Who Is Killing Iran’s Nuclear Scientists – And Why?
By Stephen Gowans
news register date: 28/05/1390
One day last November, assassins on motorbikes drove up to the cars of two of Iran’s nuclear scientists as they were leaving for work and attached bombs to their vehicles. The bombs detonated in seconds, killing Majid Shahriari, a member of the engineering faculty at a Tehran university, and Fereydoon Abbasi, a professor at Shahid Besheshti University.
Last week, in an eerie reprise, Darioush Rezaei, a physics professor working in the field of nuclear chain reactions, was killed in his car. This time by a pair of gunmen on a motorcycle.
Suspicion immediately fell upon the United States, and for good reason. The CIA is running a program to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program by eliminating its nuclear scientists. Until recently, the program has sought to create a brain drain by luring physicists and engineers out of the country.(1) But now it appears that the nuclear scientists who won’t or can’t be lured away are being targeted for elimination – either by assassination or abduction.
Another Iranian nuclear scientist, Shahram Amiri, was abducted while on a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia and “spirited quickly to the United States.” (2)
It should be recalled that while the United States and its possible partner in the assassinations, Israel, are working to undermine Iran’s nuclear program, both have their own civilian nuclear power industries plus more than a few nuclear weapons.
So why are they adamant about denying Iran what they, themselves, already have?
And just to be clear, what Washington and the Israelis don’t want Iran to have is the capability of processing nuclear fuel at home. While this would allow the Iranians to convert Iran’s vast supplies of uranium into fuel to power a civilian nuclear energy industry, it would also furnish Iran with the means to quickly develop nuclear weapons, something it might want to do if, say, the United States threatened to attack (hardly an improbable scenario).
Denying Iran its own nuclear fuel processing industry has obvious advantages to rich countries.
They get profits from the sale of nuclear fuel.
With their hands on the nuclear fuel spigot, they acquire political leverage over Tehran.
Iran’s ability to resist US pressure by developing nuclear arms is severely crimped.
The official story on why Iran mustn’t have its own nuclear fuel processing capability is that if Iran can process uranium it can secretly develop nuclear arms. And the country must not be allowed to go nuclear because its president is a Judeophobic madman who, if he gets the chance, will send a barrage of nuclear-tipped missiles hurtling toward Israel to complete what Hitler had left undone.
This view is utter nonsense.
First, the United States would incinerate Iran in a second if Tehran used nuclear weapons against Israel. And if Washington couldn’t do the job, the Israelis, with their own formidable nuclear arsenal, surely would. At best, Iran’s possession of nuclear arms (and it doesn’t have them now and it’s not clear it seeks them) would provide a deterrent against attacks on its own territory.
What’s more, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, never promised to “wipe Israel off the map,” as some Western and Israeli political leaders demagogically claim. Instead, he predicted that Israel as a Jewish state would dissolve, as the Soviet Union once did. Hardly the same.
Another view is that Ahmadinejad intends to attack Israel in order to return Palestine to the Palestinians. Except this would turn Palestine into a nuclear wasteland, not what the Palestinians want. And why would Ahmadinejad risk Iran’s nuclear annihilation to advance the Palestinian cause? Sure, Iran is a big booster of the Palestinians, but not to the point of imperilling its own existence.
No, the real reason Washington seeks to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program is to deny the country a means by which it can resist efforts to bring it within the US imperial orbit, that is, to eliminate the threat of Iranian self-defense.
Iran is charting its own course. Its economic policies, which emphasize state-ownership of key sectors of the economy, and the sheltering of manufacturing behind high tariff walls, are an anathema to the ultra-wealthy bankers and investors who dominate US foreign policy and insist that profit-making opportunities be made available to them just as much beyond US borders as within.
As an example of the opportunities that Iran’s nationalist policies deny investors and corporations of rich countries, consider the country’s automobile industry. It operates behind steep tariff walls which allow two domestic firms, both partly government-owned, to absorb 97 percent of all automobile sales in the country. Sales reached 1.6 million units last year. (3) Were Iran’s high tariff barriers toppled, US, European and East Asian automobile manufacturers could add handsomely to their bottom lines.
But a nuclear-armed Iran—even one which doesn’t have nuclear weapons, but has the knowledge and means to quickly develop them—could strongly resist demands made at gunpoint that it turn over its markets, natural resources and enterprises to foreign capital.
Of course, US sophistry holds that that’s not what Washington wants. It’s not seeking economic domination, only a level playing field. The trouble is, asking a Third World country to compete with rich countries on a level playing field is like asking high school football teams to compete in the NFL – without assistance.
Since US foreign policy is all about opening doors to US investors and exporters, and Iranian policy is focussed on using state-ownership, subsidies and tariffs to develop the country’s economy, Washington and Tehran are in conflict. Washington wants Tehran’s economic policy to accommodate the profit-making interests of US banks, corporations and investors, while Tehran fashions its economic policy to accommodate the interests of Iranians.
For Washington, the route to resolving the conflict lies in ushering in a new regime in Tehran, one more attentive to the needs of US capital. It would be pro-foreign investment and committed to free markets, free trade and free enterprise.
Since Iranians don’t seem to be heading in this direction as rapidly as Wall Street would like, Washington hopes to change their minds through sanctions, threats of war, financial isolation, and destabilization, centred on demonization of Iran’s political leadership.
Oh, and abduction and assassination too.
1. Greg Miller, “US now sees Iran as pursuing nuclear bombs,” Los Angeles Times, February 12, 2009.
2. David E. Sanger, “Scientist heads home, Iran says”, The New York Times, July 14, 2010; Alan Cowell, “Pakistan says Iran scientists in U.S.flees to its embassy”, The New York Times, July 13, 2010.
3. “Iranian car lines keep rolling despite sanctions”, Reuters, June 29, 2011.
http://www.solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=1&ctg=1&c=10&lang=En
Monday, November 28, 2011
Solidarity Tour! Second Stop: Nicaragua
Solidarity Tour! Second Stop: Nicaragua
7/25/2011 4:57:24 PM
Report from the SI Campaign Coordination Committee:
'Solidarity with Iran' delegation visits Nicaragua in second stop of Latin American tour
After receiving massive support in Cuba, a delegation of Iranian activists has visited Venezuela in the second stop of its tour of Latin American countries, an effort designed to promote international solidarity with Iran.
The activists are members of the House of Latin America (HOLA), an NGO based in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which for the past five years has promoted solidarity with the peoples of Latin America.
In October 2010 the organization launched its “Solidarity with Iran – SI” campaign to build international support for three demands: (1) lift economic sanctions against Iran, (2) recognize the right of Iran to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, (3) stop military threats against Iran.
After leaving Cuba, the HOLA delegation visited Nicaragua, from Nov. 27 to Dec. 3. There the delegation met with Olga Xochilth Ocampo Rocha and nine other deputies of the National Assembly of Nicaragua, who all signed the “Solidarity with Iran – SI” Appeal, endorsing the campaign's three demands.
Also signing the appeal were a number of representatives of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN); Dr. Rafael Omar Cabezas Lacayo, attorney and head of the Public Prosecutor Office for Defense of Human Rights; Gustavo Porras Cortes, General Secretary of the Workers National Front and member of the National Assembly; Walter Castillo Sandino, grandson of Nicaragua's national hero Augusto Cesar Sandino and President of the Augusto Nicolas Calderon Sandino Foundation; Marbely Castillo Cerna, Vice President of the Augusto Nicolas Calderon Sandino Foundation; Aldo Diaz Lacayo, a prominent historian; Omar Garcia, host of the “We Know What We Say” program on Radio La Primerisima; Dennis Deering, host of Radio Sandino; David Ruiz Vizcaya, Coordinator of Guerrilla’s of Communication; and several leaders and representatives of Nicaraguan youth organizations, including: Youth for International Solidarity (JSI), the Federation of University Students and Sandinista Youth
“The land of the great liberator, Augusto Cesar Sandino, has in this visit stood firm on the side of Iran,”commented delegation member Hamid Sharabi, a resident of Tehran and co-founder of HOLA.
Before leaving Venezuela, the HOLA members were interviewed on the popular “We Know What We Say” program on Radio La Primerisima.
The next stops on the “Solidarity Tour” will be Ecuador and Bolivia.
Further reports will follow the completion of these visits.
“Solidarity Tour”
Second Stop: Nicaragua
After receiving massive support in Cuba, a delegation of House of Latin America (HOLA) – a NGO based in Islamic Republic of Iran - who is on a tour to a number of Latin American countries with the objective of broadening the “Solidarity with Iran – SI” campaign, visited Nicaragua during the period from Nov. 27 to Oct. 3, 2010. In this visit, the land of the great liberator, Augusto Cesar Sandino, stood firm on the side of Iran.
Olga Xochilth Ocampo Rocha, the reputable member of the National Assembly of Nicaragua together with 9 other members of the same assembly signed the “Solidarity with Iran – SI” Appeal. With this endorsement, deputies in the Nicaraguan National Assembly supported the three demands stated in the SI Appeal, that is: i) Lift economic sanctions against Iran, ii) Recognize the right of Iran to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and iii) Stop military threats against Iran.
Beside the deputies of the National Assembly and a number of representatives from Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), other prominent people as listed below joined the SI Campaign in Nicaragua:
Dr. Rafael Omar Cabezas Lacayo, Attorney and Head of Public Prosecutor Office for Defense of Human Rights; Gustavo Porras Cortes, General Secretary of Workers National Front and Member of the National Assembly; Walter Castillo Sandino, grandson of Sandino and President of the Augusto Nicolas Calderon Sandino Foundation; Marbely Castillo Cerna, Vice President of the Augusto Nicolas Calderon Sandino Foundation; Aldo Diaz Lacayo, the prominent historian; Omar Garcia, the performer of “we know what we say” popular program in Radio La Primerisima (he also made an interview with HOLA’s delegation in his radio program); Dennis Deering, the performer of Radio Sandino; several leaders and representatives of Nicaraguan youth organizations including: Youth for International Solidarity (JSI), Federation of University Students, and Sandinista Youth; and, David Ruiz Vizcaya, the Coordinator of Guerrilla ’s of Communication.
The next report on “Solidarity Tour” will inform the reader about the support gained for the “Solidarity with Iran – SI” campaign, in Ecuador and Bolivia.
SI Campaign
Coordination Committee
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=11&lang=En
7/25/2011 4:57:24 PM
Report from the SI Campaign Coordination Committee:
'Solidarity with Iran' delegation visits Nicaragua in second stop of Latin American tour
After receiving massive support in Cuba, a delegation of Iranian activists has visited Venezuela in the second stop of its tour of Latin American countries, an effort designed to promote international solidarity with Iran.
The activists are members of the House of Latin America (HOLA), an NGO based in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which for the past five years has promoted solidarity with the peoples of Latin America.
In October 2010 the organization launched its “Solidarity with Iran – SI” campaign to build international support for three demands: (1) lift economic sanctions against Iran, (2) recognize the right of Iran to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, (3) stop military threats against Iran.
After leaving Cuba, the HOLA delegation visited Nicaragua, from Nov. 27 to Dec. 3. There the delegation met with Olga Xochilth Ocampo Rocha and nine other deputies of the National Assembly of Nicaragua, who all signed the “Solidarity with Iran – SI” Appeal, endorsing the campaign's three demands.
Also signing the appeal were a number of representatives of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN); Dr. Rafael Omar Cabezas Lacayo, attorney and head of the Public Prosecutor Office for Defense of Human Rights; Gustavo Porras Cortes, General Secretary of the Workers National Front and member of the National Assembly; Walter Castillo Sandino, grandson of Nicaragua's national hero Augusto Cesar Sandino and President of the Augusto Nicolas Calderon Sandino Foundation; Marbely Castillo Cerna, Vice President of the Augusto Nicolas Calderon Sandino Foundation; Aldo Diaz Lacayo, a prominent historian; Omar Garcia, host of the “We Know What We Say” program on Radio La Primerisima; Dennis Deering, host of Radio Sandino; David Ruiz Vizcaya, Coordinator of Guerrilla’s of Communication; and several leaders and representatives of Nicaraguan youth organizations, including: Youth for International Solidarity (JSI), the Federation of University Students and Sandinista Youth
“The land of the great liberator, Augusto Cesar Sandino, has in this visit stood firm on the side of Iran,”commented delegation member Hamid Sharabi, a resident of Tehran and co-founder of HOLA.
Before leaving Venezuela, the HOLA members were interviewed on the popular “We Know What We Say” program on Radio La Primerisima.
The next stops on the “Solidarity Tour” will be Ecuador and Bolivia.
Further reports will follow the completion of these visits.
“Solidarity Tour”
Second Stop: Nicaragua
After receiving massive support in Cuba, a delegation of House of Latin America (HOLA) – a NGO based in Islamic Republic of Iran - who is on a tour to a number of Latin American countries with the objective of broadening the “Solidarity with Iran – SI” campaign, visited Nicaragua during the period from Nov. 27 to Oct. 3, 2010. In this visit, the land of the great liberator, Augusto Cesar Sandino, stood firm on the side of Iran.
Olga Xochilth Ocampo Rocha, the reputable member of the National Assembly of Nicaragua together with 9 other members of the same assembly signed the “Solidarity with Iran – SI” Appeal. With this endorsement, deputies in the Nicaraguan National Assembly supported the three demands stated in the SI Appeal, that is: i) Lift economic sanctions against Iran, ii) Recognize the right of Iran to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and iii) Stop military threats against Iran.
Beside the deputies of the National Assembly and a number of representatives from Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), other prominent people as listed below joined the SI Campaign in Nicaragua:
Dr. Rafael Omar Cabezas Lacayo, Attorney and Head of Public Prosecutor Office for Defense of Human Rights; Gustavo Porras Cortes, General Secretary of Workers National Front and Member of the National Assembly; Walter Castillo Sandino, grandson of Sandino and President of the Augusto Nicolas Calderon Sandino Foundation; Marbely Castillo Cerna, Vice President of the Augusto Nicolas Calderon Sandino Foundation; Aldo Diaz Lacayo, the prominent historian; Omar Garcia, the performer of “we know what we say” popular program in Radio La Primerisima (he also made an interview with HOLA’s delegation in his radio program); Dennis Deering, the performer of Radio Sandino; several leaders and representatives of Nicaraguan youth organizations including: Youth for International Solidarity (JSI), Federation of University Students, and Sandinista Youth; and, David Ruiz Vizcaya, the Coordinator of Guerrilla ’s of Communication.
The next report on “Solidarity Tour” will inform the reader about the support gained for the “Solidarity with Iran – SI” campaign, in Ecuador and Bolivia.
SI Campaign
Coordination Committee
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=11&lang=En
Solidarity Tour! First Stop: Havana
Solidarity Tour! First Stop: Havana
7/25/2011 4:46:30 PM
Solidarity Tour!
First Stop: Havana
Immense Support with the People of Iran
When the campaign “Solidarity with Iran – SI!” was initiated in mid October 2010 through an appeal under the same name, the initiators – House of Latin America (HOLA), an NGO based in Iran - were confident of the promising prospect of the campaign. Now, the campaign's success in a short period to gain the support of 100s of activists and 10s of organizations involved in the international peace movement indicates the correctness of such assessment.
Encouraged by the campaign's support at its initial stage, Amir Tafreshi and Hamid Shahrabi as members of a delegation from HOLA started a tour to Latin America on November 17, 2010, to further mobilize world public opinion in defense of the Iranian people at a time that Iran is faced with intensified aggressions by hegemonic powers, manifested by new rounds of economic sanctions and war threats. The countries that will be visited in this solidarity tour are: Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay and Brazil.
The first stop was Cuba, whereat the representatives of major mass organizations endorsed the appeal of “Solidarity with Iran – SI!”, which demands: Lift economic sanctions against Iran; Recognize the right of Iran to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; and, Stop military threats against Iran. The appeal is posted at: www.solidaridad.ir
Cuban organizations that supported the SI appeal include:
- Committees for Defence of the Revolution (CDR) with 8 million members, representing 92% of Cuban population above 14 years of age.
- Federation of Cuban Women, with 4,200,000 members, representing 88% of Cuban women population above 14 years of age.
- Continental Organization of Latin American & Caribbean Students.
- Union of the Communist Youth.
- Federation of University Students; Federation of High School Students.
- Organization for Solidarity among the Peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America (OSPAAAL).
- Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples.
