused the war is because they were annihilated, and couldn’t physically go on. But that’s no longer a problem, thanks to the Americans, who can’t wait to start killing the Russians.

Will Europe open its eyes and realize what monster they helped create?

Mikhail Ryabov for Politnavigator:

Verkhovnaya Rada rejected the Minsk agreements, promising a storm of Donetsk

The Verkhovna Rada after a day of backroom negotiations on Tuesday night voted in favor of a resolution on Donbass. In fact, the documents violate the Minsk agreement. Firstly, the Ukrainian side has already failed the deadline for the adoption of laws. Secondly, MPs rejected the dialogue between Kiev and DPR and LPR, declaring the Republics – “occupied territories”. Thirdly, the Ukrainian Parliament appealed to the UN Security Council with a proposal for the deployment of a peacekeeping mission, which is opposed by the militia. Moreover, the representatives of Peter Poroshenko had promised that the army will eventually bring Ukrainian order to Donetsk and Lugansk.

“We can negotiate only when Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts hold elections under the full control of the Ukrainian government – not under the supervision of the Yakut tanks and Chechen snipers. It is therefore not surprising that since the morning the leaders of the terrorist groups are screaming that these laws undermine the negotiations,”  – declared Deputy Speaker Andrey Paruby.

[Who should talk about snipers! So the counteroffer is – to negotiate with themselves – KR]

He was supported by the MP-commander Andrew Teteryuk. According to him, Kiev will agree to the elections in Donetsk and Luhansk, only when “all the fighters, all equipment, all Russian mercenaries leave the territory, and the process of renewal of life on our Ukrainian lands will begin”.

The only one who tried to protest, was the deputy Yuriy Voropayev from the Opposition Bloc.

“These laws ask one side to capitulate, and only after that projects that provide special conditions will be considered. More precisely, these are just instructions for the Cabinet of Ministers to prepare special conditions. We cannot vote on this bill, it will reject the peace,” – said Voropaev.

“What party do you represent in the Parliament? The other side are Putin’s occupants! The occupier will be forced to capitulate, or will be destroyed by the Ukrainian army! Don’t listen to the militants, the State Duma, don’t be afraid to vote for Ukraine!” – said Paruby.

“No special status or authority, not provided for in the Constitution,” – confirmed speaker Vladimir Groysman. According to him, the task now for the Ukrainian side is “to free from the clutches of the aggressor, the aggressor and terrorist,” Donetsk and Lugansk.

“These laws are not for Putin, not for Europe or America, but for Ukraine and its future. They lead not to the battle for the ruins of our land, but to a future resumption of sovereignty on the territory that is temporarily controlled by the rebels and the Russian army.

They provide the possibility of elections then and only then, when the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian state will bring the Ukrainian flag, the Ukrainian parties and laws to this territory, when there will be Ukrainian parties, the police, the CEC. The laws do not give any concessions to the terrorists,” – said the deputy Yury Lutsenko, the head of the faction of the Poroshenko Bloc.

Oleg Lyashko and Yulia Tymoshenko stated that they will not even vote for the laws in this form.

“They propose to implement what was signed in Minsk… Read the Minsk agreement: “until the end of 2015 – the establishment of a special status for Donbass”! Crimea already had a special status!” said Lyashko.

Yulia Tymoshenko also rejected any dialogue with the LPR and DPR. In her opinion, otherwise at the elections in Donetsk and Lugansk “will be selected the people whose hands are covered in blood, who killed Ukrainians. Does anyone have any doubts, which judges and prosecutors they will agree on for the Ukrainian authorities to confirm?”

The vote in the Verkhovnaya Rada has already received a sharp reaction from Moscow. Russian political analyst Alexey Chesnakov stated that Peter Poroshenko violated the Minsk agreement.

“Today in Parliament – another circus. Poroshenko and company are playing that part of the coalition does not want to vote for a resolution defining the boundaries of special areas. Blatantly lying, in order to then lie to the Germans, the French and us, that the voting was difficult and their option is the maximum, that can be achieved from the Rada”, – said the expert.

KR: The Rada had no problem voting for population-reducing budget after five attempts, so have no doubt – if they vote like this it’s because they have the green light from the puppet-masters. 
Don’t have any illusions – they will blame the resumption of the war on DPR and LPR.

Minsk 2 agreement — Text

Posted by

0

Translation posted on the UK Telegraph, February 12, 2015
The footnotes for the agreement were not translated or posted by the Telegraph.

This was agreed to by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany, and signed by East Ukraine leaders.

  • Immediate and full ceasefire in particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine and its strict fulfilment as of 00.00 midnight (Kiev time) on Feb. 15, 2015.
  • Pull-out of all heavy weapons by both sides to equal distance with the aim of creation of a security zone on minimum 50 kilometres apart for artillery of 100mm calibre or more, and a security zone of 70km for MLRS and 140 kilometres for MLRS Tornado-S, Uragan, Smerch and tactical missile systems Tochka U.

