Primist

Recent Iran Election Crisis In A Nutshell

Posted by Ali Sanaei under Ahmadinejad, Elections, Iran, Middle East, Politics, Religion and Spirituality, USA, United Kingdom, War and Military

What you see these days in the media about Iran is a magnified version of a specific part of what is going on in reality, tailored to the Western powers’ benefit. There is a minority in the country who have the West’s tight support, access and running the media, hence make much loader noise and publicise as if they are the majority.

The elections have been legitimate and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has obtained 24.5 million votes out of 40 million. The oppositions, so far, have not handed in a single valid documented reason to truly dispute it. They have been trying to skip the law, use illegal methods, and produce such heavy news against the government and the election results, simply to shortcut and jump on power.

As before, the West does not understand the facts of Iran and has done another miscalculation! Anyway, since Friday the 19th June, after the leader’s speech and his emphasis on obeying the law whatsoever, and the fact that he has an enormous support amongst the people, from the very hour of his speech the number of protesters, which was hundreds of thousands before Friday, started declining to under ten thousand at the day after and now just a few hundred. Things have been settling down. This was a nasty game which is now almost over. Although the story continues!…

On a side note, see the below screenshot; YouTube is not just allowing violent clips to be uploaded unlike their policy during the Israel’s attack on Gaza, but even advertising its abnormal channel dedicated to Iran Elections Crisis.

Western countries are trying to feed the public opinion with its propaganda to distract them from their own crimes all over the world, as if all they have done in the history is bringing peace! Just review in your mind what has gone on in other countries in the recent years by mainly the United States, Britain, France, Israel and their close allies. They are not just brutal with other nations, but unsurprisingly, with their own as well. See these few video clips:

- Police killing a man during the G20 summit in London, UK
- 15 year old girl beat by cops Seattle, USA
- Police beat 62 years old lady, USA
- Police hit woman directly in head, USA
- …

George Galloway’s Sky News Interview

Posted by Ali Sanaei under Europe, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Middle East, Politics, USA, United Kingdom, War and Military

Here is George Galloway savaging Sky News over its coverage of Israel’s attack on Lebanon, 2006:

Related: Chicken Yougurt’s post on this interview.

On Geert Wilders’ Fitna

Posted by Ali Sanaei under Ahmadinejad, Culture, Europe, History and Archeology, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Middle East, Politics, Religion and Spirituality, USA, United Kingdom, War and Military

I just watched Fitna. What I can shortly say for now is that Nine/Eleven, London’s tube, and  etc were done by Wahabbi extremists which are not effectively Muslims by any possible way. If any one goes and reads about the history of them and the foundation of their idealogy, they’ll realise that it’s actually a product of West, especially the UK. All with a plan for such days, and us watching this type of films. By no means this is not Islam.
All religions have this sort of disordered groups in them, that includes Christianity and Judaism. I won’t call a Zionist thug like Saddam a Muslim, same for Bin-Laden as I won’t call Sharon a Jew, or Bush a Christian.
Islam or in general, religions, and being religious is not what you say, it is what you do and how you live in the real life.

Who’s going the wrong way?

Posted by Ali Sanaei under Europe, France, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Politics, USA, United Kingdom

ODNI NIC’s recent NIE on Iran’s Nuclear Programme

Posted by Ali Sanaei under Iran, Middle East, Politics, Science and Technology, USA, United Kingdom, War and Military

The ODNI NIC’s recent NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) has made lots of fuss about Iran’s [peaceful] nuclear programme or what US claims as Iran’s nuclear arms aspirations.

Apparently the Estimate is more than 100 pages and only 9 pages have been declassified. The first five pages are about ODNI, NIC (National Intelligence Council), NIEs, and what the buzzwords mean, also the last page is a table comparing the 2007 estimate with the 2005 assessment; so it all leaves us with 3 pages! I really wonder what has been written in the rest of the Estimate and when the US is going to publish and use it.

There are some questions or suspicions on this NIE, especially with their High, Moderate and Low levels of confidence caveats, which at the end of the day doesn’t let an assumption of ‘nothing to worry about regarding Iran’ form in public’s mind.

Levels of confidence (as described in the Estimate, but highlights are by me):

Confidence in Assessments. Our assessments and estimates are supported by information that varies in scope, quality and sourcing. Consequently, we ascribe high, moderate, or low levels of confidence to our assessments, as follows:

• High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A “high confidence” judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.

• Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.

• Low confidence generally means that the information’s credibility and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or that we have significant concerns or problems with the sources.

Key Judgements:

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program (for the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.); we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.

• We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.

• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)

• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

• Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.

B. We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon. Barring such acquisitions, if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons it would need to produce sufficient amounts of fissile material indigenously—which we judge with high confidence it has not yet done.