- Cuban Movement for Peace and Peoples' Sovereignty.
- Hermanos Saiz Association (Association of Young Artists).
- Martin Luther King Jr., Memorial Centre.
The above list indicates the fact that almost the entire people of Cuba are in line with the position of the leader of that nation, Fidel Castro, and fully support the Iranian people in their struggles for peace, justice and national sovereignty.
The Coordinators of “Solidarity with Iran – SI!” campaign visited Cuba at a time that the 6th International Colloquium in solidarity with 5 Cuban antiterrorist patriots who have been imprisoned in the United States for more than 12 years was also taking place in the island’s eastern city of Holguin, from November 18 to 22. Participation of the SI Campaign Coordinators in this event, in which over 350 delegates from 56 countries of 5 continents were present, provided a chance for them to express their solidarity with the Cuban 5, while being able also to ask for the support of other delegates for the campaign in solidarity with the people of Iran. All those approached responded positively to this request and the result was the endorsement of the “Solidarity with Iran – SI!” appeal by solidarity groups and peace organizations from 28 countries listed below:
Argentine, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, England, France, Germany, Guadeloupe, Laos, Lebanon, Palestine, Peru, Puerto Rico, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, Venezuela, Vietnam, United States.
With the above supports, a partial list of prominent supporters of the “Solidarity with Iran – SI!” campaign on the date of dispatching this report is as follows:
Adolfo Perez Esquivel, winner of Novel Price for Peace; Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General of US; Cindy Sheehan, the distinguished anti-war activist; Denis Halliday, former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations; Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Congresswoman; Rev. Raúl Suárez Ramos, Director of the Martin Luther King Jr, Memorial Center and member of Cuba's Parliament (Congress of Peoples Power); James Cockcroft, writer, lecturer, poet; Father Geoffrey Bottoms, Catholic Priest from United Kingdom; Kenia Serrano, President of Cuba Institute of Friendship with Peoples; Father Roy Bourgeois, the Founder of the SOAW (School of Americas Watch); Jose R. Rodriguez Verona, President of Cuban Movement for Peace and Peoples’ Sovereignty; Alfonso Fraga Perez, General Secretary of Organization for Solidarity among the Peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America (OSPAAAL); Sara Flounders, Co-director of International Action Center; Brian Becker, National Coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition; Eva Golinger, lawyer and the winner of the International Award for Journalism in Mexico (2009); Altilio Alberto Boron, economist, author and university professor, Argentine; Ramón Labañino and Fernando González, on behalf of Cuban 5 anti-terrorist heroes; Gloria La Riva, Coordinator of the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five; Alicia Jrapko, National Coordinator of the International Committee for Freedom of Cuban 5; Phil Wilayto, Editor of The Virginia Defender and Author of "In Defense of Iran"; Anwar Jassin from Lebanon who was imprisoned for 17 years in Israel; Zafar Banghash, Director of Islamic Society of York region; Ferial B. Diab, Chief of External & Diplomatic Relations of Tayyar Al-Tawhid, Lebanon; Canadian Shia’s Muslim Organization; Ali Mallah, the Vice President of the Canadian Arab Federation and a founding member of Toronto Coalition to Stop the War; Don Foreman, representative of Canadian Union of Postal Workers; John Thompson Parker, Bail Out People Movement; Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, civil rights attorney; Kazem Azin, Political Activist, Stop War Against Iran before it Starts; Ellie and Ardeshir Ommani, American-Iranian Friendship Committee; Simin Royanian, Women for Peace and Justice in Iran; Arnold August, Canadian author, journalist and antiwar activist; Morteza Gorgzadeh, Toronto Coalition to Stop the War and Toronto Forum on Cuba; Ekin Koichi Sakaguchi, Japan to Gaza Committee; Feroze Mithiborwala, India Palestine Peoples; Konstantinos Konstantinidis-Amphiktyon, Major General (Ret) Author-Columstni, Generals For Peace & Disarmament*, Chalandri, Greece; Monica Moorehead, Editor Workers World Newspaper; Dave Blalock, Speaker, Vvaw (ai) Germany*, Heidelberg, Germany; Alison Bodine, Co-Chair, Mobilization Against War And Occupation (MAWO), Vancouver, BC, Canada; Shahid Comrade, Secretary -General, Pakistan USA Freedom Forum, Brooklyn, NY
Coordinating Committee of
Solidarity with Iran SI!
3 December 2010
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=10&lang=En
7/25/2011 4:46:30 PM
Solidarity Tour!
First Stop: Havana
Immense Support with the People of Iran
When the campaign “Solidarity with Iran – SI!” was initiated in mid October 2010 through an appeal under the same name, the initiators – House of Latin America (HOLA), an NGO based in Iran - were confident of the promising prospect of the campaign. Now, the campaign's success in a short period to gain the support of 100s of activists and 10s of organizations involved in the international peace movement indicates the correctness of such assessment.
Encouraged by the campaign's support at its initial stage, Amir Tafreshi and Hamid Shahrabi as members of a delegation from HOLA started a tour to Latin America on November 17, 2010, to further mobilize world public opinion in defense of the Iranian people at a time that Iran is faced with intensified aggressions by hegemonic powers, manifested by new rounds of economic sanctions and war threats. The countries that will be visited in this solidarity tour are: Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay and Brazil.
The first stop was Cuba, whereat the representatives of major mass organizations endorsed the appeal of “Solidarity with Iran – SI!”, which demands: Lift economic sanctions against Iran; Recognize the right of Iran to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; and, Stop military threats against Iran. The appeal is posted at: www.solidaridad.ir
Cuban organizations that supported the SI appeal include:
- Committees for Defence of the Revolution (CDR) with 8 million members, representing 92% of Cuban population above 14 years of age.
- Federation of Cuban Women, with 4,200,000 members, representing 88% of Cuban women population above 14 years of age.
- Continental Organization of Latin American & Caribbean Students.
- Union of the Communist Youth.
- Federation of University Students; Federation of High School Students.
- Organization for Solidarity among the Peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America (OSPAAAL).
- Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples.
- Cuban Movement for Peace and Peoples' Sovereignty.
- Hermanos Saiz Association (Association of Young Artists).
- Martin Luther King Jr., Memorial Centre.
The above list indicates the fact that almost the entire people of Cuba are in line with the position of the leader of that nation, Fidel Castro, and fully support the Iranian people in their struggles for peace, justice and national sovereignty.
The Coordinators of “Solidarity with Iran – SI!” campaign visited Cuba at a time that the 6th International Colloquium in solidarity with 5 Cuban antiterrorist patriots who have been imprisoned in the United States for more than 12 years was also taking place in the island’s eastern city of Holguin, from November 18 to 22. Participation of the SI Campaign Coordinators in this event, in which over 350 delegates from 56 countries of 5 continents were present, provided a chance for them to express their solidarity with the Cuban 5, while being able also to ask for the support of other delegates for the campaign in solidarity with the people of Iran. All those approached responded positively to this request and the result was the endorsement of the “Solidarity with Iran – SI!” appeal by solidarity groups and peace organizations from 28 countries listed below:
Argentine, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, England, France, Germany, Guadeloupe, Laos, Lebanon, Palestine, Peru, Puerto Rico, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, Venezuela, Vietnam, United States.
With the above supports, a partial list of prominent supporters of the “Solidarity with Iran – SI!” campaign on the date of dispatching this report is as follows:
Adolfo Perez Esquivel, winner of Novel Price for Peace; Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General of US; Cindy Sheehan, the distinguished anti-war activist; Denis Halliday, former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations; Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Congresswoman; Rev. Raúl Suárez Ramos, Director of the Martin Luther King Jr, Memorial Center and member of Cuba's Parliament (Congress of Peoples Power); James Cockcroft, writer, lecturer, poet; Father Geoffrey Bottoms, Catholic Priest from United Kingdom; Kenia Serrano, President of Cuba Institute of Friendship with Peoples; Father Roy Bourgeois, the Founder of the SOAW (School of Americas Watch); Jose R. Rodriguez Verona, President of Cuban Movement for Peace and Peoples’ Sovereignty; Alfonso Fraga Perez, General Secretary of Organization for Solidarity among the Peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America (OSPAAAL); Sara Flounders, Co-director of International Action Center; Brian Becker, National Coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition; Eva Golinger, lawyer and the winner of the International Award for Journalism in Mexico (2009); Altilio Alberto Boron, economist, author and university professor, Argentine; Ramón Labañino and Fernando González, on behalf of Cuban 5 anti-terrorist heroes; Gloria La Riva, Coordinator of the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five; Alicia Jrapko, National Coordinator of the International Committee for Freedom of Cuban 5; Phil Wilayto, Editor of The Virginia Defender and Author of "In Defense of Iran"; Anwar Jassin from Lebanon who was imprisoned for 17 years in Israel; Zafar Banghash, Director of Islamic Society of York region; Ferial B. Diab, Chief of External & Diplomatic Relations of Tayyar Al-Tawhid, Lebanon; Canadian Shia’s Muslim Organization; Ali Mallah, the Vice President of the Canadian Arab Federation and a founding member of Toronto Coalition to Stop the War; Don Foreman, representative of Canadian Union of Postal Workers; John Thompson Parker, Bail Out People Movement; Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, civil rights attorney; Kazem Azin, Political Activist, Stop War Against Iran before it Starts; Ellie and Ardeshir Ommani, American-Iranian Friendship Committee; Simin Royanian, Women for Peace and Justice in Iran; Arnold August, Canadian author, journalist and antiwar activist; Morteza Gorgzadeh, Toronto Coalition to Stop the War and Toronto Forum on Cuba; Ekin Koichi Sakaguchi, Japan to Gaza Committee; Feroze Mithiborwala, India Palestine Peoples; Konstantinos Konstantinidis-Amphiktyon, Major General (Ret) Author-Columstni, Generals For Peace & Disarmament*, Chalandri, Greece; Monica Moorehead, Editor Workers World Newspaper; Dave Blalock, Speaker, Vvaw (ai) Germany*, Heidelberg, Germany; Alison Bodine, Co-Chair, Mobilization Against War And Occupation (MAWO), Vancouver, BC, Canada; Shahid Comrade, Secretary -General, Pakistan USA Freedom Forum, Brooklyn, NY
Coordinating Committee of
Solidarity with Iran SI!
3 December 2010
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=10&lang=En
Iran: "Regime Change" or All Out War?
Iran: "Regime Change" or All Out War?
7/11/2011 7:50:41 PM
The geo-political chessboard is being lined up for a showdown with Iran and its allies in the Resistance Bloc. This is just one theatre within the broader struggle to control Eurasia. In the process there is an effort by Washington and its allies to manipulate Islam and subordinate it to capitalist interests by ushering in a new generation of Islamists amongst the Arabs.
A New Pressure Point in Tehran for Washington, Israel, and the E.U. to Capitalize?
The political system of Iran is complex and there are multiple opposing poles of power. In 2009, the world already saw internal fighting amongst the ruling establishment. The divisions played themselves out during the protests that resulted after the presidential elections when allegations of fraud were put forward.
The presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (which started in 2005) was at odds with significant segments of Iran’s political establishment. Its relationship has always been tense with the other poles of power in Tehran. In 2011, Iran’s presidency has increasingly become at odds with the Parliament, the Judiciary, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Within the framework of these political tensions, another Iranian internal political struggle is in the making. This time, the centre of attention is Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei. The views of Mashaei, who is known as a political conservative, have been at odds with other conservatives, specifically the clerical elements. In 2009, Mashaei gave a speech where he said that Iran was friends with all the people of the world, including the Israeli people, and that Tehran was opposed to the regime in Tel Aviv, rather than the people of Israel. This was rebuked by Ayatollah Khamenei.
In July 2009, President Ahmadinejad tried to appoint Mashaei to the office of the primary (first) vice-president of Iran, but was opposed by the Iranian Parliament. Ahmadinejad was forced to appoint Mohammed-Reza Rahimi to the office of first vice-president. Instead Mashaei was appointed presidential chief-of-staff by President Ahmadinejad.
In April 2011, a scandal erupted when it became public that Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi had ordered for Mashaei to be the subject of electronic surveillance. Ahmadinejad in outrage wanted to fire the Intelligence Minister, but his decision was vetoed by Ayatollah Khamenei. Meanwhile Heydar Moslehi remained in his position.
It appears now that there is a concerted effort to weaken the Ahmadinejad Administration and to prevent it from helping Mashaei and others run for office. General Ali Jaffari, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, has stated publicly that there are "corrupt elements" in the presidential office who have deviated from the principles of the Iranian Revolution. Ali Saeedi, the liaison of Ayatollah Khamenei within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, has also added his voice, saying that Ahmadinejad and his political camp will lose all support unless they remain committed to Ayatollah Khamenei.
Some form of political showdown is looming in Tehran. There appears to be a widening political rift amongst Iranian conservative ideologues. The Iranian President and his political allies intend to field their own candidates in the March 2012 parliamentary elections, who would challenge the current grouping of so-called conservatives in the Iranian Parliament.
In addition to all this, the death of Haleh Sahabi, the daughter of the late ex-Member of Parliament (MP) Ezatollah Sahabi, at the funeral of her father has ignited opposition anger which threatens to fuel and spark new protests.
Iranian security forces were present at the funeral to prevent it from being turned into a political event against the ruling establishment. In their presence, Haleh Sahabi was confronted by an unknown man who grabbed the picture of her father that she was holding during the funeral. When she tried to grab the man, he elbowed her so violently in the face that she died from a heart attack.
This could all play into the hands of the enemies of Iran. There is a secret war against Iran being fought by Washington and its allies, which has included the kidnapping of Iranians, assassinations of Iranian scientists and security officials, and terrorist attacks on Iranian border regions. The developing internal divisions in Tehran could be capitalized on by its enemies. Israel is already showing a deep interest in these new political tensions in Tehran.
It should be noted that Tel Aviv and Washington had prepared to launch a campaign to de-legitimize the Iranian presidential elections in 2009 and to use it to exploit any internal political divisions in Iran. This is documented by the Israeli media. Additionally, this is the reason that the U.S. Congress gave millions of dollars, at the request of U.S. Secretary Rice and President George W. Bush Jr., to establish a special interests office in the U.A.E. for dealing with regime change in Tehran.
Secret Israel Drills in Occupied Iraq: Iran in the Cross-Hairs Again?
Challenging Tehran, just like Russia, has always been a strategic objective of Washington and NATO. Tel Aviv has ended its period of brief silence about Tehran and has started to talk about attacking Iran again. What has added an extra dimension to this are the reports that the U.S. has allowed Israel to secretly use U.S. air bases in Al-Anbar, Iraq. Moqtada Al-Sadr has warned Tehran about the Israeli-U.S. operations in Iraq, which could amount to plans for some form of confrontation with Iran, Syria, and the entire Resistance Bloc from Gaza, Beirut, and Bint Jbeil to Damascus, Basra, Mosul, and Tehran.
A military structure, which is tied into NATO, has also been put into place to attack Iran, Syria, and their allies. Under various agreements NATO has established a foothold in the Persian Gulf and military links with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). France also has a base in the United Arab Emirates. The GCC is also preparing to expand. Both the kingdoms of Morocco and Jordan have made requests to join, while Yemen is also being considered for membership. Along with GCC membership comes a joint defence structure.
At the same time, the members of the GCC are blaming Iran for their domestic problems.
The strategic alliance between Israel and the Al-Sauds, originally formed to combat Gamal Abdel Nasser, has also positioned itself for the implementation of a broader conflict directed against Iran and its allies.
Missile shields are in now in place in Israel and the Arab sheikhdoms. Massive shipments of heavy weaponry have also been sent to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the GCC by Washington and the major E.U. powers over the last few years.
Ankara: The Inside Man?
There is one other important player that must be talked about. This player is Turkey. Washington and the E.U. have pushed Turkey to be more active in the Arab World. This has blossomed through Ankara’s neo-Ottomanism policy. This is why Turkey has been posturing itself as a champion of Palestine and launched an Arabic-language channel like Iran and Russia.
Ankara, however, has been playing an ominous role. Turkey is a partner in the NATO war on Libya. The position of the Turkish government has become clear with its betrayal of Tripoli. Ankara has also been working with Qatar to corner the Syrian regime. The Turkish government has been pressuring Damascus to change its policies to please Washington and appears to possibly even have a role in the protests inside Syria with the Al-Sauds, the Hariri minority camp in Lebanon, and Qatar. Turkey is even hosting opposition meetings and providing them support.
