Don't bet on any "Engagement" crappy talk, it's all about deceit, deception and utter lies.
For the sake of clarity I'll summarize: Pakistan is on the brink of collapse; fresh troops are needed in Afghanistan; the Iranians are well past the nuclear threshold and violence in Iraq is spiking ahead of American withdrawal..... Now is the PERFECT time to shake our fists at the criminal CIA/MOSSAD tango of the last 2 decades...!!!
The two criminal allies are now so enmeshed in strategic ties -- with dialogue at the highest level of government and military -- that complete Israeli autonomy on any major issue like Iran is notional only, and everyone in DC considers Israel as a Banana republic for starters.
When you understand that America's arms industry is the net beneficiary of tension in the Middle East you understand everything. A two state solution will bring peace to the area-who wants that? That's no good for business.....there is a tacit synchronicity in recent messages about Iran from Israel and the United States, and the order of the day is still the same as always, it is about deceit, deception, lies and a determined drive towards the fragmentation of the world into thousands of Tribes with Flags....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hvY8TdhxfZ_QvsjOtRNdSvga3uKQ
Z. BrzezinskiZbigniew Brzezinski est le gourou de la diplomatie démocrate et le père
fondateur de l’islamisme au service des intérêts américains.
C’est lui qui, au tout début des années soixante-dix, est chargé par les
Rockefeller de sélectionner le futur président des Etats- Unis. C’est le
gouverneur de Géorgie, Jimmy Carter, totalement inconnu, qui sera choisi
et qui deviendra président des Etats-Unis.
Z. Brzezinski sera LE conseiller personnel à la sécurité nationale. J.
Carter permettra aux membres de la Commission Trilatérale de prendre le
contrôle de l’administration américaine et tout particulièrement
d’imposer les grandes lignes de la politique étrangère de la Maison Blanche.
Lorsque les néo-conservateurs de l’administration Bush décidèrent de
dépasser les limites de l’agenda qu’ils devaient respecter en
programmant une attaque nucléaire contre l’Iran, LIESI a, contre l’avis
de la quasi- totalité des analystes du renseignement privé, annoncé
qu’il n’y aurait pas d’attaque et nous avions, à l’époque, expliqué ce
que cachait l’affaire des missiles détournés.
Puis, après l’annonce des résultats des élections législatives
américaines de la mi-mandat, en novembre 2006, ce qui a été décrit comme
un coup de théâtre par les experts géopolitiques n’a été, en réalité,
que la traduction dans les faits de l’analyse de LIESI : la démission du
secrétaire à la Défense, Donald Rumsfeld, et son remplacement par Robert
Gates, ancien chef de la CIA qui « sera chargé d’apporter une
perspective nouvelle et un nouveau regard sur la politique suivie en
Irak ».
Dès lors, les choses se sont calmées avec l’Iran et Z. Brzezinski a
alors préparé l’étape suivante de l’agenda Rockefeller en s’occupant
tout particulièrement d’une étoile montante : Barack Obama !
D’aucuns ont eu tort de ne pas s’arrêter sur les raisons pour lesquelles
le CFR et la Commission Trilatérale ont imposé Robert Gates à l’équipe
de bellicistes néo¬conservateurs de G.W. Bush.
En fait, Z. Brzezinski poussait pour cette nomination parce que R. Gates
ouvrait la voie à des arrangements avec le régime des mollahs. En outre,
et pour information, Gates est avec Brzezinski le co-auteur d’un rapport
écrit sur l’Iran en juillet 2004 pour le Council of Foreign Relations...
La Russie est l’ennemi de Z. BrzezinskiDans la seconde partie des années soixante-dix, Brzezinski sera
considéré comme l’architecte du projet intitulé Ceinture Verte et dont
l’objectif était d’utiliser l’Islam pour abattre les Soviétiques.
C’est Brzezinski qui, six mois avant l’intervention soviétique en 1980
en Afghanistan, demande à J. Carter d’ordonner à la CIA de livrer des
armes aux moudjahiddines afghans.
La République Islamique d’Iran est le bébé de Brzezinski.
D’ailleurs, l’anecdote sur les livraisons d’armes aux moudjahiddines
afghans provient des Mémoires de Robert Gates dont le nom semble
indissociable de Brzezinski. Doit-on alors s’étonner si Robert Gates est
RESTE à son poste une fois le démocrate Obama installé à la Maison Blanche ?
Selon le Rapport Brzezinski/Gates, la politique américaine à l’égard de
l’Iran doit autant être incitative que punitive.