C. We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating them.

• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.

• We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.

D. Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.

E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.

• Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.

• We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.

F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities— rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007.

G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.

H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.

Key differences between the key judgments of this estimate on Iran’s nuclear program and the May 2005 assessment (as of the Estimate itself):

As mentioned before the Estimate has left many doubts on its major differences with the 2005 assessment. In other words, a full two years after Iran supposedly called a halt to its nuclear programme; the intelligence community was still as sure as it ever is about anything that Iran was determined to build nuclear weapons. Why then should people believe it when it now with the same high confidence says that Iran had already called a halt to its nuclear-weapons programme in 2003? Same with the intelligence community’s reversal on the effectiveness of international pressure. In 2005, the NIE was highly confident that international pressure had not lessened Iran’s determination to develop nuclear weapons, and yet now, in 2007, the intelligence community is just as confident that international pressure had already done the trick by 2003.

In another angle; despite the UN Security Council Resolutions and all the international pressure US and its western allies have imposed to Iran on its nuclear programme, now it is Iran standing above, on the topper step stubbornly stating they won’t stop their Nuclear programme no matter what and declaring the whole file is already concluded. The truth is that Iran has gained the knowledge and Know How the West was afraid of, sooner or later, US, Europe and others have to admit and appreciate Iran’s peaceful nuclear capabilities and leave the crisis. The least US could do here is to say Iran “did” have a plan to produce nuclear weapons but we succeeded on halting it, so it worth it contending with Iran all these years.

Israel using all its available cards agains Iran’s Nuclear Programme

Posted by Ali Sanaei under Europe, France, Germany, Iran, Middle East, Politics, USA, United Kingdom

:: Holocaust :: … don’t get near to it!

Posted by Ali Sanaei under Ahmadinejad, Europe, France, Geography, Germany, History and Archeology, Iran, Middle East, Politics, Russia, USA, United Kingdom, War and Military

Germany has inaugurated a museum at the site of the Nazi concentration camp where diarist Anne Frank died. this BBC’s news mentions that 50,000 Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Well this is different from what we sometimes hear from Israeli media and also what has been mentioned in Wikipedia that 6,000,000 Jews were killed at the Holocaust.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a possible myth 2 years ago and has continuously asked for reinvestigation on this event in many occasions. The logic is simple:

- Has the Holocaust really happened?
- If Yes; When, Where, Who’s responsible?
- Who did it? Germany, Austria, Romania, Hungary? (And other countries based on this site’s table).
- If so; what is Israel doing in Middle East occupying Palestine and invading Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt? Also making threats to other countries in the region. All getting supported mainly by USA and Europe.
- If West is sorry for what they’ve done in WWII and to Jews; why don’t they give a peace of their own lands to Jews instead of supporting them to occupy others’.
- Why is it illegal in France, Germany and few other countries to do researches on the Holocaust? Authors actually get arrested for denying it or even just writing their questions.

The Iranian regime does not have any problems with Jews, but with what she calls the Zionist Regime of Israel. In fact Iran had 150,000 Jews at 1948, and currently has about 40,000, still the second largest Jew community in the Middle East after Israel. Their rights are recognised by the government and they have an official representative in the Iranian Parliament. Most Jews know themselves distinctive to Israelis.

September 22, 1980; Iraq invaded Iran

Posted by Ali Sanaei under China, France, Germany, History and Archeology, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Politics, Religion and Spirituality, Russia, USA, United Kingdom, War and Military

September 22nd 1980 Iraq invaded Iran from land and air and officially started the Iran-Iraq War which ended at 1988, making it to be considered the longest conventional and one of most destructive wars of the 20th century, with likely 1.5 million casualties and total cost of $1.2 billion for both sides.

Saddam Hussein claimed as the reason for his attack on Iran a territorial dispute over Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that empties into the Persian Gulf and forms the boundry between Iran and Iraq. In 1975 a partial control of the waterway was signed to Iran when Iraq was weaker in military point of view and Iran was somehow stable in its military system. But after the Iranian revolution and the resultant of weakening of Iran’s military, Iraq seized the opportunity to reclaim the Shatt al-Arab. In fact, Iraq also hoped to seize the south-west Iranian province of Khuzestan- an area known for its extensive oil fields.

The Iraqi offensive was initially successful, capturing the port city of Khorramshahr by the end of 1980. Iranian resistance proved strong, however, and Iraqi troops had withdrawn from the occupied portions of Iran by early 1982. This was a huge event and a true symbol of victory, as Iran was not only facing Iraq but a world of enemies who were continuously feeding and supporting Iraq (USA, USSR, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Czech, Denmark, Canada, Brazil, Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, etc and etc).