Turkey is viewed in Washington and Brussels as the key to bringing the Iranians and the Arabs into line. The Turkish government has been parading itself as a member of the Resistance Bloc with the endorsement of Iran and Syria. U.S strategists project that it will be Turkey which domesticates Iran and Syria for Washington. Turkey also serves as a means of integrating the Arab and Iranian economies with the economy of the European Union. In this regard Ankara has been pushing for a free-trade zone in Southwest Asia and getting the Iranians and Syrians to open up their economies to it.
In reality, the Turkish government has not only been deepening its economic ties with Tehran and Damascus, but has also been working to eclipse Iranian influence. Ankara has tried to wedge itself between Iran and Syria and to challenge Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Turkey also tried to establish a triple entente between itself, Syria, and Qatar to push Syria away from Tehran. This is why Turkey has been very active vocally against Israel, but in reality has maintained its alliance and military deals with Tel Aviv. Inside Turkey itself, however, there is also an internal struggle for power that could one day ignite into a civil war with multiple players.
Preparing the Geo-Strategic Chessboard for Confrontation against the Resistance Bloc
All the ingredients for a American-led military confrontation are in place:
-Iranophobia is being spread by the U.S., the E.U., Israel, and the Khaliji monarchies.
-Sectarianism is being promoted in the entire region.
-Hamas has been entangled into the mechanisms of a unity government by the unelected Mahmoud Abbas, which would mean that Hamas would have to be acquiescent to Israeli and U.S. demands on the Palestinian Authority.
-Syria has its hands full with domestic instability, while Iran and Hezbollah are falsely being accused of shooting Syrian protesters.
-Lebanon lacks a functioning government and Hezbollah is increasingly being encircled. Instead of being treated as a domestic Lebanese issue, the arms of the Lebanese Resistance are also being turned into an international issue.
-Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Arab monarchies have been heavily armed over the years.
-Pakistan has been destabilized.
-Internal divisions have been created in the Resistance Bloc.
-Russia and its CSTO allies are being intimidated by U.S. and NATO bases and the missile shield in Eastern Europe.
-The Obama Administration has declared that it intends to violate the national boundaries of other nations it thinks have terrorists. In this regard the Revolutionary Guard in Iran has been declared a terrorist organization.
-In 2010, the Obama Administration creatively redefined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to serve its geo-strategic interests. It declared that it had the rights to violate the NPT by attacking Iran with nuclear weapons.
-The missile shield systems in Israel, the Persian Gulf, and Turkey are ready or will be in place soon.
Currently, a war is being fought by Washington, Tel Aviv, the Al-Sauds, and their allies against the Resistance Bloc. This war is not a conventional war, but one that includes low-spectrum warfare and intelligence operations.
The fighting with Fatal Al-Islam in Lebanon and the terrorist attacks by Jundallah in Eastern Iran are facets of this war, as is the aim of regime change in Syria.
Any possible wars against Iran or Syria will not be fought in isolation. If attacked in an open war, Syria and Iran will be fought at the same time.
In the case of a major war involving Syria, Iran, and their regional allies, the chances of revolution and riots in the Arab World were certain. In a manner of speaking the Arab upheavals of 2011 have worked to pre-empt Arab societies from igniting in the case of such a regional war, which presents the Pentagon, Israel, and NATO a new strategic opportunity for confrontation.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes in the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
http://www.solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=1&ctg=1&c=6&lang=En
7/11/2011 7:50:41 PM
The geo-political chessboard is being lined up for a showdown with Iran and its allies in the Resistance Bloc. This is just one theatre within the broader struggle to control Eurasia. In the process there is an effort by Washington and its allies to manipulate Islam and subordinate it to capitalist interests by ushering in a new generation of Islamists amongst the Arabs.
A New Pressure Point in Tehran for Washington, Israel, and the E.U. to Capitalize?
The political system of Iran is complex and there are multiple opposing poles of power. In 2009, the world already saw internal fighting amongst the ruling establishment. The divisions played themselves out during the protests that resulted after the presidential elections when allegations of fraud were put forward.
The presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (which started in 2005) was at odds with significant segments of Iran’s political establishment. Its relationship has always been tense with the other poles of power in Tehran. In 2011, Iran’s presidency has increasingly become at odds with the Parliament, the Judiciary, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Within the framework of these political tensions, another Iranian internal political struggle is in the making. This time, the centre of attention is Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei. The views of Mashaei, who is known as a political conservative, have been at odds with other conservatives, specifically the clerical elements. In 2009, Mashaei gave a speech where he said that Iran was friends with all the people of the world, including the Israeli people, and that Tehran was opposed to the regime in Tel Aviv, rather than the people of Israel. This was rebuked by Ayatollah Khamenei.
In July 2009, President Ahmadinejad tried to appoint Mashaei to the office of the primary (first) vice-president of Iran, but was opposed by the Iranian Parliament. Ahmadinejad was forced to appoint Mohammed-Reza Rahimi to the office of first vice-president. Instead Mashaei was appointed presidential chief-of-staff by President Ahmadinejad.
In April 2011, a scandal erupted when it became public that Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi had ordered for Mashaei to be the subject of electronic surveillance. Ahmadinejad in outrage wanted to fire the Intelligence Minister, but his decision was vetoed by Ayatollah Khamenei. Meanwhile Heydar Moslehi remained in his position.
It appears now that there is a concerted effort to weaken the Ahmadinejad Administration and to prevent it from helping Mashaei and others run for office. General Ali Jaffari, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, has stated publicly that there are "corrupt elements" in the presidential office who have deviated from the principles of the Iranian Revolution. Ali Saeedi, the liaison of Ayatollah Khamenei within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, has also added his voice, saying that Ahmadinejad and his political camp will lose all support unless they remain committed to Ayatollah Khamenei.
Some form of political showdown is looming in Tehran. There appears to be a widening political rift amongst Iranian conservative ideologues. The Iranian President and his political allies intend to field their own candidates in the March 2012 parliamentary elections, who would challenge the current grouping of so-called conservatives in the Iranian Parliament.
In addition to all this, the death of Haleh Sahabi, the daughter of the late ex-Member of Parliament (MP) Ezatollah Sahabi, at the funeral of her father has ignited opposition anger which threatens to fuel and spark new protests.
Iranian security forces were present at the funeral to prevent it from being turned into a political event against the ruling establishment. In their presence, Haleh Sahabi was confronted by an unknown man who grabbed the picture of her father that she was holding during the funeral. When she tried to grab the man, he elbowed her so violently in the face that she died from a heart attack.
This could all play into the hands of the enemies of Iran. There is a secret war against Iran being fought by Washington and its allies, which has included the kidnapping of Iranians, assassinations of Iranian scientists and security officials, and terrorist attacks on Iranian border regions. The developing internal divisions in Tehran could be capitalized on by its enemies. Israel is already showing a deep interest in these new political tensions in Tehran.
It should be noted that Tel Aviv and Washington had prepared to launch a campaign to de-legitimize the Iranian presidential elections in 2009 and to use it to exploit any internal political divisions in Iran. This is documented by the Israeli media. Additionally, this is the reason that the U.S. Congress gave millions of dollars, at the request of U.S. Secretary Rice and President George W. Bush Jr., to establish a special interests office in the U.A.E. for dealing with regime change in Tehran.
Secret Israel Drills in Occupied Iraq: Iran in the Cross-Hairs Again?
Challenging Tehran, just like Russia, has always been a strategic objective of Washington and NATO. Tel Aviv has ended its period of brief silence about Tehran and has started to talk about attacking Iran again. What has added an extra dimension to this are the reports that the U.S. has allowed Israel to secretly use U.S. air bases in Al-Anbar, Iraq. Moqtada Al-Sadr has warned Tehran about the Israeli-U.S. operations in Iraq, which could amount to plans for some form of confrontation with Iran, Syria, and the entire Resistance Bloc from Gaza, Beirut, and Bint Jbeil to Damascus, Basra, Mosul, and Tehran.
A military structure, which is tied into NATO, has also been put into place to attack Iran, Syria, and their allies. Under various agreements NATO has established a foothold in the Persian Gulf and military links with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). France also has a base in the United Arab Emirates. The GCC is also preparing to expand. Both the kingdoms of Morocco and Jordan have made requests to join, while Yemen is also being considered for membership. Along with GCC membership comes a joint defence structure.
At the same time, the members of the GCC are blaming Iran for their domestic problems.
The strategic alliance between Israel and the Al-Sauds, originally formed to combat Gamal Abdel Nasser, has also positioned itself for the implementation of a broader conflict directed against Iran and its allies.
Missile shields are in now in place in Israel and the Arab sheikhdoms. Massive shipments of heavy weaponry have also been sent to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the GCC by Washington and the major E.U. powers over the last few years.
Ankara: The Inside Man?
There is one other important player that must be talked about. This player is Turkey. Washington and the E.U. have pushed Turkey to be more active in the Arab World. This has blossomed through Ankara’s neo-Ottomanism policy. This is why Turkey has been posturing itself as a champion of Palestine and launched an Arabic-language channel like Iran and Russia.
Ankara, however, has been playing an ominous role. Turkey is a partner in the NATO war on Libya. The position of the Turkish government has become clear with its betrayal of Tripoli. Ankara has also been working with Qatar to corner the Syrian regime. The Turkish government has been pressuring Damascus to change its policies to please Washington and appears to possibly even have a role in the protests inside Syria with the Al-Sauds, the Hariri minority camp in Lebanon, and Qatar. Turkey is even hosting opposition meetings and providing them support.
Turkey is viewed in Washington and Brussels as the key to bringing the Iranians and the Arabs into line. The Turkish government has been parading itself as a member of the Resistance Bloc with the endorsement of Iran and Syria. U.S strategists project that it will be Turkey which domesticates Iran and Syria for Washington. Turkey also serves as a means of integrating the Arab and Iranian economies with the economy of the European Union. In this regard Ankara has been pushing for a free-trade zone in Southwest Asia and getting the Iranians and Syrians to open up their economies to it.
In reality, the Turkish government has not only been deepening its economic ties with Tehran and Damascus, but has also been working to eclipse Iranian influence. Ankara has tried to wedge itself between Iran and Syria and to challenge Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Turkey also tried to establish a triple entente between itself, Syria, and Qatar to push Syria away from Tehran. This is why Turkey has been very active vocally against Israel, but in reality has maintained its alliance and military deals with Tel Aviv. Inside Turkey itself, however, there is also an internal struggle for power that could one day ignite into a civil war with multiple players.
Preparing the Geo-Strategic Chessboard for Confrontation against the Resistance Bloc
All the ingredients for a American-led military confrontation are in place:
-Iranophobia is being spread by the U.S., the E.U., Israel, and the Khaliji monarchies.
-Sectarianism is being promoted in the entire region.
-Hamas has been entangled into the mechanisms of a unity government by the unelected Mahmoud Abbas, which would mean that Hamas would have to be acquiescent to Israeli and U.S. demands on the Palestinian Authority.
-Syria has its hands full with domestic instability, while Iran and Hezbollah are falsely being accused of shooting Syrian protesters.
-Lebanon lacks a functioning government and Hezbollah is increasingly being encircled. Instead of being treated as a domestic Lebanese issue, the arms of the Lebanese Resistance are also being turned into an international issue.
-Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Arab monarchies have been heavily armed over the years.
-Pakistan has been destabilized.
-Internal divisions have been created in the Resistance Bloc.
-Russia and its CSTO allies are being intimidated by U.S. and NATO bases and the missile shield in Eastern Europe.
-The Obama Administration has declared that it intends to violate the national boundaries of other nations it thinks have terrorists. In this regard the Revolutionary Guard in Iran has been declared a terrorist organization.
-In 2010, the Obama Administration creatively redefined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to serve its geo-strategic interests. It declared that it had the rights to violate the NPT by attacking Iran with nuclear weapons.
-The missile shield systems in Israel, the Persian Gulf, and Turkey are ready or will be in place soon.
Currently, a war is being fought by Washington, Tel Aviv, the Al-Sauds, and their allies against the Resistance Bloc. This war is not a conventional war, but one that includes low-spectrum warfare and intelligence operations.
The fighting with Fatal Al-Islam in Lebanon and the terrorist attacks by Jundallah in Eastern Iran are facets of this war, as is the aim of regime change in Syria.
Any possible wars against Iran or Syria will not be fought in isolation. If attacked in an open war, Syria and Iran will be fought at the same time.
In the case of a major war involving Syria, Iran, and their regional allies, the chances of revolution and riots in the Arab World were certain. In a manner of speaking the Arab upheavals of 2011 have worked to pre-empt Arab societies from igniting in the case of such a regional war, which presents the Pentagon, Israel, and NATO a new strategic opportunity for confrontation.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes in the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
http://www.solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=1&ctg=1&c=6&lang=En
International campaign defends Iran’s sovereignty
International campaign defends Iran’s sovereignty
7/9/2011 6:46:04 AM
As the U.S. government continues to build its massive nuclear-weapons arsenal and defend its first-strike policy—even against countries that possess no nuclear weapons — it is at the same time stepping up aggression against Iran for pursuing nuclear energy.
Iran’s nuclear program is not the real reason it is under attack. The U.S. government’s aim is “regime change” in a country whose people declared independence 31 years ago by overthrowing the hated Shah.
The New York Times reported on Oct. 27 that the Obama administration is preparing a list of more onerous demands on Iran than those of one year ago. Then, negotiations took place in Vienna among four member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—Iran, France, Russia and the United States—over a request made by Iran to purchase nuclear fuel for a research reactor, whose production of radioisotopes is for medical purposes.
Nuclear fuel for medical research requires 20 percent enriched uranium, as opposed to the 3.5 percent low-enriched uranium in nuclear power plants, which Iran is already enriching.
Iran’s request for the 20 percent uranium fuel was presented in June 2009 to the IAEA, for its Tehran Research Reactor.
Radioisotopes are used widely for cancer treatment and medical imaging. Currently five countries produce almost all the radioisotopes in the world: Canada, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and South Africa. In late 2009 a worldwide crisis broke out when several of the producers had to stop radioisotope production for plant maintenance.
Iran’s radioisotope production is for its domestic medical use. Iran is also stepping up its national nuclear energy program for the country’s electricity needs.
The international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requires that member states provide fuel to other countries for peaceful purposes. But the U.S. government decided to take advantage of Iran’s research-fuel needs to impose demands on all of Iran’s nuclear program.
In exchange for “allowing” Iran to obtain the necessary 20 percent enriched fuel from abroad, the Obama administration demanded that Iran export its existing enriched uranium out of the country, with only a limited amount allowed back into Iran in the form of prepared nuclear fuel.
Iran’s government considers this an unwarranted and dangerous intrusion of its sovereignty and international rights.
The U.S. government claims that Iran is planning to produce nuclear weapons, and that by exporting its uranium, Iran would be denied weapons-making capability. Washington has failed to prove such charges.
The U.S. and other Western media have blatantly lied about Iran’s nuclear programs, claiming that its enrichment processes have brought it much closer to creating nuclear-weapons grade uranium.
Nuclear weapons production requires over 90 percent enriched uranium. Until recently, Iran has only enriched uranium to 3.5 percent.
In Dec. 2009, after months of trying to obtain 20 percent fuel from abroad, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, stressed Iran’s urgent situation: “Time is of the essence,” Soltanieh said, “since the present fuel of Tehran Research Reactor is running out, and about 200 hospitals which receive the radiopharmaceutical[s] would then face humanitarian difficulties.”
Finally, on Feb. 7, 2010, Iran’s top nuclear official Ali Akbar Salehi announced that the Natanz facility in central Iran began enriching uranium to 20 percent level, for the Tehran research reactor.
He reiterated that if Iran were able to purchase the 20 percent fuel from abroad without the unjust restrictions, it would stop enrichment to the 20 percent level.
Although Iran has endured 30 years of on-again, off-again U.S. sanctions, this summer the sanctions have been severely tightened. On July 1, 2010, President Obama signed a U.S. law passed by Congress, “The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA).”
It prohibits U.S. companies and individuals from economic dealings with Iran’s oil, shipping and other strategic industries, and prohibits banking and property transactions. It is far-reaching and is forcing Iran to raise prices of its imports, and eliminate certain subsidies the population has enjoyed.