Les sanctions unilatérales n’ont pas obtenu de résultats.
Au contraire, selon ce rapport, il faut développer les relations
commerciales avec l’Iran et commencer les formalités de son entrée dans
l’OMC. Finalement, les auteurs recommandent l’ouverture d’un dialogue
direct entre les Etats-Unis et l’Iran sur des éléments de stabilisation
dans la région.
Ce rapport a été rédigé un an après la découverte du programme nucléaire
iranien. Selon les auteurs qui recommandent un dialogue avec les
Iraniens, « l’Iran représente un défi et une opportunité pour les
Etats-Unis ».
Brzezinski travaille au Council of Foreign Relations qui est lié à
Chatham House (1).
Le Council of Foreign Relations et Chatham House travaillent en tandem
pour la promotion des réformateurs et des (faux) dissidents du régime
des mollahs aux Etats-Unis et en Europe.
Le Rapport Brzezinski/Gates fut suivi du Rapport de James Baker, un
autre élément du CFR. Le Rapport Baker a pour objet l’Iran et non
l’Irak. Ce plan est une refonte de la diplomatie américaine au Moyen-
Orient et une tentative pour récupérer le régime des mollahs afin que
l’Iran ne soit pas absorbé par la Russie et ne devienne le levier de ses
politiques les plus inavouables au Moyen-Orient et en Asie Centrale.
Le Rapport Baker recommande d’arrêter de mettre l’accent sur la
démocratisation et le changement de régime iranien car « il serait
déraisonnable de vouloir stabiliser l’Irak et en même temps vouloir
déstabiliser l’Iran et la Syrie ».
Donc, depuis 2006, il y a de l’arrangement dans l’air... et Obama arrive
au bon moment.
D’ailleurs, au début du mois de mars 2009, Hillary Clinton a invité les
mollahs à la conférence internationale sur l’Afghanistan qui doit se
tenir le 31 mars à La Haye, avec l’arrière-pensée de mettre fin à leur
fuite devant tout dialogue ou compromis.
Téhéran ne cesse de recevoir des demandes de participation à la
conférence en l’honneur de son attachement à la stabilité de
l’Afghanistan et de la région !
(1) Un centre britannique de recherches diplomatiques que l’on compare à
l’American Enterprise Institute aux Etats-Unis.
_____________________________________
L’Iran : un PION déterminant sur l’échiquier entre Washington et MoscouLa Russie a besoin de l’Iran pour bloquer l’accès à l’Asie Centrale, et
les mollahs ont besoin de la Russie pour bloquer les Américains au
Conseil de Sécurité.
Mais leur alliance n’est pas amicale : pour profiter de cette protection
russe, l’Iran a dû renoncer à servir de couloir d’accès vers l’Asie
Centrale et par conséquent abandonner l’espoir de recevoir des milliards
de dollars qui font maintenant la fortune de la Russie et de Gazprom.
Cependant, bien que liés par intérêts, leurs statuts diffèrent : la
Russie n’a pas le choix alors que les mollahs l’ont. Les Russes doivent
garder l’Iran ou périr alors que Téhéran peut changer de bord d’autant
mieux qu’il est courtisé par Washington.
Ce choix, de la part des Iraniens, offrirait sur un plateau l’Asie
Centrale (fournisseur de gaz à la Chine et à la Russie) aux Américains.
D’ailleurs, pressé de réaliser cet exploit aux multiples retombées
économiques et stratégiques, tous les jours depuis son élection, Obama
fait des offres de dialogue sans conditions préalables aux mollahs.
Bien évidemment, les Russes ne sont pas dupes de la situation
sous-jacente. D’ailleurs, tout en poursuivant le dessein d’un Nouvel
Ordre Mondial, les hommes du Kremlin cherchent néanmoins à assurer leurs
arrières.
C’est ainsi que le 17 mars 2009, s’exprimant lors d’une réunion avec de
hauts représentants du ministère de la Défense, Medvedev a annoncé : « A
partir de 2011 débutera un réarmement à grande échelle de l'armée et de
la marine russes.
L'analyse de la situation politico-militaire dans le monde a montré
qu'il restait un potentiel de conflit sérieux dans certaines régions,
alimenté par des crises locales et les tentatives incessantes de l'Otan
de développer son infrastructure militaire près de la Russie.