– for Ukrainian troops, from actual line of contact;

– for armed formations of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine, from the contact line in accordance with the Minsk memorandum as of Sept. 19, 2014

  • The pullout of the above mentioned heavy weapons has to start no later than the second day after the ceasefire and finish within 14 days.
  • This process will be assisted by OSCE with the support of the Trilateral Contact Group.
  • Effective monitoring and verification of ceasefire regime and pullout of heavy weapons by OSCE will be provided from the first day of pullout, using all necessary technical means such as satellites, drones, radio-location systems etc.
  • On the first day after the pullout a dialogue is to start on modalities of conducting local elections in accordance with the Ukrainian legislation and the Law of Ukraine “On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts,” and also about the future of these districts based on the above mentioned law.
  • Without delays, but no later than 30 days from the date of signing of this document, a resolution has to be approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, indicating the territory which falls under the special regime in accordance with the law “On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts,” based in the line set up by the Minsk Memorandum as of Sept. 19, 2014.
  • Provide pardon and amnesty by way of enacting a law that forbids persecution and punishment of persons in relation to events that took place in particular departments of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine.
  • Provide release and exchange of all hostages and illegally held persons, based on the principle of “all for all”. This process has to end – at the latest – on the fifth day after the pullout (of weapons).
  • Provide safe access, delivery, storage and distribution of humanitarian aid to the needy, based on an international mechanism.
  • Define the modalities of a full restoration of social and economic connections, including social transfers, such as payments of pensions and other payments (income and revenue, timely payment of communal bills, restoration of tax payments within the framework of Ukrainian legal field)
  • With this aim, Ukraine will restore management over the segment of its banking system in the districts affected by the conflict, and possibly, an international mechanism will be established to ease such transactions.
  • Restore full control over the state border by Ukrainian government in the whole conflict zone, which has to start on the first day after the local election and end after the full political regulation (local elections in particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts based on the law of Ukraine and Constitutional reform) by the end of 2015, on the condition of fulfilment of Point 11 – in consultations and in agreement with representatives of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts within the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group.
  • Pullout of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under OSCE supervision. Disarmament of all illegal groups.
  • Constitutional reform in Ukraine, with the new Constitution to come into effect by the end of 2015, the key element of which is decentralisation (taking into account peculiarities of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, agreed with representatives of these districts), and also approval of permanent legislation on special status of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts in accordance with the measures spelt out in the footnotes, by the end of 2015.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11408266/Minsk-agreement-on-Ukraine-crisis-text-in-full.html

NATO’s eastern campaign: U.S. to hold Patriot missile drill in Poland

Posted by

0

From Rick Rozoff

U.S. Department of Defense
March 13, 2015
U.S., Poland to Conduct Patriot Missile Exercise
By Nick Simeone

untitled

WASHINGTON: U.S. and Polish forces will conduct an exercise later this month involving a U.S. Patriot missile battery and Poland’s 3rd Warsaw Air Defense Missile Brigade, Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren announced today.

The exercise will involve some 100 U.S. soldiers and 30 vehicles at a location on Polish territory.

Warren called the exercise part of Operation Atlantic Resolve, which is designed to reassure allies, demonstrate freedom of movement and deter regional aggression on the eastern flank of NATO. The mission began in response to Russia’s armed support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine and its annexation of Crimea a year ago.

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/natos-eastern-campaign-u-s-to-hold-patriot-missile-drill-in-Poland/

Pentagon budget may include $1 billion in lethal aid to Ukraine – Congressman

Posted by

0

According to this article, this bill has been referred to the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/

Posted on Strategic Culture Foundation, March 17, 2015

Sputnik — A proposed piece of legislation providing $1 billion in lethal defensive aid to Ukraine may be incorporated into the 2016 Pentagon budget, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), US House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry said at a press briefing on Monday.

“It may be something that we want to look at on the NDAA,” Thornberry said of the legislation. “It could stand on its own, or it could be both.”

Further questioned on including the $1 billion in lethal aid to the 2016 NDAA, Thornberry said the budget legislation could “at least express the opinion [of the US Congress] on it,” which is not a formal authorization for the action.

Thornberry added he is unclear when his legislation on Ukraine will come up for a vote because there are still “jurisdictional questions” regarding the bill, which was referred out of Armed Services to the House Foreign Affairs Committee for further action.

“I’m for doing it tomorrow, myself,” he stated.

US efforts to provide lethal support to Ukraine have “strong bipartisan support” in the US House and Senate, Thornberry noted.

Thornberry introduced the bill in February together with US Representative Adam Smith, calling on the US government to provide $1 billion in lethal defensive military aid to the government in Kiev.

Smith said in February that the language in the bill was more forceful than previous pieces of legislation in terms of pressuring US President Obama to arm Ukraine.

The US Congress is currently working toward an agreement on the federal budget for fiscal year 2016. The Pentagon has requested approximately $585 billion in defense spending, which is higher than the amount of spending authorized under the Congress’ Budget Control Act limits, or sequestration.

Russia has said that providing Kiev will weapons will exacerbate the Ukrainian crisis, and goes against claims by Washington of its commitment for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/03/17/pentagon-budget-may-include-1bln-lethal-aid-to-ukraine-congressman.html