Rather than surrender to U.S. and UN sanctions, in August this year Iran announced it will build 10 uranium-enrichment sites, starting in March 2011, for nuclear energy fuel. It estimates that it will need up to 20 sites for a 20,000 megawatt-capacity to meet the population’s electricity needs by 2015. As a precaution against military attack, the sites will be inside protected mountains.
israel, an illegal nuclear power
Israel is the only country in the Middle East that actually has a nuclear-weapons arsenal, possessing at least 200 nuclear warheads. Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The U.S. government does not criticize Israel’s nuclear weapons program, and instead, continues to finance and arm Israel. There exists a real threat that Israel could militarily strike Iran, whether by conventional or nuclear weapons.
Already, Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear plant in Iraq in 1981 in a blitz missile attack. The Netanyahu government is making military preparations to strengthen its ability to bomb Iran. To do so would likely require U.S. approval.
Recently, Iran presented a resolution to demand that Israel reveal the facts of its nuclear-weapons arsenal, at the IAEA conference in mid-October, 2010. Although the resolution did not pass, it is an important step in further exposing the danger of the U.S.-Israeli nuclear alliance.
The genocidal use of U.S./UN sanctions
Sanctions were imposed on Iraq in August 1990 in the form of a total blockade. The aim was to weaken the population and country’s defenses, five months before a massive U.S. bombing campaign and ground attack.
Sanctions themselves are a virtual act of war. The sanctions and blockade were kept in place for 13 long years, killing over a million Iraqis—half of them under the age of five years—and devastating the country.
The Times Oct. 27 article quotes an unnamed U.S. official who boasts about the sanctions on Iran. “This will be a first sounding about whether the Iranians still think they can tough it out or are ready to negotiate. … We have to convince them that life will get worse, not better, if they don’t begin to move.”
Most revealing about U.S. policy towards Iran is Obama’s position, even before he was elected. In campaign debates prior to the 2008 election, Obama emphatically and repeatedly stated that “all options are on the table” in regard to Iran. This was clearly a threat of military action — including the possible use of nuclear weapons — against Iran.
International solidarity with Iran
It is in this context that an international campaign to defend Iran’s sovereignty has been initiated. U.S., Canadian, Iranian and other progressive activists are circulating a “Solidarity With Iran” declaration and petition. The three demands of the declaration are: 1) End the economic sanctions on Iran, 2) Stop military threats against Iran and 3) Respect Iran’s right to nuclear energy.
Initiating the campaign is the House of Latin America, an organization of Iranian activists in Iran who work in solidarity with Latin American struggles and in particular, the ALBA countries of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia.
Supporters include Denis J. Halliday, former assistant UN general secretary, 1994-1998; Ramsey Clark, Cindy Sheehan, Fr. Roy Bourgeois, Cynthia McKinney and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition.
Hamid Shahrabi, one of HOLA’s leaders, explained to this reporter the Iranian people’s perspective on the country’s right to defend its sovereignty.
“Something happened in Iran 31 years ago that is behind all the aggression of the United States. Millions of peasants, workers, youth, ordinary people—everybody—came into the streets, and overthrew the Shah.
“Under the Shah there was real repression in Iran, the people could not even express their basic needs. The Shah did whatever the U.S. government dictated to him. His army, his security forces were all trained by the United States. There was real repression in Iran. We did not have our sovereignty, we did not have our independence.
“After the Shah’s overthrow, from that day on, all these aggressions started. Let me give you an example: The United States government gave all its backing to the Shah to have nuclear energy, this is a historical fact. I can quote you from Mr. Kissinger, why the Shah should have nuclear energy. Now they say our nuclear energy program is aimed at making bombs, without any basis, without any facts to back up the charges.
“I want to emphasize again, what the United States government has against us is that our people have decided to be free, to be independent, and be a sovereign nation. They cannot tolerate this. We have set a very bad example, that nations can decide for themselves.”
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, all countries have the right to the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran has abided by the IAEA regulations, and surpassed the inspection requirements. But the IAEA, like the Security Council, is an imperialist-dominated institution. Its monitoring regime often includes invasive and impossible demands against oppressed countries that the United States targets.
The case of Iran is no different. With the U.S. economic and military aggression, there is an urgent need for the U.S. and international anti-war movement to fight the sanctions and defend Iran’s right to develop and exercise its full sovereignty.
To sign the “Solidarity with Iran” statement, go to ANSWERCoalition.org.
By: Gloria La Riva
Reprinted from PSLweb.org
http://www.solidaridad.ir/
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=7&lang=En
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=9&lang=En
7/9/2011 6:46:04 AM
As the U.S. government continues to build its massive nuclear-weapons arsenal and defend its first-strike policy—even against countries that possess no nuclear weapons — it is at the same time stepping up aggression against Iran for pursuing nuclear energy.
Iran’s nuclear program is not the real reason it is under attack. The U.S. government’s aim is “regime change” in a country whose people declared independence 31 years ago by overthrowing the hated Shah.
The New York Times reported on Oct. 27 that the Obama administration is preparing a list of more onerous demands on Iran than those of one year ago. Then, negotiations took place in Vienna among four member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—Iran, France, Russia and the United States—over a request made by Iran to purchase nuclear fuel for a research reactor, whose production of radioisotopes is for medical purposes.
Nuclear fuel for medical research requires 20 percent enriched uranium, as opposed to the 3.5 percent low-enriched uranium in nuclear power plants, which Iran is already enriching.
Iran’s request for the 20 percent uranium fuel was presented in June 2009 to the IAEA, for its Tehran Research Reactor.
Radioisotopes are used widely for cancer treatment and medical imaging. Currently five countries produce almost all the radioisotopes in the world: Canada, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and South Africa. In late 2009 a worldwide crisis broke out when several of the producers had to stop radioisotope production for plant maintenance.
Iran’s radioisotope production is for its domestic medical use. Iran is also stepping up its national nuclear energy program for the country’s electricity needs.
The international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requires that member states provide fuel to other countries for peaceful purposes. But the U.S. government decided to take advantage of Iran’s research-fuel needs to impose demands on all of Iran’s nuclear program.
In exchange for “allowing” Iran to obtain the necessary 20 percent enriched fuel from abroad, the Obama administration demanded that Iran export its existing enriched uranium out of the country, with only a limited amount allowed back into Iran in the form of prepared nuclear fuel.
Iran’s government considers this an unwarranted and dangerous intrusion of its sovereignty and international rights.
The U.S. government claims that Iran is planning to produce nuclear weapons, and that by exporting its uranium, Iran would be denied weapons-making capability. Washington has failed to prove such charges.
The U.S. and other Western media have blatantly lied about Iran’s nuclear programs, claiming that its enrichment processes have brought it much closer to creating nuclear-weapons grade uranium.
Nuclear weapons production requires over 90 percent enriched uranium. Until recently, Iran has only enriched uranium to 3.5 percent.
In Dec. 2009, after months of trying to obtain 20 percent fuel from abroad, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, stressed Iran’s urgent situation: “Time is of the essence,” Soltanieh said, “since the present fuel of Tehran Research Reactor is running out, and about 200 hospitals which receive the radiopharmaceutical[s] would then face humanitarian difficulties.”
Finally, on Feb. 7, 2010, Iran’s top nuclear official Ali Akbar Salehi announced that the Natanz facility in central Iran began enriching uranium to 20 percent level, for the Tehran research reactor.
He reiterated that if Iran were able to purchase the 20 percent fuel from abroad without the unjust restrictions, it would stop enrichment to the 20 percent level.
Although Iran has endured 30 years of on-again, off-again U.S. sanctions, this summer the sanctions have been severely tightened. On July 1, 2010, President Obama signed a U.S. law passed by Congress, “The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA).”
It prohibits U.S. companies and individuals from economic dealings with Iran’s oil, shipping and other strategic industries, and prohibits banking and property transactions. It is far-reaching and is forcing Iran to raise prices of its imports, and eliminate certain subsidies the population has enjoyed.
Rather than surrender to U.S. and UN sanctions, in August this year Iran announced it will build 10 uranium-enrichment sites, starting in March 2011, for nuclear energy fuel. It estimates that it will need up to 20 sites for a 20,000 megawatt-capacity to meet the population’s electricity needs by 2015. As a precaution against military attack, the sites will be inside protected mountains.
israel, an illegal nuclear power
Israel is the only country in the Middle East that actually has a nuclear-weapons arsenal, possessing at least 200 nuclear warheads. Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The U.S. government does not criticize Israel’s nuclear weapons program, and instead, continues to finance and arm Israel. There exists a real threat that Israel could militarily strike Iran, whether by conventional or nuclear weapons.
Already, Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear plant in Iraq in 1981 in a blitz missile attack. The Netanyahu government is making military preparations to strengthen its ability to bomb Iran. To do so would likely require U.S. approval.
Recently, Iran presented a resolution to demand that Israel reveal the facts of its nuclear-weapons arsenal, at the IAEA conference in mid-October, 2010. Although the resolution did not pass, it is an important step in further exposing the danger of the U.S.-Israeli nuclear alliance.
The genocidal use of U.S./UN sanctions
Sanctions were imposed on Iraq in August 1990 in the form of a total blockade. The aim was to weaken the population and country’s defenses, five months before a massive U.S. bombing campaign and ground attack.
Sanctions themselves are a virtual act of war. The sanctions and blockade were kept in place for 13 long years, killing over a million Iraqis—half of them under the age of five years—and devastating the country.
The Times Oct. 27 article quotes an unnamed U.S. official who boasts about the sanctions on Iran. “This will be a first sounding about whether the Iranians still think they can tough it out or are ready to negotiate. … We have to convince them that life will get worse, not better, if they don’t begin to move.”
Most revealing about U.S. policy towards Iran is Obama’s position, even before he was elected. In campaign debates prior to the 2008 election, Obama emphatically and repeatedly stated that “all options are on the table” in regard to Iran. This was clearly a threat of military action — including the possible use of nuclear weapons — against Iran.
International solidarity with Iran
It is in this context that an international campaign to defend Iran’s sovereignty has been initiated. U.S., Canadian, Iranian and other progressive activists are circulating a “Solidarity With Iran” declaration and petition. The three demands of the declaration are: 1) End the economic sanctions on Iran, 2) Stop military threats against Iran and 3) Respect Iran’s right to nuclear energy.
Initiating the campaign is the House of Latin America, an organization of Iranian activists in Iran who work in solidarity with Latin American struggles and in particular, the ALBA countries of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia.
Supporters include Denis J. Halliday, former assistant UN general secretary, 1994-1998; Ramsey Clark, Cindy Sheehan, Fr. Roy Bourgeois, Cynthia McKinney and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition.
Hamid Shahrabi, one of HOLA’s leaders, explained to this reporter the Iranian people’s perspective on the country’s right to defend its sovereignty.
“Something happened in Iran 31 years ago that is behind all the aggression of the United States. Millions of peasants, workers, youth, ordinary people—everybody—came into the streets, and overthrew the Shah.
“Under the Shah there was real repression in Iran, the people could not even express their basic needs. The Shah did whatever the U.S. government dictated to him. His army, his security forces were all trained by the United States. There was real repression in Iran. We did not have our sovereignty, we did not have our independence.
“After the Shah’s overthrow, from that day on, all these aggressions started. Let me give you an example: The United States government gave all its backing to the Shah to have nuclear energy, this is a historical fact. I can quote you from Mr. Kissinger, why the Shah should have nuclear energy. Now they say our nuclear energy program is aimed at making bombs, without any basis, without any facts to back up the charges.
“I want to emphasize again, what the United States government has against us is that our people have decided to be free, to be independent, and be a sovereign nation. They cannot tolerate this. We have set a very bad example, that nations can decide for themselves.”
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, all countries have the right to the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran has abided by the IAEA regulations, and surpassed the inspection requirements. But the IAEA, like the Security Council, is an imperialist-dominated institution. Its monitoring regime often includes invasive and impossible demands against oppressed countries that the United States targets.
The case of Iran is no different. With the U.S. economic and military aggression, there is an urgent need for the U.S. and international anti-war movement to fight the sanctions and defend Iran’s right to develop and exercise its full sovereignty.
To sign the “Solidarity with Iran” statement, go to ANSWERCoalition.org.
By: Gloria La Riva
Reprinted from PSLweb.org
http://www.solidaridad.ir/
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=7&lang=En
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=9&lang=En
An Enlightened Exchange in Iran
An Enlightened Exchange in Iran
7/9/2011 6:43:35 AM
This is a story about a courageous policy in an unexpected place. In this place homeless shelters have vending machines selling clean syringes for injecting drugs. Drug users are not prosecuted as long as they are in treatment programs. Drug addicts are given clean needles and methadone maintenance therapy ─ available on a widespread basis even in prison. These tactics have worked to reduce crime, lower H.I.V. rates among drug users and keep AIDS from spreading out into the general population. The place is not Amsterdam. It is Tehran.
In a week when the news about Iran is centered on nuclear facilities and desperate diplomacy, I’d like to focus instead on another serious problem, toward which this repressive, seemingly irrational theocracy has taken a pragmatic and enlightened approach.
Sometimes there is no mystery about the best strategy to solve a problem, but for political reasons, that strategy is not used. Iran’s story offers useful lessons on how to build political support for effective solutions in tough circumstances.
In Africa, AIDS is spread mostly by sexual contact. We know that people need to abstain from sex, be faithful to one partner, or use condoms. But there has been limited success on this front. We just aren’t very good at getting people to do these things.
In many countries, however, the primary propeller of AIDS is not sex, but hypodermic needles shared by injecting drug users. This is the biggest driver of the H.I.V. epidemic in Eastern Europe, much of the Middle East and Asia and parts of the rest of the world. Byrecent measures, 62 percent of H.I.V. infections in Russia came directly from a shared needle. In Malaysia it is 76 percent, in Iran 68 percent. This is not just a problem for drug users. Unchecked H.I.V. epidemics among drug users move out into the general population by way of drug users’ sex partners. In a recent (and highly entertaining) book, “The Wisdom of Whores,” Elizabeth Pisani, an epidemiologist and advisor to Unaids, argued that Jakarta, Indonesia, has an H.I.V. epidemic 50 times larger than it would be if it had not allowed H.I.V. infection rates for drug users to climb from 0 to 47 percent in the late 1990s.
America’s AIDS emergency among black women ─ who have an AIDS rate 23 times higher than that of white women ─ could have been prevented with timely programs to prevent needle sharing. Few of these women got H.I.V. from a needle ─ but the needle is how H.I.V. got into the black community to begin with.
Preventing H.I.V. transmission among drug users, then, is a way to protect everyone.
Unlike preventing sexual transmission of AIDS, this is something we can do. The strategy is needle exchange ─ giving drug abusers new needles, usually in return for their used ones. One reason it works is that drug users want it: every drug injector prefers using clean needles.
Associated Press/Enric MartiA nurse prepares an injection of methadone at a rehabilitation center in Iran.
Needle exchange is part of an overall approach to drugs called harm reduction, which seeks to make drug use less deadly to the addict and to diminish the crime and disease that drug addiction causes. In most countries that use harm reduction, possessing drugs is still illegal. But drug abuse is treated mainly as a disease, not a crime. An example of what harm reduction looks like can be seen in the Persepolis clinics, in Tehran’s south. Persepolis began as one drop-in center in a drug-ridden neighborhood, and later expanded to five centers. The clinics have outreach teams of former drug users who contact their peers on the street. The clinics offer needles, methadone, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS tests and other medical care. They get people into drug treatment programs. Drug users can take showers, and sit all day and drink tea. When there is money, the clinics serve lunch and give out clothing. One clinic, with an all-female staff, is only for women. The clinics are an avenue for drug users to come into the health system, where they can get help.
The evidence that harm reduction works is overwhelming. Critics of needle exchange have argued that it causes more drug use, but it hasproven not to do so. Instead, it drastically reduces H.I.V. rates by preventing a small H.I.V. problem among drug users from becoming a large one in the general population. It saves money, especially compared with the usual alternative ─ prison. It fights crime. Drug users on methadone maintenance therapy commit far fewer crimes than other users, and are usually able to hold down jobs and have otherwise normal lives.