La principale tâche est d'augmenter la capacité de combat de nos forces,
avant tout celles de nos forces stratégiques nucléaires. Elles doivent
être capables de remplir toutes les tâches indispensables pour assurer
la sécurité de la Russie », a poursuivi le chef de l’Etat russe....
Secret U.S.-Israel nuclear accord in jeopardy....?
too early to tell....
President Obama's efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons
threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to
shield Israel's nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former
and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.
The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr.
Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will
uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear
concessions for Iranian ones.
Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a
U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said
Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare
and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.
"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel,
Pakistan and North Korea, ... remains a fundamental objective of the
United States," Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, ....
She declined to say, however, whether the Obama administration would
press Israel to join the treaty.
A senior White House official said the administration considered the
nuclear programs of Israel and Iran to be unrelated "apples and
oranges."
Asked by The Washington Times whether the administration would press
Israel to join the NPT, the official said, "We support universal
adherence to the NPT. [It] remains a long-term goal."
The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the
sensitivity of the issue.
Avner Cohen, author of "Israel and the Bomb" and the leading expert
outside the Israeli government on the history of Israel's nuclear
program, said Mr. Obama's "upcoming meeting with Netanyahu, due to the
impending discussions with Iran, will be a platform for Israel to ask
for reassurances that old understandings on the nuclear issue are
still valid."
For the past 40 years, Israel and the U.S. have kept quiet about an
Israeli nuclear arsenal that is now estimated at 80 to 200 weapons.
Israel has promised not to test nuclear weapons while the U.S. has not
pressed Israel to sign the nuclear NPT, which permits only five
countries - the U.S., France, Britain, China and Russia - to have
nuclear arms.
The U.S. also has opposed most regional calls for a "nuclear-free
Middle East." The accord was forged at a summit between Israeli Prime
Minister Golda Meir and President Nixon on Sept. 25, 1969, according
to recently released documents, but remains so secret that there is no
explicit record of it. Mr. Cohen has referred to the deal as "don't
ask, don't tell," because it commits both the U.S. and Israel never to
acknowledge in public Israels nuclear arsenal.
When asked what the Obama administration's position was on the 1969
understanding, the senior White House official offered no comment.
Over the years, demands for Israel to come clean have multiplied.
The Iran factorIranian leaders have long complained about being subjected to a double
standard that allows non-NPT members India and Pakistan, as well as
Israel, to maintain and even increase their nuclear arsenals but
sanctions Tehran, an NPT member, for not cooperating fully with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
On Monday, Iranian Deputy Foreign MinisterMohammad Ali Hosseini told a
U.N. meeting preparing for a major review of the NPT next year that
nuclear cooperation by the U.S., France and Britain with Israel is "in
total disregard with the obligations under the treaty and commitments
undertaken in 1995 and 2000, and a source of real concern for the
international community, especially the parties to the treaty in the
Middle East."
The Obama administration is seeking talks with Iran on its nuclear
program and has dropped a precondition for negotiations that Iran
first suspend its uranium enrichment program.
"What the Israelis sense, rightly, is that Obama wants to do something
new on Iran and this may very well involve doing something new about
Israel's program," said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington think
tank.
Bruce Riedel, a former senior director for the Middle East and South
Asia on the White House National Security Council, said, "If you're
really serious about a deal with Iran, Israel has to come out of the
closet. A policy based on fiction and double standards is bound to
fail sooner or later. What's remarkable is that it's lasted so long."
Mr. Riedel headed the Obama administration's review of strategy toward
Afghanistan and Pakistan but does not hold a permanent administration
position and has returned to private life as a scholar at the
Brookings Institution.
The open secretElliott Abrams, deputy national security adviser for the George W.
Bush administration, said that administration resisted international
efforts to pressure Israel on the nuclear front.
"We did not want to accept any operational language that would put
Israel at a disadvantage and raise the question of whether Israel was
a nuclear power," he said. "That was not a discussion that we thought
was helpful. We allowed very general statements about the goal of a
nuclear-free Middle East as long that language was hortatory."
Israel began its nuclear program shortly after the state was founded
in 1948 and produced its first weapons, according to Mr. Cohen's book,
on the eve of the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli defense doctrine considers
the nuclear arsenal to be a strategic deterrent against extinction.
But its nuclear monopoly is increasingly jeopardized by Iranian
advances and the possibility that Iran's program could trigger a
nuclear arms race in the region.
Israel's arsenal has also been an open secret for decades, despite the
fact that Israeli law forbids Israeli journalists from referring to
the state's nuclear weapons unless they quote non-Israeli sources.
