Posts Tagged ‘Iran’

Tacstrat Analysis: The Haqqani question

March 1, 2013

Tacstrat Analysis

Many analysts have taken up various positions on the subject of the United States, Pakistan and the controversial Haqqani Network. Tough calls have demanded that Pakistan be declared a rogue state, all aid suspended to the country and sanctions imposed. Others digress and say sanctions on Pakistan did not really work. Not only did Pakistan successfully test its nuclear capabilities, the economic toll of the sanctions nearly led to the breaking up of the small state. Unemployment rose exponentially, political tensions led to the overthrow of a democratic government and resulted in a military leadership that ruled over the country for another 9 years. Setting aside the age-old debate on whether sanctions really do work, one must accept the fact that sanctions, in Pakistan’s case, are not a pragmatic option.

As recently as March 1, the United States government has flexed its muscle over the Iran-Pakistan pipeline deal and implied, with strong undertones, that Pakistan should avoid any activity that would invite sanctions. Realistically speaking, the United States in unlikely to impose any such sanctions, over Iran OR the Haqqani Network.

Read more…


UN chief to be present at NAM Summit hosted by Iran

August 24, 2012


United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will attend next week’s summit of the Nonaligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran, drawing criticism from the United States and Israel and dealing a setback to their effort to isolate Iran.

It is not unusual for a UN secretary-general to attend a meeting of the NAM, which is made up of 120 largely developing nations. But this year’s host, Iran, has a controversial nuclear program and is accused of aiding the Assad regime in Syria and threatening the existence of Israel, prompting many Western leaders, politicians, and NGOs to express disapproval of Mr. Ban’s decision to attend.

“The fact that the meeting is happening in a country that’s in violation of so many of its international obligations and posing a threat to neighbors … sends a very strange signal with regard to support for the international order, rule of law, etc.,” US State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said last week.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also spoke out against Ban’s attendance, saying: “To grant legitimacy, however unintentional, to a regime that openly calls for the elimination of another UN member state will stain you and the organization you lead.”

But many see Iran’s contentious statements and international isolation as the very reason Ban should attend the conference, focusing on a diplomatic opportunity. Ban has raised the volume on his criticism of Iran’s leadership in the leadup to the summit, just last week describing the verbal attack of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Israel as “offensive and inflammatory,” according to the Associated Press.

Mr. Ahmadinejad stated that there was no place for the Jewish state in the Middle East, and in the past has questioned whether the Holocaust of World War II actually happened. Additionally, last week, Mr. Khamenei said Israel would one day be returned to the Palestinian nation and cease to exist.

Nonetheless, a diplomatic source anonymously told Reuters news service that the nonaligned movement is “a very important bloc of nations … [Ban] can’t not go.”

A Security Council diplomat said it was important for the secretary-general to go. He said Ban should not turn his back on the entire non-aligned movement because one member, Iran, happens to have a president who doubts the Holocaust and questions Israel’s right to exist.

A UN spokesman said the NAM represents two-thirds of UN member states, reports a secondReuters story.

According to Ali Reza Miryousefi, the press officer of the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the UN, the Nonaligned Movement in Tehran will help the group of nations “realize the movement’s objectives,” reports the Tehran Times. In response to a Washington Post editorial published on Aug. 15, Mr. Miryousefi wrote an Op-Ed headlined “The Importance of the Tehran Summit,”criticizing the Post’s stand:

The Post’s Aug. 15 editorial “Fool’s errand” unjustifiably smeared Iran and mocked the upcoming Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran as a “bacchanal of nonsense.” This ignored the growing importance of the movement, made up of the majority of UN member states, in international affairs.

In light of its focus on multilateral cooperation, disarmament, sustainable world peace, rights of nations and horizontal relations defying hegemonic structures, the Non-Aligned Movement is a major cross-regional group in the United Nations, and U.N. leaders have always participated in its summits. By bringing dozens of world leaders together, the summit promises to make significant contributions to the movement’s lofty objectives.

Diplomats don’t expect Ban to raise the topic of Iran’s nuclear program – which Iran says is a peaceful initiative and the West claims is working toward the nuclear weapons – during the summit, according to Reuters. Many believe he is likely to broach these topics, however, during his probable private meeting with the Iranian president, and UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky told reporters that, “With respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Secretary-General will use the opportunity to convey the clear concerns and expectations of the international community.”

Ban is “fully aware of the sensitivities” linked to his visit, but he is also aware of his responsibilities as head of the United Nations, Mr. Nesirky said.

According to Foreign Policy, the US response to Ban’s attendance of the NAM summit, which will take place from Aug. 26-31, “reflects the heightened sensitivity to engaging Iran” during an election year.

“Why the Washington furor? This is an election year in which Iran is perhaps the only foreign-policy issue that has political traction with any constituency in the United States,” said Jeffrey Laurenti, an expert on the United Nations at theCentury Foundation. “This is what a secretary-general is supposed to do – explore any diplomatic opening. The fact that Washington is in a period when all diplomatic openings are slammed shut does not mean that the rest of the world would automatically follow suit.”

The NAM’s mission is to improve and enhance national development of member nations by “strengthening and expanding South-South Technical Cooperation” in international development, according to the Nonaligned Movement website. Members include Egypt, Cuba, Ethiopia, Bolivia, the Maldives, and Iran, and according to Press TV, 31 heads of state are expected to attend the 16th NAM summit, where the rotating chairmanship will be transferred from Egypt to Iran.

Karzai Told to Dump U.S.