But the overwhelming majority of drug injectors have no access to harm reduction. Widespread, effective needle exchange is mainly found in the expected places ─ Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand. In Russia, the country that most needs harm reduction, methadone is illegal and needle exchange is done only by tiny groups in a handful of cities. While some American cities use needle exchange (New York City is a much safer place because of its excellent needle exchange programs), it was illegal to use federal funds for needle exchange until last year. And under the Bush administration, Washington bullied international agencies to abandon their support for needle exchange.
The problem is the politics. It seems wrong for the government to be muddying a “don’t-do-drugs” message by supplying the equipment for an illegal and dangerous activity. But to oppose harm reduction only provides the illusion of morality. Surely it is more moral to choose a strategy that does not increase drug use, but does save lives.
Harm reduction is relatively new in Iran. After the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran cracked down hard on drug users, declaring addiction to be counter-revolutionary. All drug treatment was stopped. Hundreds of thousands of drug users were sent to labor camps. Possession of heroin was a capital offense.
These punitive policies only added to a spiraling epidemic of drug use. Ten years ago, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimated that Iran’s drug problem was one of the most serious in the world (sharing a 570-mile border with opium-growing Afghanistan does not help.) The harsh policies only drove drug users further underground; fear of being caught with a needle meant users would use the community needle the dealer provided. Going to prison was particularly dangerous. Prisons are havens of needle sharing, and having been incarcerated is the single strongest predictor of H.I.V. infection in Iran. Good data is scarce, but at one prison surveyed in 2001, 63 percent of all injecting drug users were H.I.V. positive. Testing of drug users who visited the Persepolis clinic found that fully a quarter of them had the AIDS virus.
Yet by 2005, harm reduction had become official policy in Iran. Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi, the head of the judiciary, sent a letter to all courts and judicial authorities instructing them to support methadone and needle exchange. Even prisons in Iran now have widespread methadone, and there have been pilot projects in prisons for needle exchange ─ something not yet found in prisons in the United States, Canada or Australia. In 2007, 95 percent of drug injectors surveyed in Iran said they had used safe equipment when they last injected. (UNAIDS report, p. 94)
The rate of new H.I.V. infections in Iran rose until 2005, and has dropped ever since. A top drug control official, Saeed Sefatian, said in 2008 that 18 percent of injecting drug users were H.I.V.-positive, but estimated that if it weren’t for harm reduction, that number would have been 40 percent. New infections among drug users have continued to drop. Surveys at sentinel sites in pre-natal clinics have not yet turned up not a single pregnant woman with H.I.V. (UNAIDS report, p. 97) ─ an excellent indication that the epidemic has been contained.
By pointing out the success of this program, I do not mean to endorse Iran’s prisons, where political dissidents are being tortured. Nor does Iran’s modern approach to harm reduction redeem the government’s stone-age approach to just about everything else. The same ayatollah who told judges not to get in the way of harm reduction was the man who closed dozens of newspapers. The important point here is that even a theocracy as repressive and rigid as Iran ─ the anti-Amsterdam ─ managed to create policies that have likely saved the country from an AIDS and drug disaster. In Saturday’s column, I’ll tell the story of how the pragmatists in Iran managed to convince the clerics to adopt these policies ─ and what other countries can learn from their accomplishment.
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=6&lang=En
7/9/2011 6:43:35 AM
This is a story about a courageous policy in an unexpected place. In this place homeless shelters have vending machines selling clean syringes for injecting drugs. Drug users are not prosecuted as long as they are in treatment programs. Drug addicts are given clean needles and methadone maintenance therapy ─ available on a widespread basis even in prison. These tactics have worked to reduce crime, lower H.I.V. rates among drug users and keep AIDS from spreading out into the general population. The place is not Amsterdam. It is Tehran.
In a week when the news about Iran is centered on nuclear facilities and desperate diplomacy, I’d like to focus instead on another serious problem, toward which this repressive, seemingly irrational theocracy has taken a pragmatic and enlightened approach.
Sometimes there is no mystery about the best strategy to solve a problem, but for political reasons, that strategy is not used. Iran’s story offers useful lessons on how to build political support for effective solutions in tough circumstances.
In Africa, AIDS is spread mostly by sexual contact. We know that people need to abstain from sex, be faithful to one partner, or use condoms. But there has been limited success on this front. We just aren’t very good at getting people to do these things.
In many countries, however, the primary propeller of AIDS is not sex, but hypodermic needles shared by injecting drug users. This is the biggest driver of the H.I.V. epidemic in Eastern Europe, much of the Middle East and Asia and parts of the rest of the world. Byrecent measures, 62 percent of H.I.V. infections in Russia came directly from a shared needle. In Malaysia it is 76 percent, in Iran 68 percent. This is not just a problem for drug users. Unchecked H.I.V. epidemics among drug users move out into the general population by way of drug users’ sex partners. In a recent (and highly entertaining) book, “The Wisdom of Whores,” Elizabeth Pisani, an epidemiologist and advisor to Unaids, argued that Jakarta, Indonesia, has an H.I.V. epidemic 50 times larger than it would be if it had not allowed H.I.V. infection rates for drug users to climb from 0 to 47 percent in the late 1990s.
America’s AIDS emergency among black women ─ who have an AIDS rate 23 times higher than that of white women ─ could have been prevented with timely programs to prevent needle sharing. Few of these women got H.I.V. from a needle ─ but the needle is how H.I.V. got into the black community to begin with.
Preventing H.I.V. transmission among drug users, then, is a way to protect everyone.
Unlike preventing sexual transmission of AIDS, this is something we can do. The strategy is needle exchange ─ giving drug abusers new needles, usually in return for their used ones. One reason it works is that drug users want it: every drug injector prefers using clean needles.
Associated Press/Enric MartiA nurse prepares an injection of methadone at a rehabilitation center in Iran.
Needle exchange is part of an overall approach to drugs called harm reduction, which seeks to make drug use less deadly to the addict and to diminish the crime and disease that drug addiction causes. In most countries that use harm reduction, possessing drugs is still illegal. But drug abuse is treated mainly as a disease, not a crime. An example of what harm reduction looks like can be seen in the Persepolis clinics, in Tehran’s south. Persepolis began as one drop-in center in a drug-ridden neighborhood, and later expanded to five centers. The clinics have outreach teams of former drug users who contact their peers on the street. The clinics offer needles, methadone, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS tests and other medical care. They get people into drug treatment programs. Drug users can take showers, and sit all day and drink tea. When there is money, the clinics serve lunch and give out clothing. One clinic, with an all-female staff, is only for women. The clinics are an avenue for drug users to come into the health system, where they can get help.
The evidence that harm reduction works is overwhelming. Critics of needle exchange have argued that it causes more drug use, but it hasproven not to do so. Instead, it drastically reduces H.I.V. rates by preventing a small H.I.V. problem among drug users from becoming a large one in the general population. It saves money, especially compared with the usual alternative ─ prison. It fights crime. Drug users on methadone maintenance therapy commit far fewer crimes than other users, and are usually able to hold down jobs and have otherwise normal lives.
But the overwhelming majority of drug injectors have no access to harm reduction. Widespread, effective needle exchange is mainly found in the expected places ─ Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand. In Russia, the country that most needs harm reduction, methadone is illegal and needle exchange is done only by tiny groups in a handful of cities. While some American cities use needle exchange (New York City is a much safer place because of its excellent needle exchange programs), it was illegal to use federal funds for needle exchange until last year. And under the Bush administration, Washington bullied international agencies to abandon their support for needle exchange.
The problem is the politics. It seems wrong for the government to be muddying a “don’t-do-drugs” message by supplying the equipment for an illegal and dangerous activity. But to oppose harm reduction only provides the illusion of morality. Surely it is more moral to choose a strategy that does not increase drug use, but does save lives.
Harm reduction is relatively new in Iran. After the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran cracked down hard on drug users, declaring addiction to be counter-revolutionary. All drug treatment was stopped. Hundreds of thousands of drug users were sent to labor camps. Possession of heroin was a capital offense.
These punitive policies only added to a spiraling epidemic of drug use. Ten years ago, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimated that Iran’s drug problem was one of the most serious in the world (sharing a 570-mile border with opium-growing Afghanistan does not help.) The harsh policies only drove drug users further underground; fear of being caught with a needle meant users would use the community needle the dealer provided. Going to prison was particularly dangerous. Prisons are havens of needle sharing, and having been incarcerated is the single strongest predictor of H.I.V. infection in Iran. Good data is scarce, but at one prison surveyed in 2001, 63 percent of all injecting drug users were H.I.V. positive. Testing of drug users who visited the Persepolis clinic found that fully a quarter of them had the AIDS virus.
Yet by 2005, harm reduction had become official policy in Iran. Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi, the head of the judiciary, sent a letter to all courts and judicial authorities instructing them to support methadone and needle exchange. Even prisons in Iran now have widespread methadone, and there have been pilot projects in prisons for needle exchange ─ something not yet found in prisons in the United States, Canada or Australia. In 2007, 95 percent of drug injectors surveyed in Iran said they had used safe equipment when they last injected. (UNAIDS report, p. 94)
The rate of new H.I.V. infections in Iran rose until 2005, and has dropped ever since. A top drug control official, Saeed Sefatian, said in 2008 that 18 percent of injecting drug users were H.I.V.-positive, but estimated that if it weren’t for harm reduction, that number would have been 40 percent. New infections among drug users have continued to drop. Surveys at sentinel sites in pre-natal clinics have not yet turned up not a single pregnant woman with H.I.V. (UNAIDS report, p. 97) ─ an excellent indication that the epidemic has been contained.
By pointing out the success of this program, I do not mean to endorse Iran’s prisons, where political dissidents are being tortured. Nor does Iran’s modern approach to harm reduction redeem the government’s stone-age approach to just about everything else. The same ayatollah who told judges not to get in the way of harm reduction was the man who closed dozens of newspapers. The important point here is that even a theocracy as repressive and rigid as Iran ─ the anti-Amsterdam ─ managed to create policies that have likely saved the country from an AIDS and drug disaster. In Saturday’s column, I’ll tell the story of how the pragmatists in Iran managed to convince the clerics to adopt these policies ─ and what other countries can learn from their accomplishment.
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=6&lang=En
New York hosts confab on solidarity with Iran
New York hosts confab on solidarity with Iran
7/5/2011 3:46:11 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzrooVnGkYs
A call to end economic sanctions against Iran, stop military threats and respect Iran's right to nuclear energy, these were the topics discussed at a humble yet powerful conference in New York City organized by The American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC).
Speakers included Former Intelligence Analyst Ray McGovern & Brian Becker of ANSWER Coalition.
Participants weary of the misconceptions presented in the mainstream media regarding Iran attended to show their solidarity with the Iranian nation.
The speakers agreed that America's long standing alliance with Israel has harmed US interests & Washington's relations with the rest of the world
The conference follows a series of kidnappings and assassinations of Iranian Nuclear scientists and a set of unilateral sanctions imposed by the US congress against Iran and it's representatives.
On January 21st Iran will meet with the P5+1 which consist of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=5&lang=En
7/5/2011 3:46:11 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzrooVnGkYs
A call to end economic sanctions against Iran, stop military threats and respect Iran's right to nuclear energy, these were the topics discussed at a humble yet powerful conference in New York City organized by The American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC).
Speakers included Former Intelligence Analyst Ray McGovern & Brian Becker of ANSWER Coalition.
Participants weary of the misconceptions presented in the mainstream media regarding Iran attended to show their solidarity with the Iranian nation.
The speakers agreed that America's long standing alliance with Israel has harmed US interests & Washington's relations with the rest of the world
The conference follows a series of kidnappings and assassinations of Iranian Nuclear scientists and a set of unilateral sanctions imposed by the US congress against Iran and it's representatives.
On January 21st Iran will meet with the P5+1 which consist of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=5&lang=En
Wikileaks: US Embassy Requests Funding for Anti-Chavez Groups
Wikileaks: US Embassy Requests Funding for Anti-Chavez Groups
7/5/2011 3:30:27 AM
The latest Wikileaks releases include cables sent from the US Embassy in Caracas to the State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Council, and other US entities, indicating requests for additional US government funding for opposition groups in Venezuela. The cables corroborate documents previously obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that evidence ongoing US funding to support anti-Chavez groups and political parties in Venezuela actively working to destabilize and overthrow the South American government.
One document dated March 2009, authored by Charge D’Affaires John Caulfield, reveals $10 million in funding via the US Embassy in Caracas to state and municipal opposition governments, as well as several NGOs, youth groups and political campaigns to counter the Chavez government. Curiously, in the confidential cable, Caulfield requests an additional $3 million (on top of an already-approved $7 million) due to a “change” in Venezuela’s “political map”.
“Given that the November 2008 elections and February 2009 referendum created a new political map for Venezuela, post requests an additional USD 3 million to increase outreach efforts to newly elected state and municipal governments, as well as to continue programs to strengthen civil society and prepare for the next round of elections in 2010”.
Caulfield adds, “...redoubling our effort is necessary to counter the increasing authoritarianism of the Chavez government”, indicating clear political intent to justify the funding.
The US diplomat was referring to regional elections in 2008 during which opposition parties won in 6 out of 23 states and dozens of municipalities. Apparently, the Embassy was keen on providing immediate aid to those regions to reinforce their efforts.
ILLEGAL INTERVENTION
Embassies, consulates and diplomats are prohibited under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Affairs from intervening in the politics and internal affairs of a host nation. Funding from foreign governments for political groups and campaigns is also prohibited and illegal in Venezuela, as it is in the United States. Nonetheless, Caulfield doesn’t hide his intentions when he writes, “...our effort is necessary to counter...the Chavez government”.
Caulfield also admits that US government funding helped create many of the organizations in Venezuela receiving the aid and that those same groups would most likely not exist or survive without US support. “Without our continued assistance, it is possible that the organizations we helped create...could be forced to close...Our funding will provide those organizations a much-needed lifeline”.
The majority of Venezuelan groups receiving US funding were created after 2002, when the State Department set up its unauthorized Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), a political branch of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in Caracas. That same year, a coup d’etat was executed against the Chavez government, briefly ousting the Venezuelan President. He was later rescued within 48 hours by loyal armed forces and millions of Venezuelans. Those involved in the coup were all receiving US government funding and support through both the Embassy and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an agency funded by the US Congress. The OTI, which has consistently funded and strategically supported dozens of Venezuelan political parties and NGOs with millions of US taxpayer dollars annually, abruptly closed at the beginning of 2011 after being exposed and denounced for its illegal meddling activities in Venezuela.
Nonetheless, President Obama has already requested an additional $5 million to fund opposition groups in Venezuela in his 2012 budget. This amount is expected to increase with funds from other US agencies in preparation for Venezuela’s presidential and regional elections next year.
The $10 million dished out by the US Embassy to local opposition governments and “civil society” groups was slated to “support local NGOs in order to work as watchdogs on issues key for democratic development”, i.e. against the democratically-elected government. Five million dollars were directed towards supporting political parties and local governance to help newly elected opposition governments “show delivery on promises made to the people during the November 2008 political campaigns”. Is this really where US taxpayer dollars should be going?
Another $4 million went to “interested political parties, to develop young leaders and increase outreach to...the Venezuelan youth movement”. A particular target of US funding, anti-Chavez student and youth movements have popped up during the past 3 years receiving overrated media coverage and foreign attention.
Another one million of this funding went towards preparing the grounds for the 2010 legislative campaigns. During 2010, however, an additional $57 million was provided to the Venezuelan opposition from both US and European agencies.
MONEY AND INTERVENTION
Another US Embassy cable from September 2009, sent by then US Ambassador to Venezuela Patrick Duddy, recounted a meeting held between the US diplomat and three representatives from the small opposition party, Podemos. During the meeting, Ismael Garcia, legislator and leader of Podemos, specifically requested more US government funding and intervention to counteract President Chavez.
“As he has repeatedly done in the past, Garcia pointedly asked what the United States, through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or other USG (US Government) channels, could do to help Podemos. Molina and Garcia suggested that US support could be used for Podemos to build an internet – or cable TV-based communications network...The Ambassador emphasized that the United States is not intervening (sic) in Venezuela, to which Garcia responded, “Yes, but now is the time to begin”.