After all, the war left the borders unchanged. Two years later, as war with the western powers loomed, Saddam recognised Iranian rights over the eastern half of the Shatt al-Arab, a reversion to the status quo ante bellum that he had repudiated a decade earlier.

History Fast Forward:

1975: Settlement on frontiers between Iran and Iraq that involved increased territory for Iran compared to the borders prior to 1971.
1980 September 22: Iraq invades Iran, and has early victories.
1982: Iraq is driven out of Iran.
1983 -1985: Iraq battered, but not beaten.
1985 May 26: Iraq breaks cease fire again. Jordan’s Hussein & Egypt’s Mubarak visit Saddam to show their support.
1988 March 16: Iraq uses chemical weapons against Kurds supporting Iran in Halabja, killing 4,000.
1988 April 18: US blows up 2 Iranian oil rigs, destroys an Iranian frigate and immobilises another.
1988 July 03: the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air’s Airbus A300B2-203, Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew.
1988 July 20: Iran accepts a UN resolution 598 to cease fighting (Iraq accepted the resolution about a year before Iran).
1988 August 20: Formal ceasefire in Iraq-Iran war. UN monitoring force established for Iran-Iraq border. Confirmation by UN that Iraq did use mustard gas against Iranian civilians.

John Bolton getting testy with BBC’s nonpartisan interview

Posted by Ali Sanaei under Business and Economics, Europe, Iran, Iraq, Politics, USA, United Kingdom, War and Military

I read in news that a BBC interviewer’s questions has driven Bolton mad. I just found the clip and here it is (If you’re a bit hasty, go to 7′ 30″, but it really worths listeting to all of it):

As EU Referendum says, no wonder they hated Bolton at the UN.

The highlight is:

The controversial ex-diplomat, who left the UN post in January, made the comments after fiercely defending the United States’ role in Iraq and saying that force should be used against Iran if necessary.

BBC presenter John Humphrys, the main anchor on the broadcaster’s flagship Today radio programme, raised Bolton’s hackles by asking if the US administration was not a “busted flush” after Iraq.

“You’re absolutely wrong … The people who express the point of view that you just expressed I think were largely anti-American beforehand anyway,” said the ex-ambassador.

When Humphrys suggested that billionaire philanthropist George Soros might take that view, Bolton shot back: “Are you kidding me? This is a man of the extreme left.”

“I’m sure you would find a great deal in common with him as would many others on the continent,” he added, referring to widespread anti-American sentiment in Europe.

The BBC man defended himself, saying he was impartial but just asking questions as a devil’s advocate and adding: “Maybe they don’t do it like that in the United States.”

Bolton: “I know, you’re a superior Brit, aren’t you?”

Moving on, Humphrys asked Bolton if World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz, under fierce pressure to resign amid a scandal over his girlfriend’s pay package, was “about to go.”

“I see you’re a gravedigger as well,” retorted Bolton. “I’m not at all sure I see that demise happening.”

Bolton and Wolfowitz were both widely seen as part of a neo-conservative group which pushed for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. But Bolton denied he was a neo-con Thursday, although he said the movement was still alive.

“I’m not a neocon, number one, but number two, I don’t think the neocon adventure is over,” he said.

Tony Blair Resignation

Posted by Ali Sanaei under Europe, Politics, United Kingdom

Today I listened to Tony Blair’s speech announcing his resignation. It was an eloquent speech and it reminds why he was such an effective political campaigner. Maybe it takes courage to resign such an important position, but we shall not forget the pressure he was facing in the recent years, especially because of Iraq war. I wish American leaders learn from him and do the same!

People will point out that he is the only Labour leader to have won three consecutive general elections. This is a notable achievement. However, I wonder if good use was made of those election victories, particularly in 1997 and 2001 when there was a large majority in the Commons.

Inequality is still higher than it was for much of the 1980s. Tony Blair did not use his parliamentary majorities to make significant changes to the British economy in the way that Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher did.

The Iraq war will be seen as one of the most significant aspects of his time in power. He took a decision that divided the country and the Labour Party and does not seem to have made Iraq a better place at all. The Iraq Body Count figures suggest more than 60,000 civilians have died as a result of the war.

The invasion seems to have taken place without enough planning. In addition, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the old secular Ba’ath party regime created a situation where both Sunni and Shia (Shi’ite) extremists are flourishing. The rush to go to war shows that not enough thought and research was done into what the effects of the Anglo-American invasion would be. It is interesting to note that, in his resignation speech, he apologises for mistakes that were made during his time- but does not explain what those mistakes were!

Just how much hair has he lost or has made gray since 1997? Why has he seemingly aged about 30 years in the last 10? How will history judge the Scottish Anthony Charles Lynton Blair?