In 1986, the Israeli nuclear scientist, Mordecai Vanunu disclosed in
the Sunday Times of London photographs and the first insider account
of Dimona, the location of Israels primary nuclear facility. Israel
responded by convicting him of treason. He was released in 2004 after
spending 18 years in prison but has continued to talk about the
program on occasion. The government has barred Mr. Vanunu from leaving
Israel.
'Nuclear-free' zoneReferences to a "nuclear-free Middle East," meanwhile, have cropped up
increasingly in international resolutions and conferences. For
example, the 1991 U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, which
sanctioned Saddam Hussein's Iraq, noted "the objective of achieving
balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region." More
recently, a March 2006 IAEA resolution, in referring Iran to the
Security Council, noted "that a solution to the Iranian issue would
contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and to realizing the
objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction."
U.S. allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia also have pressed the U.S. to link
Israel's weapons to Iran's as part of a plan to implement a nuclear-
free Middle East.
A proposal to introduce a Security Council resolution declaring the
Middle East a nuclear-free zone and calling for sanctions against
those countries that did not comply was broached in a 2006 strategic
dialogue between Saudi Arabia and the United States, said Turki al-
Faisal, who was Saudi ambassador to the U.S.
"When I talked to American officials about that when I was ambassador
here, and before that to British officials in the U.K., the immediate
response was, 'Israel is not going to accept,' " Prince Turki told
editors and reporters of The Washington Times last month. "And my
immediate response was, 'So what?' If Israel doesnt accept, it doesnt
mean its a bad idea."
A balancing actMr. Netanyahu, whose meeting with Mr. Obama on May 18 will be the
first since both took office, raised the issue of the nuclear
understanding during a previous tenure as prime minister.
Israeli journalists and officials said Mr. Netanyahu asked for a
reaffirmation and clarification of the Nixon-Meir understanding in
1998 at Wye River, where the U.S. mediated an agreement between Israel
and the Palestinians. Mr. Netanyahu wanted a personal commitment from
President Clinton because of concerns about a treaty that Mr. Clinton
supported to bar production of fissile materials that can be used to
make weapons. Israel was worried that the treaty would apply to de
facto nuclear states, including Israel, and might oblige it to allow
inspections of Dimona.
In 2000, Israeli journalist Aluf Benn disclosed that Mr. Clinton at
Wye River promised Mr. Netanyahu that "Israels nuclear capability will
be preserved." Mr. Benn described as testy an exchange of letters
between the two leaders over the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. He
said Mr. Netanyahu wrote Mr. Clinton: "We will never sign the treaty,
and do not delude yourselves - no pressure will help. We will not sign
the treaty because we will not commit suicide."
The Bush administration largely dropped the treaty in its first term
and reopened negotiations in its second term with a proposal that did
not include verification.
The Obama agendaMr. Obama has made nuclear disarmament a bigger priority in part to
undercut Iran's and North Korea's rationale for proliferation. His
administration has begun negotiations with Russia on a new treaty to
reduce U.S. and Russian arsenals. He also has expressed support for
the fissile material treaty.
"To cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States
will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile
materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons," he said last
month in Prague. "If we are serious about stopping the spread of these
weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of
weapons-grade materials that create them."
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and
International Security, a Washington think tank, said such a treaty
would be the first step toward limiting the Israeli nuclear program.
"The question is how much of a priority is this for the Obama
administration?" he said.
John R. Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador and undersecretary of state,
said Israel was right to be concerned.
"If I were the Israeli government, I would be very worried about the
Obama administration's attitude on their nuclear deterrent," he said.
"You can barely raise the subject of nuclear weapons in the Middle
East without someone saying: 'What about Israel?' If Israel's
opponents put it on the table, it is entirely possible Obama will pick
it up."
Asked about the issue, Jonathan Peled, spokesman for the Israeli
Embassy in Washington, said, "We don't discuss the strategic
relationship between the United States and Israel." The White House
had no immediate comment.
However, Ms. Gottemoeller endorsed the concept of a nuclear-free
Middle East in a 2005 paper that she co-authored, "Universal
Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security."
"Instead of defensively trying to ignore Israels nuclear status, the
United States and Israel should proactively call for regional dialogue
to specify the conditions necessary to achieve a zone free of nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons," she wrote.
The paper recommends that Israel take steps to disarm in exchange for
its neighbors getting rid of chemical and biological weapons programs
as well as Iran forgoing uranium enrichment.....