What these documents evidence, besides illegal US government meddling and hypocrisy, is the ongoing relationship of dependence between the Venezuelan opposition and Washington. US efforts to undermine the Chavez administration have largely depended on the capacity of the opposition to destabilize the country and counter Chavez. After years of multimillion-dollar investments in these groups, which now depend on US government funding, few advances have been made. This scenario could explain the recent aggressive actions the Obama administration is taking against Venezuela, imposing sanctions and attempting to falsely and maliciously link the Chavez government to terrorism and portray it as a “failed state”.
http://www.chavezcode.com/2011/06/wikileaks-us-embassy-requests-funding.html
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=3&lang=En
7/5/2011 3:30:27 AM
The latest Wikileaks releases include cables sent from the US Embassy in Caracas to the State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Council, and other US entities, indicating requests for additional US government funding for opposition groups in Venezuela. The cables corroborate documents previously obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that evidence ongoing US funding to support anti-Chavez groups and political parties in Venezuela actively working to destabilize and overthrow the South American government.
One document dated March 2009, authored by Charge D’Affaires John Caulfield, reveals $10 million in funding via the US Embassy in Caracas to state and municipal opposition governments, as well as several NGOs, youth groups and political campaigns to counter the Chavez government. Curiously, in the confidential cable, Caulfield requests an additional $3 million (on top of an already-approved $7 million) due to a “change” in Venezuela’s “political map”.
“Given that the November 2008 elections and February 2009 referendum created a new political map for Venezuela, post requests an additional USD 3 million to increase outreach efforts to newly elected state and municipal governments, as well as to continue programs to strengthen civil society and prepare for the next round of elections in 2010”.
Caulfield adds, “...redoubling our effort is necessary to counter the increasing authoritarianism of the Chavez government”, indicating clear political intent to justify the funding.
The US diplomat was referring to regional elections in 2008 during which opposition parties won in 6 out of 23 states and dozens of municipalities. Apparently, the Embassy was keen on providing immediate aid to those regions to reinforce their efforts.
ILLEGAL INTERVENTION
Embassies, consulates and diplomats are prohibited under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Affairs from intervening in the politics and internal affairs of a host nation. Funding from foreign governments for political groups and campaigns is also prohibited and illegal in Venezuela, as it is in the United States. Nonetheless, Caulfield doesn’t hide his intentions when he writes, “...our effort is necessary to counter...the Chavez government”.
Caulfield also admits that US government funding helped create many of the organizations in Venezuela receiving the aid and that those same groups would most likely not exist or survive without US support. “Without our continued assistance, it is possible that the organizations we helped create...could be forced to close...Our funding will provide those organizations a much-needed lifeline”.
The majority of Venezuelan groups receiving US funding were created after 2002, when the State Department set up its unauthorized Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), a political branch of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in Caracas. That same year, a coup d’etat was executed against the Chavez government, briefly ousting the Venezuelan President. He was later rescued within 48 hours by loyal armed forces and millions of Venezuelans. Those involved in the coup were all receiving US government funding and support through both the Embassy and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an agency funded by the US Congress. The OTI, which has consistently funded and strategically supported dozens of Venezuelan political parties and NGOs with millions of US taxpayer dollars annually, abruptly closed at the beginning of 2011 after being exposed and denounced for its illegal meddling activities in Venezuela.
Nonetheless, President Obama has already requested an additional $5 million to fund opposition groups in Venezuela in his 2012 budget. This amount is expected to increase with funds from other US agencies in preparation for Venezuela’s presidential and regional elections next year.
The $10 million dished out by the US Embassy to local opposition governments and “civil society” groups was slated to “support local NGOs in order to work as watchdogs on issues key for democratic development”, i.e. against the democratically-elected government. Five million dollars were directed towards supporting political parties and local governance to help newly elected opposition governments “show delivery on promises made to the people during the November 2008 political campaigns”. Is this really where US taxpayer dollars should be going?
Another $4 million went to “interested political parties, to develop young leaders and increase outreach to...the Venezuelan youth movement”. A particular target of US funding, anti-Chavez student and youth movements have popped up during the past 3 years receiving overrated media coverage and foreign attention.
Another one million of this funding went towards preparing the grounds for the 2010 legislative campaigns. During 2010, however, an additional $57 million was provided to the Venezuelan opposition from both US and European agencies.
MONEY AND INTERVENTION
Another US Embassy cable from September 2009, sent by then US Ambassador to Venezuela Patrick Duddy, recounted a meeting held between the US diplomat and three representatives from the small opposition party, Podemos. During the meeting, Ismael Garcia, legislator and leader of Podemos, specifically requested more US government funding and intervention to counteract President Chavez.
“As he has repeatedly done in the past, Garcia pointedly asked what the United States, through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or other USG (US Government) channels, could do to help Podemos. Molina and Garcia suggested that US support could be used for Podemos to build an internet – or cable TV-based communications network...The Ambassador emphasized that the United States is not intervening (sic) in Venezuela, to which Garcia responded, “Yes, but now is the time to begin”.
What these documents evidence, besides illegal US government meddling and hypocrisy, is the ongoing relationship of dependence between the Venezuelan opposition and Washington. US efforts to undermine the Chavez administration have largely depended on the capacity of the opposition to destabilize the country and counter Chavez. After years of multimillion-dollar investments in these groups, which now depend on US government funding, few advances have been made. This scenario could explain the recent aggressive actions the Obama administration is taking against Venezuela, imposing sanctions and attempting to falsely and maliciously link the Chavez government to terrorism and portray it as a “failed state”.
http://www.chavezcode.com/2011/06/wikileaks-us-embassy-requests-funding.html
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=3&lang=En
Iran to notch up highest growth in 2015
Iran to notch up highest growth in 2015
7/5/2011 3:35:02 AM
A Goldman Sachs report on global economics indicates that Iran is forecast to reach the highest economic growth between 2015 and 2025 and join the world's largest economies.
The report titled "Global Economics Paper No: 153", issued by the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. on March 28, 2007, says 11 emerging economies dubbed as "N-11" countries, including Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey, Vietnam and the Islamic Republic are expected to notch up striking economic growth rates between 2015 and 2025.
According to the US-based banking group, Iran has the strong possibility of becoming one of the world's largest economies in the 21st century, thanks to its relatively stable and steady economic rise, and a marked increase in the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is estimated to reach about $716 billion in 2025.
"Iran is another N-11 country, which likewise has significant potential…Iran has some attributes that would allow the country to advance much more easily than others," said the report, adding that Iran will have the potential to be the world's 12th economy by 2025.
The Goldman Sachs, which is an American investment banking and securities firm that engages in global investment banking, securities, and other financial services, introduced the N-11 grouping in late 2005 as part of comprehensive economic research on the countries that might have the kind of potential for global impact and could pose a challenge to G7 in size and economic growth.
The N-11s' weight in the global economy and global trade has been slowly increasing, with a contribution to global growth of around 9 percent over the last few years, the report added.
The report goes on to say that the Islamic Republic and Vietnam have the potential to become as rich as Germany today, and thus become an exciting prospect for foreign investors.
According to the report, the N-11 countries as a group of potentially large, fast-growing markets may not have the scale yet to be on a par with BRIC -- a grouping acronym that refers to the countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China -- but they could rival the G7 countries.
The World Bank on its report on global economy in 2010 predicted that Iran's economic growth will become double in 2011. Iran's economic growth will reach 3 percent in 2011, World Bank added.
On March 21, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei named new Iranian calendar year (March 2011-2012) as "The Year of Economic Jihad."
Ayatollah Khamenei also called on Iranian officials and nation to make Jihad-like efforts in order to lay the ground for a decade of economic growth.
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=4&lang=En
7/5/2011 3:35:02 AM
A Goldman Sachs report on global economics indicates that Iran is forecast to reach the highest economic growth between 2015 and 2025 and join the world's largest economies.
The report titled "Global Economics Paper No: 153", issued by the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. on March 28, 2007, says 11 emerging economies dubbed as "N-11" countries, including Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey, Vietnam and the Islamic Republic are expected to notch up striking economic growth rates between 2015 and 2025.
According to the US-based banking group, Iran has the strong possibility of becoming one of the world's largest economies in the 21st century, thanks to its relatively stable and steady economic rise, and a marked increase in the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is estimated to reach about $716 billion in 2025.
"Iran is another N-11 country, which likewise has significant potential…Iran has some attributes that would allow the country to advance much more easily than others," said the report, adding that Iran will have the potential to be the world's 12th economy by 2025.
The Goldman Sachs, which is an American investment banking and securities firm that engages in global investment banking, securities, and other financial services, introduced the N-11 grouping in late 2005 as part of comprehensive economic research on the countries that might have the kind of potential for global impact and could pose a challenge to G7 in size and economic growth.
The N-11s' weight in the global economy and global trade has been slowly increasing, with a contribution to global growth of around 9 percent over the last few years, the report added.
The report goes on to say that the Islamic Republic and Vietnam have the potential to become as rich as Germany today, and thus become an exciting prospect for foreign investors.
According to the report, the N-11 countries as a group of potentially large, fast-growing markets may not have the scale yet to be on a par with BRIC -- a grouping acronym that refers to the countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China -- but they could rival the G7 countries.
The World Bank on its report on global economy in 2010 predicted that Iran's economic growth will become double in 2011. Iran's economic growth will reach 3 percent in 2011, World Bank added.
On March 21, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei named new Iranian calendar year (March 2011-2012) as "The Year of Economic Jihad."
Ayatollah Khamenei also called on Iranian officials and nation to make Jihad-like efforts in order to lay the ground for a decade of economic growth.
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=4&lang=En
Washington Plans Further Actions Against Venezuela
Washington Plans Further Actions Against Venezuela
7/5/2011 3:00:20 AM
The US government has been increasing aggressive actions against the Chavez administration in an attempt to isolate the major petroleum producing nation and aid in ousting the Venezuelan President
During a hearing last Friday, June 24, in the Foreign Relations Committee of the House of Representatives regarding “Sanctionable Activities in Venezuela”, democrats and republicans requested the Obama administration take more aggressive actions against the government of Hugo Chavez. The head of the Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs for the Western Hemisphere, Connie Mack, a Florida Republican, branded the Venezuelan government “terrorist”, saying “it’s time to act to contain the dangerous influence of Hugo Chavez and his relations with Iran”.
Mack is known for his rabid anti-Chavez stance. But however “obsessed” he may seem with the Venezuelan President, the republican congressman does have influence in the legislature due to his high ranking in the Foreign Relations Committee. His efforts, along with those of the head of the Foreign Relations Committee, Florida republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, convinced the White House to impose sanctions against Venezuela’s state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) last May 24. Mack has said that his only objective this year is “get Hugo Chavez”.
Last Friday’s hearing, devoted entirely to Venezuela, was attended by senior officials of the State Department, the Treasury Department and the Office of Foreign Assets Control. In testimony before the Committee, the Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Latin America, Kevin Whitaker, revealed the Obama administration is “seriously considering” labeling Venezuela a “terrorist state”. “No option is off the table and the Department will continue to study any further action as may be necessary in the future”, said Whitaker.
The unilateral sanctions imposed on PDVSA came under the US Iran Sanctions Act, and include the prohibition of entering into contracts with the US government, loans from the US Import-Export Bank and certain technological licenses and patents. Nonetheless, this hostile action towards Venezuela did not have any real economic impact against the South American country because it no longer has agreements with the US government or loans from US banks. Furthermore, the sanctions did not affect the important oil supply from Venezuela to the US or the operations of PDVSA’s subsidiary in US territory, CITGO.
However, the sanctions had an impact on diplomatic relations between Caracas and Washington, which were already in a period of deterioration. After the latter’s aggressive actions, the Venezuelan government declared relations with the United States “frozen”.
DANGEROUS TO DO BUSINESS WITH PDVSA
According to the State Department, sanctions against PDVSA, while not impacting the country economically, “give a message to the world that it is dangerous to do business with Venezuela and PDVSA”, indicating that in the near future, Washington could act against those who enter into contracts or agreements with Venezuelan companies.
SANCTIONS AGAINST CONVIASA
The lawmakers also demanded the State Department impose sanctions against the Venezuelan airline CONVIASA because of what they consider “support for terrorism”, based on flights between Caracas, Syria and Iran. Without a shred of evidence, the congressmembers claimed the flight, which is no longer operating, was “carrying radioactive material, weapons, drugs and known terrorists of Hezbollah and Iran”.
To support this dangerous “accusation”, they cited a German newspaper, Die Welt, which had falsely published days before that Venezuela and Iran were building a missile base in western Venezuelan to “attack the United States”. In response to this misinformation, President Hugo Chavez showed footage of a windmill farm in same the location where “sources” had indicated the fictional Iranian military base was located.
MORE SANCTIONS
Congress also implored the State Department to consider applying more sanctions against Venezuela, including “a ban on US imports” and “transactions in dollars”. Representatives of the White House said that although they are considering further action against the government of Hugo Chavez, which they consider to be “an adversarial government”, they must take into account the significant supply of Venezuelan oil, which comprises 15% of US imports. Just days ago, President Barack Obama authorized oil exploitation in an environmentally protected area in Alaska, indicating that Washington is seeking to secure its energy needs before breaking the relationship with Venezuela.
SANCTIONS TO DATE
In addition to the sanctions imposed against PDVSA in May, Washington already has taken aggressive actions against the Venezuelan government. In June 2006, the US classified Venezuela as a country that “does not cooperate sufficiently with the fight against terrorism” and imposed sanctions prohibiting US arms sales to Venezuela or those from any company in the world using US technology.
Since 2005, Washington also has classified Venezuela as a country that does not “cooperate in the fight against drug trafficking,” which should carry a financial penalty against the South American country. Yet, Washington clarified that since Venezuela has no loans in the US, the only support that could be cut would be those millions of dollars given annually to opposition groups who work to undermine the Chavez government. In order to avoid reducing those funds, the US included an exception to this penalty, stating it “would not affect US economic support to “pro-democracy civil society organizations”, thus ensuring continued support for the destabilization of Venezuela.
In 2007, the US Treasury Department sanctioned three senior Venezuelan officials, accusing them of ties to terrorism and drug trafficking, though the allegations were unsubstantiated. The officials included the Director of Military Intelligence, General Hugo Carvajal, ex Director of Bolivarian Intelligence (SEBIN), General Henry Rangel and ex Minister of Interior and Justice, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin.
The following year, the Treasury Department designated two Venezuelans of Syrian origin, Fawzi Kan’an and Ghazi Nasr al Din, as providing material support for terrorism based on alleged links to Hezbollah, considered a terrorist group by the United States.
All indications are that Washington will continue to increase aggression against Venezuela with future sanctions and attempts to demonize, isolate and discredit the Chavez administration.
By : Eva Golinger
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=2&lang=En
7/5/2011 3:00:20 AM
The US government has been increasing aggressive actions against the Chavez administration in an attempt to isolate the major petroleum producing nation and aid in ousting the Venezuelan President
During a hearing last Friday, June 24, in the Foreign Relations Committee of the House of Representatives regarding “Sanctionable Activities in Venezuela”, democrats and republicans requested the Obama administration take more aggressive actions against the government of Hugo Chavez. The head of the Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs for the Western Hemisphere, Connie Mack, a Florida Republican, branded the Venezuelan government “terrorist”, saying “it’s time to act to contain the dangerous influence of Hugo Chavez and his relations with Iran”.
Mack is known for his rabid anti-Chavez stance. But however “obsessed” he may seem with the Venezuelan President, the republican congressman does have influence in the legislature due to his high ranking in the Foreign Relations Committee. His efforts, along with those of the head of the Foreign Relations Committee, Florida republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, convinced the White House to impose sanctions against Venezuela’s state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) last May 24. Mack has said that his only objective this year is “get Hugo Chavez”.
Last Friday’s hearing, devoted entirely to Venezuela, was attended by senior officials of the State Department, the Treasury Department and the Office of Foreign Assets Control. In testimony before the Committee, the Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Latin America, Kevin Whitaker, revealed the Obama administration is “seriously considering” labeling Venezuela a “terrorist state”. “No option is off the table and the Department will continue to study any further action as may be necessary in the future”, said Whitaker.
The unilateral sanctions imposed on PDVSA came under the US Iran Sanctions Act, and include the prohibition of entering into contracts with the US government, loans from the US Import-Export Bank and certain technological licenses and patents. Nonetheless, this hostile action towards Venezuela did not have any real economic impact against the South American country because it no longer has agreements with the US government or loans from US banks. Furthermore, the sanctions did not affect the important oil supply from Venezuela to the US or the operations of PDVSA’s subsidiary in US territory, CITGO.
However, the sanctions had an impact on diplomatic relations between Caracas and Washington, which were already in a period of deterioration. After the latter’s aggressive actions, the Venezuelan government declared relations with the United States “frozen”.
DANGEROUS TO DO BUSINESS WITH PDVSA
According to the State Department, sanctions against PDVSA, while not impacting the country economically, “give a message to the world that it is dangerous to do business with Venezuela and PDVSA”, indicating that in the near future, Washington could act against those who enter into contracts or agreements with Venezuelan companies.
SANCTIONS AGAINST CONVIASA
The lawmakers also demanded the State Department impose sanctions against the Venezuelan airline CONVIASA because of what they consider “support for terrorism”, based on flights between Caracas, Syria and Iran. Without a shred of evidence, the congressmembers claimed the flight, which is no longer operating, was “carrying radioactive material, weapons, drugs and known terrorists of Hezbollah and Iran”.
To support this dangerous “accusation”, they cited a German newspaper, Die Welt, which had falsely published days before that Venezuela and Iran were building a missile base in western Venezuelan to “attack the United States”. In response to this misinformation, President Hugo Chavez showed footage of a windmill farm in same the location where “sources” had indicated the fictional Iranian military base was located.
MORE SANCTIONS
Congress also implored the State Department to consider applying more sanctions against Venezuela, including “a ban on US imports” and “transactions in dollars”. Representatives of the White House said that although they are considering further action against the government of Hugo Chavez, which they consider to be “an adversarial government”, they must take into account the significant supply of Venezuelan oil, which comprises 15% of US imports. Just days ago, President Barack Obama authorized oil exploitation in an environmentally protected area in Alaska, indicating that Washington is seeking to secure its energy needs before breaking the relationship with Venezuela.
SANCTIONS TO DATE
In addition to the sanctions imposed against PDVSA in May, Washington already has taken aggressive actions against the Venezuelan government. In June 2006, the US classified Venezuela as a country that “does not cooperate sufficiently with the fight against terrorism” and imposed sanctions prohibiting US arms sales to Venezuela or those from any company in the world using US technology.
Since 2005, Washington also has classified Venezuela as a country that does not “cooperate in the fight against drug trafficking,” which should carry a financial penalty against the South American country. Yet, Washington clarified that since Venezuela has no loans in the US, the only support that could be cut would be those millions of dollars given annually to opposition groups who work to undermine the Chavez government. In order to avoid reducing those funds, the US included an exception to this penalty, stating it “would not affect US economic support to “pro-democracy civil society organizations”, thus ensuring continued support for the destabilization of Venezuela.
In 2007, the US Treasury Department sanctioned three senior Venezuelan officials, accusing them of ties to terrorism and drug trafficking, though the allegations were unsubstantiated. The officials included the Director of Military Intelligence, General Hugo Carvajal, ex Director of Bolivarian Intelligence (SEBIN), General Henry Rangel and ex Minister of Interior and Justice, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin.
The following year, the Treasury Department designated two Venezuelans of Syrian origin, Fawzi Kan’an and Ghazi Nasr al Din, as providing material support for terrorism based on alleged links to Hezbollah, considered a terrorist group by the United States.
All indications are that Washington will continue to increase aggression against Venezuela with future sanctions and attempts to demonize, isolate and discredit the Chavez administration.
By : Eva Golinger
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=2&lang=En
Chávez: Alive and Well, Despite Myths
Chávez: Alive and Well, Despite Myths
7/5/2011 2:58:51 AM
Pictures, video and audio of an encounter between Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro evidence the South American President is recovering satisfactorily after surgery to remove a pelvic abscess
Much hype has been made about the state of President Hugo Chavez’s health. International media have perpetuated numerous unfounded rumors claiming the Venezuelan head of state is in critical condition, has cancer, is in a coma or even passed away. These media outlets, which range from notoriously reactionary anti-Chavez press such as El Pais (Spain), Fox News and the Miami Herald (and its Spanish version, El Nuevo Herald) to the somewhat more respectable BBC, NPR, CNN, New York Times and Washington Post, have all circulated these wild myths and stories about President Chavez’s condition, without presenting any evidence to substantiate their allegations.
Apparently, making things up about a sitting president, who happens to have a very public, controversial image, is good for ratings. Social networks online have exacerbated the issue even more, engaging in what could only be considered a frenzied orgy of ficticious stories about the Venezuelan President’s health. Some tweeters have “killed” Chavez several times already, while others have invented every possible ailment known to humanity and claimed he has it.
Private Venezuelan media have been equally as disgraceful, circulating the same rumors promoted in international press and online, and creating others. Some have gone so far as to claim President Chavez is “inventing his ailment” to “gain political points and sympathies” from his followers. One columnist who writes for a major national daily, El Universal, has dedicated his notoriously rumor-based articles to Chavez’s health since the Venezuelan chief underwent surgery for a pelvic abscess on June 10. This alleged “journalist”, Nelson Bocaranda, has defamed and slandered President Chavez, and gravely misinformed the public by writing that Chavez has prostate cancer and has been undergoing radioactive treatment in a specialized clinic in Havana. Nothing could be further from the truth.
TWISTING THE FACTS
Much of the false information about President Chavez circulating in public opinion originated from an article published in El Nuevo Herald, claiming “US intelligence officials” informed the Miami publication the Venezuelan President was suffering from a “terminal illness”. Even State Department officials, during a Congressional hearing on Venezuela last week in the House Committee on Foreign Relations, alleged they had information about President Chavez they couldn’t “make public”.
CNN in Spanish has been doing sensational nightly programs on the Venezuelan leader’s health situation, bringing in “experts” on every possible ailment Chavez is claimed to be suffering from, and morbidly analyzing the “consequences” of his “tragic downfall”. CNN in English has also done segments ridiculously inquiring “Where in the world is Hugo Chavez?” when from the beginning of his surgery it was of public knowledge that the Venezuelan President was recovering in Cuba.
Most of these media, and those who own them, would be overjoyed to have the polemic leftist President out of the picture for good. These same media have “killed” Fidel Castro dozens of times over the years, only to bite their tongues every time the Cuban leader makes public appearances, energized and astute for an 84-year old revolutionary.
The overly-exaggerated reaction to Chavez’s health has in large part resulted from the habitual public appearances he’s made during the past 12 years, which everyone – literally everywhere – has grown accustomed to. His absence from the limelight has left a massive hole in media that report on Venezuela. Even those from opposition groups and political parties in Venezuela have been left at a loss without President Chavez.
When he’s here, the opposition wants him gone, and has attempted everything from coup d’etats, economic sabotages, assassination attempts and even calling for foreign intervention, to get him out. When he’s temporarily absent, they want him back. When photographs and video images were shown of him from his recovery location in Havana, opposition spokespeople and media demanded he make a speech. When he’s in Venezuela making speeches and talking on television, they want him silenced. As they say in Venezuela, “Chavez has them all crazy” (Chavez los tiene locos).
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
The truth is, within hours of his surgery for a pelvic abscess on the verge of bursting – which could be very dangerous and requires immediate drainage – the Venezuelan government informed the public of his status. Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro read a statement that Friday, June 10 on live television from Cuba, where the President had made a final stop on a Latin American tour. The surgery was successful and the Venezuelan head of state just needed to recover. Two days later, Chavez himself called into a live television show on Telesur and spoke for about 20 minutes about the operation and his current status, as well as his road to recovery and full capacity to continue leading the government from his hospital bed. After all, he was not mentally incapacitated, just temporarily physically debilitated from the intervention.
Chavez also explained that the incision to drain the abscess had been “deep”, and as a precaution, biopsies were taken to ensure he had no signs of anything malignant. “The tests all came back negative, nothing malignant”, the Venezuelan President assured the public on live television.
But during the days post-op, media coverage of Chavez’s health rapidly deteriorated into a vampiric binge of false information attempting to portray the Venezuelan leader as “critically ill”. Many claimed the myths they were spreading were due to a level of “secrecy” about the President’s condition. But everyday, high level officials from the government publicly informed about his progress and revealed they were in constant communication with him. Where was the secrecy?
Apparently, when media, yellow-journalists and politicians don’t hear what they want to hear, they make things up and blame the government for lack of information. In the case of Hugo Chavez, there really is nothing more to tell. He doesn’t have cancer. He’s not terminally ill. He’s not in critical condition. He’s not even sick! He just had surgery on a very sensitive part of his body and is in recovery and rehab. For someone who is generally extremely energetic and hasn’t rested or taken vacation in 12 years, one month of post-op recovery is a miminum of what he needs and deserves to get back to his usual self.
Despite his absence from the public eye, with the exception of the video footage shown this week on Cuban and Venezuelan television – which showed a thinner, but solid Chavez, talking with the same passion and fire as always – the President has been running the government at a normal pace, signing bills into laws, approving budgets and overseeing his cabinet member’s activities. Everything has been moving forward as usual. There is no lack of governance in Venezuela.
And soon, Chavez will be back in the limelight running the show and the usual suspects will be complaining once again about his mighty presence.
By : Eva golinger
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=1&lang=En
7/5/2011 2:58:51 AM
Pictures, video and audio of an encounter between Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro evidence the South American President is recovering satisfactorily after surgery to remove a pelvic abscess
Much hype has been made about the state of President Hugo Chavez’s health. International media have perpetuated numerous unfounded rumors claiming the Venezuelan head of state is in critical condition, has cancer, is in a coma or even passed away. These media outlets, which range from notoriously reactionary anti-Chavez press such as El Pais (Spain), Fox News and the Miami Herald (and its Spanish version, El Nuevo Herald) to the somewhat more respectable BBC, NPR, CNN, New York Times and Washington Post, have all circulated these wild myths and stories about President Chavez’s condition, without presenting any evidence to substantiate their allegations.
Apparently, making things up about a sitting president, who happens to have a very public, controversial image, is good for ratings. Social networks online have exacerbated the issue even more, engaging in what could only be considered a frenzied orgy of ficticious stories about the Venezuelan President’s health. Some tweeters have “killed” Chavez several times already, while others have invented every possible ailment known to humanity and claimed he has it.
Private Venezuelan media have been equally as disgraceful, circulating the same rumors promoted in international press and online, and creating others. Some have gone so far as to claim President Chavez is “inventing his ailment” to “gain political points and sympathies” from his followers. One columnist who writes for a major national daily, El Universal, has dedicated his notoriously rumor-based articles to Chavez’s health since the Venezuelan chief underwent surgery for a pelvic abscess on June 10. This alleged “journalist”, Nelson Bocaranda, has defamed and slandered President Chavez, and gravely misinformed the public by writing that Chavez has prostate cancer and has been undergoing radioactive treatment in a specialized clinic in Havana. Nothing could be further from the truth.
TWISTING THE FACTS
Much of the false information about President Chavez circulating in public opinion originated from an article published in El Nuevo Herald, claiming “US intelligence officials” informed the Miami publication the Venezuelan President was suffering from a “terminal illness”. Even State Department officials, during a Congressional hearing on Venezuela last week in the House Committee on Foreign Relations, alleged they had information about President Chavez they couldn’t “make public”.
CNN in Spanish has been doing sensational nightly programs on the Venezuelan leader’s health situation, bringing in “experts” on every possible ailment Chavez is claimed to be suffering from, and morbidly analyzing the “consequences” of his “tragic downfall”. CNN in English has also done segments ridiculously inquiring “Where in the world is Hugo Chavez?” when from the beginning of his surgery it was of public knowledge that the Venezuelan President was recovering in Cuba.
Most of these media, and those who own them, would be overjoyed to have the polemic leftist President out of the picture for good. These same media have “killed” Fidel Castro dozens of times over the years, only to bite their tongues every time the Cuban leader makes public appearances, energized and astute for an 84-year old revolutionary.
The overly-exaggerated reaction to Chavez’s health has in large part resulted from the habitual public appearances he’s made during the past 12 years, which everyone – literally everywhere – has grown accustomed to. His absence from the limelight has left a massive hole in media that report on Venezuela. Even those from opposition groups and political parties in Venezuela have been left at a loss without President Chavez.
When he’s here, the opposition wants him gone, and has attempted everything from coup d’etats, economic sabotages, assassination attempts and even calling for foreign intervention, to get him out. When he’s temporarily absent, they want him back. When photographs and video images were shown of him from his recovery location in Havana, opposition spokespeople and media demanded he make a speech. When he’s in Venezuela making speeches and talking on television, they want him silenced. As they say in Venezuela, “Chavez has them all crazy” (Chavez los tiene locos).
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
The truth is, within hours of his surgery for a pelvic abscess on the verge of bursting – which could be very dangerous and requires immediate drainage – the Venezuelan government informed the public of his status. Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro read a statement that Friday, June 10 on live television from Cuba, where the President had made a final stop on a Latin American tour. The surgery was successful and the Venezuelan head of state just needed to recover. Two days later, Chavez himself called into a live television show on Telesur and spoke for about 20 minutes about the operation and his current status, as well as his road to recovery and full capacity to continue leading the government from his hospital bed. After all, he was not mentally incapacitated, just temporarily physically debilitated from the intervention.
Chavez also explained that the incision to drain the abscess had been “deep”, and as a precaution, biopsies were taken to ensure he had no signs of anything malignant. “The tests all came back negative, nothing malignant”, the Venezuelan President assured the public on live television.
But during the days post-op, media coverage of Chavez’s health rapidly deteriorated into a vampiric binge of false information attempting to portray the Venezuelan leader as “critically ill”. Many claimed the myths they were spreading were due to a level of “secrecy” about the President’s condition. But everyday, high level officials from the government publicly informed about his progress and revealed they were in constant communication with him. Where was the secrecy?
Apparently, when media, yellow-journalists and politicians don’t hear what they want to hear, they make things up and blame the government for lack of information. In the case of Hugo Chavez, there really is nothing more to tell. He doesn’t have cancer. He’s not terminally ill. He’s not in critical condition. He’s not even sick! He just had surgery on a very sensitive part of his body and is in recovery and rehab. For someone who is generally extremely energetic and hasn’t rested or taken vacation in 12 years, one month of post-op recovery is a miminum of what he needs and deserves to get back to his usual self.
Despite his absence from the public eye, with the exception of the video footage shown this week on Cuban and Venezuelan television – which showed a thinner, but solid Chavez, talking with the same passion and fire as always – the President has been running the government at a normal pace, signing bills into laws, approving budgets and overseeing his cabinet member’s activities. Everything has been moving forward as usual. There is no lack of governance in Venezuela.
And soon, Chavez will be back in the limelight running the show and the usual suspects will be complaining once again about his mighty presence.
By : Eva golinger
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=17&ctg=1&c=1&lang=En
Unase a la campaña del SI
Unase a la campaña del SI
7/4/2011 3:23:37 AM
Considerando que la escalada de las sanciones y las amenazas de intervención militar contra Irán tienen por objetivo privar al pueblo iraní de su derecho internacionalmente reconocido a vivir como una nación independiente y soberana.
Considerando que, las sanciones y las amenazas son violaciones claras del Artículo 2 de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, según el cual los Estados miembros deben "abstenerse en sus relaciones internacionales de la amenaza o el uso de la fuerza contra la integridad territorial o la independencia política de cualquier Estado".
Considerando que los Estados Unidos está inequívocadamente obligado en virtud del tratado bilateral de Argelia de 1981 a abstenerse de interferir en los asuntos internos de Irán.
Considerando que las sanciones frecuentemente allanan el camino a la guerra.
Considerando que, Irán, como signatario del Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear, tiene el "derecho inalienable" de desarrollar y utilizar la tecnología nuclear con fines pacíficos.
Considerando que, de acuerdo con el Organismo Internacional de Energía Atómica, no hay evidencia para respaldar la acusación de que Irán está "planeando producir armas nucleares".
Considerando que, los grupos hegemónicos califican hoy en día a Irán como una amenaza para la paz, también para convencer a la opinión pública, mintieron sobre la existencia de armas de destrucción masiva en Irak para justificar que la guerra era nececaria.
Los pueblos del mundo no pueden aceptar que se repita otro crimen de lesa humanidad.
Por lo tanto, instamos a todos los pueblos que defienden la justicia, la paz, la soberanía y la autodeterminación a unirse a esta campaña y elevar su voz para demandar:
- El Levantamiento de las sanciones económicas contra Irán.
- El reconocimiento del derecho de Irán a desarrollar y utilizar la energía nuclear con fines pacíficos.
-Detener las amenazas militares contra Irán.
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=19&ctg=1&c=3&lang=En
7/4/2011 3:23:37 AM
Considerando que la escalada de las sanciones y las amenazas de intervención militar contra Irán tienen por objetivo privar al pueblo iraní de su derecho internacionalmente reconocido a vivir como una nación independiente y soberana.
Considerando que, las sanciones y las amenazas son violaciones claras del Artículo 2 de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, según el cual los Estados miembros deben "abstenerse en sus relaciones internacionales de la amenaza o el uso de la fuerza contra la integridad territorial o la independencia política de cualquier Estado".
Considerando que los Estados Unidos está inequívocadamente obligado en virtud del tratado bilateral de Argelia de 1981 a abstenerse de interferir en los asuntos internos de Irán.
Considerando que las sanciones frecuentemente allanan el camino a la guerra.
Considerando que, Irán, como signatario del Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear, tiene el "derecho inalienable" de desarrollar y utilizar la tecnología nuclear con fines pacíficos.
Considerando que, de acuerdo con el Organismo Internacional de Energía Atómica, no hay evidencia para respaldar la acusación de que Irán está "planeando producir armas nucleares".
Considerando que, los grupos hegemónicos califican hoy en día a Irán como una amenaza para la paz, también para convencer a la opinión pública, mintieron sobre la existencia de armas de destrucción masiva en Irak para justificar que la guerra era nececaria.
Los pueblos del mundo no pueden aceptar que se repita otro crimen de lesa humanidad.
Por lo tanto, instamos a todos los pueblos que defienden la justicia, la paz, la soberanía y la autodeterminación a unirse a esta campaña y elevar su voz para demandar:
- El Levantamiento de las sanciones económicas contra Irán.
- El reconocimiento del derecho de Irán a desarrollar y utilizar la energía nuclear con fines pacíficos.
-Detener las amenazas militares contra Irán.
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=19&ctg=1&c=3&lang=En
Join the SI campaign
Join the SI campaign
7/4/2011 3:17:31 AM
Whereas, the escalating sanctions and threats of military intervention against Iran are intended to deprive the Iranian people of their internationally recognized right to live as an independent and free nation;
Whereas, the sanctions and threats are clear violations of Article 2 of the UN Charter, according to which member states must "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state";
Whereas, the United States is unequivocally obligated under the bilateral 1981 Algiers Treaty to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of Iran;
Whereas, sanctions often pave the way to war;
Whereas, Iran, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has an “inalienable right” to develop and use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes;
Whereas, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there is no evidence to back up the charge that Iran is "planning to produce nuclear weapons";
Whereas, the hegemonic lobbies that portray Iran as a threat to peace today also lied about imaginary weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to convince the public that war was necessary;
The people of the world cannot accept such a crime against humanity to be repeated.
Therefore, we urge all who stand for justice, peace, sovereignty and self determination to join this campaign and raise their voice to demand:
- Lift economic sanctions against Iran.
- Recognize the right of Iran to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
- Stop military threats against Iran.
SI! Solidarity with Iran
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=19&ctg=1&c=1&lang=En
7/4/2011 3:17:31 AM
Whereas, the escalating sanctions and threats of military intervention against Iran are intended to deprive the Iranian people of their internationally recognized right to live as an independent and free nation;
Whereas, the sanctions and threats are clear violations of Article 2 of the UN Charter, according to which member states must "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state";
Whereas, the United States is unequivocally obligated under the bilateral 1981 Algiers Treaty to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of Iran;
Whereas, sanctions often pave the way to war;
Whereas, Iran, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has an “inalienable right” to develop and use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes;
Whereas, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there is no evidence to back up the charge that Iran is "planning to produce nuclear weapons";
Whereas, the hegemonic lobbies that portray Iran as a threat to peace today also lied about imaginary weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to convince the public that war was necessary;
The people of the world cannot accept such a crime against humanity to be repeated.
Therefore, we urge all who stand for justice, peace, sovereignty and self determination to join this campaign and raise their voice to demand:
- Lift economic sanctions against Iran.
- Recognize the right of Iran to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
- Stop military threats against Iran.
SI! Solidarity with Iran
http://solidaridad.ir/post/detail.aspx?mc=2&sc=1&pc=19&ctg=1&c=1&lang=En
Solidarity with Iran - SI
Solidarity with Iran - SI
A Campaign Initiated by:
The House of Latin America (HOLA)
Introduction
On October 12, 2010, House of Latin America (HOLA), a NGO in Iran acting in solidarity and defense of the peoples of Latin America, initiated an Appeal, calling on social justice and anti-war forces around the world to mobilize to come to the defense of the people of Iran in this urgent hour of U.S. escalating threats and continuing sanctions. The Appeal, which is noticeable in another section of this same website was initially endorsed by a number of organizations active in the peace movement of US and Canada and was later supported by 100s of freedom loving people and progressive movements throughout the world.
A clear indication of the broad support for the ongoing campaign in solidarity with the people of Iran was shown during a "Solidarity Tour" to a number of countries in Latin America. In that tour, which took place during the two months of November & December 2010, representatives of mass organizations in Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Uruguay endorsed the appeal of "Solidarity with Iran – SI" campaign. A partial list of supporters of the SI campaign could be noticed elsewhere in this website.
We urge everyone who takes side with the oppressed as opposed to the oppressor, we urge every citizen of Africa, the Americas, Antarctica, Asia, Australia & Oceania, and Europe to join this campaign. You may help this campaign in different ways, by bringing the truth out about the aggressions against Iran through educational meetings, seminars & forums, publishing news and articles, rallies and demonstrations and by giving donations.
Aim & Policies
Aim
The aim of the campaign for Solidarity with Iran – SI is to mobilize broadest international support in defense of the right of Iran to self-determination; a right which has historically been denied by hegemonic powers. This campaign is being initiated at a time that the aggressions of a handful of oppressive powers headed by US government against Iran are stronger than ever. These aggressions that are executed today through intensified economic sanctions, military threats and maneuvers to ban Iran from its legitimate right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, pursue nothing but to deprive Iranian people from their sovereignty. These antagonistic acts, which are carried out paradoxically in the name of people of North America and Europe, have in fact nothing to do with the interests of ordinary peoples of those regions, who like all human being wish to enjoy social justice, while living in brotherhood and peace with other nations. The only motive for these aggressions is clear; it is to secure the material interests of a small number of billionaires through plundering by any means the natural resources of oppressed nations. The human conscious shall not tolerate that.
The campaign for Solidarity with Iran – SI, appeals to such consciousness with the belief that the support of world public opinion would be decisive to put an end to unethical and unlawful aggressions against Iran.
Policies
- The stand of SI campaign in defense of self-determination of Iran is unconditional.
- In defending the sovereignty of Iranian people, SI campaign also defends the government of Islamic Republic of Iran against the aggressions of hegemonic powers, whether these aggressions are carried out through economic sanctions, military threats or the attempts for "regime change" by other means such as bringing instability in Iran with interfering in internal affairs of that nation.
- As long as the two above-mentioned principled policies of the SI campaign are observed, the campaign is completely non-exclusive.
- The SI campaign pursues its aim through peaceful means and by informing the public opinion about the achievements of the struggles of Iranian people since they overthrow the US-backed regime of the Shah, and also by providing facts on different forms of aggressive acts against Iran.
Coordination Committee for
Solidarity with Iran SI
http://www.solidaridad.ir/about/index.aspx?lang=En
A Campaign Initiated by:
The House of Latin America (HOLA)
Introduction
On October 12, 2010, House of Latin America (HOLA), a NGO in Iran acting in solidarity and defense of the peoples of Latin America, initiated an Appeal, calling on social justice and anti-war forces around the world to mobilize to come to the defense of the people of Iran in this urgent hour of U.S. escalating threats and continuing sanctions. The Appeal, which is noticeable in another section of this same website was initially endorsed by a number of organizations active in the peace movement of US and Canada and was later supported by 100s of freedom loving people and progressive movements throughout the world.
A clear indication of the broad support for the ongoing campaign in solidarity with the people of Iran was shown during a "Solidarity Tour" to a number of countries in Latin America. In that tour, which took place during the two months of November & December 2010, representatives of mass organizations in Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Uruguay endorsed the appeal of "Solidarity with Iran – SI" campaign. A partial list of supporters of the SI campaign could be noticed elsewhere in this website.
We urge everyone who takes side with the oppressed as opposed to the oppressor, we urge every citizen of Africa, the Americas, Antarctica, Asia, Australia & Oceania, and Europe to join this campaign. You may help this campaign in different ways, by bringing the truth out about the aggressions against Iran through educational meetings, seminars & forums, publishing news and articles, rallies and demonstrations and by giving donations.
Aim & Policies
Aim
The aim of the campaign for Solidarity with Iran – SI is to mobilize broadest international support in defense of the right of Iran to self-determination; a right which has historically been denied by hegemonic powers. This campaign is being initiated at a time that the aggressions of a handful of oppressive powers headed by US government against Iran are stronger than ever. These aggressions that are executed today through intensified economic sanctions, military threats and maneuvers to ban Iran from its legitimate right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, pursue nothing but to deprive Iranian people from their sovereignty. These antagonistic acts, which are carried out paradoxically in the name of people of North America and Europe, have in fact nothing to do with the interests of ordinary peoples of those regions, who like all human being wish to enjoy social justice, while living in brotherhood and peace with other nations. The only motive for these aggressions is clear; it is to secure the material interests of a small number of billionaires through plundering by any means the natural resources of oppressed nations. The human conscious shall not tolerate that.
The campaign for Solidarity with Iran – SI, appeals to such consciousness with the belief that the support of world public opinion would be decisive to put an end to unethical and unlawful aggressions against Iran.
Policies
- The stand of SI campaign in defense of self-determination of Iran is unconditional.
- In defending the sovereignty of Iranian people, SI campaign also defends the government of Islamic Republic of Iran against the aggressions of hegemonic powers, whether these aggressions are carried out through economic sanctions, military threats or the attempts for "regime change" by other means such as bringing instability in Iran with interfering in internal affairs of that nation.
- As long as the two above-mentioned principled policies of the SI campaign are observed, the campaign is completely non-exclusive.
- The SI campaign pursues its aim through peaceful means and by informing the public opinion about the achievements of the struggles of Iranian people since they overthrow the US-backed regime of the Shah, and also by providing facts on different forms of aggressive acts against Iran.
Coordination Committee for
Solidarity with Iran SI
http://www.solidaridad.ir/about/index.aspx?lang=En
Friday, November 18, 2011
Aprueba el PRI mexicano coalición para elecciones del 2012
Aprueba el PRI mexicano coalición para elecciones del 2012
Jueves, 17 de Noviembre de 2011 11:29
México, el jueves La Comisión Política Permanente del Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) aprobó hoy una coalición total con los partidos Verde Ecologista de México (PVEM) y Nueva Alianza para los comicios de 2012.
Con esta alianza el partido tricolor contenderá en las elecciones por la presidencia de México y por sus escaños en el senado y la cámara de diputados.
Esta unión llevará por nombre Compromiso por México, la cual funcionará solamente en 126 de los 300 distritos federales en que se divide el país, y en 20 de los 64 escaños que se disputarán en las cámaras alta y baja del senado.
Con este acuerdo, el PRI se convierte en la segunda fuerza política del país en crear oficialmente su alianza para las contiendas del 2012, luego que el Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) también definiera la suya.
El PRD contenderá junto con el Partido del Trabajo, Movimiento Ciudadano y el Movimiento de Regenaración Nacional (Morena).
prensa_latina
http://spanish.irib.ir/elsur/noticias/mexico-y-centroamerica/item/80812-aprueba-el-pri-mexicano-coalición-para-elecciones-del-2012
Jueves, 17 de Noviembre de 2011 11:29
México, el jueves La Comisión Política Permanente del Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) aprobó hoy una coalición total con los partidos Verde Ecologista de México (PVEM) y Nueva Alianza para los comicios de 2012.
Con esta alianza el partido tricolor contenderá en las elecciones por la presidencia de México y por sus escaños en el senado y la cámara de diputados.
Esta unión llevará por nombre Compromiso por México, la cual funcionará solamente en 126 de los 300 distritos federales en que se divide el país, y en 20 de los 64 escaños que se disputarán en las cámaras alta y baja del senado.
Con este acuerdo, el PRI se convierte en la segunda fuerza política del país en crear oficialmente su alianza para las contiendas del 2012, luego que el Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) también definiera la suya.
El PRD contenderá junto con el Partido del Trabajo, Movimiento Ciudadano y el Movimiento de Regenaración Nacional (Morena).
prensa_latina
http://spanish.irib.ir/elsur/noticias/mexico-y-centroamerica/item/80812-aprueba-el-pri-mexicano-coalición-para-elecciones-del-2012
Realizan cómputos de elecciones en estado mexicano de Michoacán
Realizan cómputos de elecciones en estado mexicano de Michoacán
Miércoles, 16 de Noviembre de 2011 09:15
El Instituto Electoral de Michoacán (IEM) realizará hoy los cómputos de la elección de ayuntamientos, de diputados, y de gobernador en distritos, según la presidenta de dicho órgano, María de los Ángeles Llanderal.
De acuerdo con la funcionaria, el próximo domingo sesionará el IEM para hacer el conteo general de la elección de gobernador y entregar la constancia a quien resulte con el mayor número de votos entre los tres contendientes a ese puesto.
Hasta la fecha, el Programa de Resultados Electorales Preliminares (PREP) colocó en primer lugar al candidato para gobernar Michoacán de los partidos Revolucionario Institucional y Verde, Fausto Vallejo.
Con 35,99 por ciento de los votos, el abanderado tricolor superó en casi tres puntos porcentuales a Luisa María Calderón, representante de las fuerzas de Partido Acción Nacional (PAN), junto con Panal, con 32,67 por ciento de los votos a su favor. En tanto, Silvano Aureoles Conejo, de los partidos de la Revolución Democrática, del Trabajo y Convergencia, sumó 28.88 por ciento.
Los citados resultados están siendo impugnados por esta alianza de izquierda, e igualmente cuestionados por la aspirante del gobernante PAN, aunque la presidenta del IEM insiste que el proceso del domingo pasado transcurrió en términos comunes.
Aseguró que "los ciudadanos salimos a votar en un porcentaje importante, arriba de 54 por ciento y finalmente se instalaron todas las casillas."
Igualmente Llanderal Zaragoza rechaza tener conocimiento de relación alguna del PRI con el crimen organizado.
Por PL
http://spanish.irib.ir/elsur/noticias/mexico-y-centroamerica/item/80808-realizan-cómputos-de-elecciones-en-estado-mexicano-de-michoacán
Miércoles, 16 de Noviembre de 2011 09:15
El Instituto Electoral de Michoacán (IEM) realizará hoy los cómputos de la elección de ayuntamientos, de diputados, y de gobernador en distritos, según la presidenta de dicho órgano, María de los Ángeles Llanderal.
De acuerdo con la funcionaria, el próximo domingo sesionará el IEM para hacer el conteo general de la elección de gobernador y entregar la constancia a quien resulte con el mayor número de votos entre los tres contendientes a ese puesto.
Hasta la fecha, el Programa de Resultados Electorales Preliminares (PREP) colocó en primer lugar al candidato para gobernar Michoacán de los partidos Revolucionario Institucional y Verde, Fausto Vallejo.
Con 35,99 por ciento de los votos, el abanderado tricolor superó en casi tres puntos porcentuales a Luisa María Calderón, representante de las fuerzas de Partido Acción Nacional (PAN), junto con Panal, con 32,67 por ciento de los votos a su favor. En tanto, Silvano Aureoles Conejo, de los partidos de la Revolución Democrática, del Trabajo y Convergencia, sumó 28.88 por ciento.
Los citados resultados están siendo impugnados por esta alianza de izquierda, e igualmente cuestionados por la aspirante del gobernante PAN, aunque la presidenta del IEM insiste que el proceso del domingo pasado transcurrió en términos comunes.
Aseguró que "los ciudadanos salimos a votar en un porcentaje importante, arriba de 54 por ciento y finalmente se instalaron todas las casillas."
Igualmente Llanderal Zaragoza rechaza tener conocimiento de relación alguna del PRI con el crimen organizado.
Por PL
http://spanish.irib.ir/elsur/noticias/mexico-y-centroamerica/item/80808-realizan-cómputos-de-elecciones-en-estado-mexicano-de-michoacán
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)