April 27, 2011

Pakistan Urges Afghanistan to Ally With Islamabad, Beijing


Pakistan is lobbying Afghanistan’s president against building a long-term strategic partnership with the U.S., urging him instead to look to Pakistan-and its Chinese ally-for help in striking a peace deal with the Taliban and rebuilding the economy, Afghan officials say.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai

The pitch was made at an April 16 meeting in Kabul by Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, who bluntly told Afghan President Hamid Karzai that the Americans had failed them both, according to Afghans familiar with the meeting. Mr. Karzai should forget about allowing a long-term U.S. military presence in his country, Mr. Gilani said, according to the Afghans. Pakistan’s bid to cut the U.S. out of Afghanistan’s future is the clearest sign to date that, as the nearly 10-year war’s endgame begins, tensions between Washington and Islamabad threaten to scuttle America’s prospects of ending the conflict on its own terms.

With the bulk of U.S.-led coalition troops slated to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, the country’s neighbors, including Pakistan, Iran, India and Russia, are beginning to jockey for influence, positioning themselves for Afghanistan’s post-American era.

Pakistan enjoys particular leverage in Afghanistan because of its historic role in fostering the Taliban movement and its continuing support for the Afghan Taliban insurgency. Washington’s relations with Pakistan, ostensibly an ally, have reached their lowest point in years following a series of missteps on both sides.

Pakistani officials say they no longer have an incentive to follow the American lead in their own backyard. “Pakistan is sole guarantor of its own interest,” said a senior Pakistani official. “We’re not looking for anyone else to protect us, especially the U.S. If they’re leaving, they’re leaving and they should go.”

Mr. Karzai is wavering on Pakistan’s overtures, according to Afghans familiar with his thinking, with pro- and anti-American factions at the presidential palace trying to sway him to their sides.

At a meeting in Kabul, Yousuf Raza Gilani, right, told Hamid Karzai that the U.S. had failed them both.

The leaks about what went on at the April 16 meeting officials appear to be part of that effort. Afghans in the pro-U.S. camp who shared details of the meeting with The Wall Street Journal said they did so to prompt the U.S. to move faster toward securing the strategic partnership agreement, which is intended to spell out the relationship between the two countries after 2014. “The longer they wait…the more time Pakistan has to secure its interests,” said one of the pro-U.S. Afghan officials.

A spokesman for Mr. Karzai, Waheed Omar, said: “Pakistan would not make such demands. But even if they did, the Afghan government would never accept it.”

Some U.S. officials said they had heard details of the Kabul meeting, and presumed they were informed about Mr. Gilani’s entreaties in part, as one official put it, to “raise Afghanistan’s asking price” in the partnership talks. That asking price could include high levels of U.S. aid after 2014. The U.S. officials sought to play down the significance of the Pakistani proposal. Such overtures were to be expected at the start of any negotiations, they said; the idea of China taking a leading role in Afghanistan was fanciful at best, they noted.

Yet in a reflection of U.S. concerns about Pakistan’s overtures, the commander of the U.S.-led coalition, Gen. David Petraeus, has met Mr. Karzai three times since April 16, in part to reassure the Afghan leader that he has America’s support, and to nudge forward progress on the partnership deal, said Afghan and U.S. officials.

The Afghan president, meanwhile, has expressed distrust of American intentions in his country, and has increasingly lashed out against the behavior of the U.S. military. Afghanistan’s relations with Pakistani are similarly fraught, though Mr. Karzai has grown closer to Pakistan’s leaders over the past year. Still, many Afghans see their neighbor as meddlesome and controlling and fear Pakistani domination once America departs.

Formal negotiations on the so-called Strategic Partnership Declaration began in March. Details of talks between U.S. and Afghan negotiators so far remain sketchy. The most hotly contested issue is the possibility of long-term U.S. military bases remaining in Afghanistan beyond 2014 to buttress and continue training Afghan forces and carry on the fight against al Qaeda.

U.S. officials fear that without a stabilizing U.S. hand in Afghanistan after 2014, the country would be at risk for again becoming a haven for Islamist militants seeking to strike the West.

The opening of talks in March was enough to raise alarms among Afghanistan’s neighbors. Senior Iranian and Russian officials quickly made treks to Kabul to express their displeasure at the possibility of a U.S. military presence after 2014, Afghan officials said. The Taliban have always said they wouldn’t sign on to any peace process as long as foreign forces remain.

Yet no other party has been as direct, and as actively hostile to the planned U.S.-Afghan pact, as the Pakistanis. Along with Prime Minister Gilani, the Pakistani delegation at the April 16 meeting included Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency. U.S. officials accuse the ISI of aiding the Taliban, despite it being the Central Intelligence Agency’s partner in the fight against Islamist militants in Pakistan. Pakistani officials deny the accusations.

After routine pleasantries about improving bilateral ties and trade, Mr. Gilani told Mr. Karzai that the U.S. had failed both their countries, and that its policy of trying to open peace talks while at the same time fighting the Taliban made no sense, according to Afghans familiar with the meeting.

Mr. Gilani repeatedly referred to America’s “imperial designs,” playing to a theme that Mr. Karzai has himself often embraced in speeches. He also said that, to end the war, Afghanistan and Pakistan needed to take “ownership” of the peace process, according to Afghans familiar with what was said at the meeting. Mr. Gilani added that America’s economic problems meant it couldn’t be expected to support long-term regional development. A better partner would be China, which Pakistanis call their “all-weather” friend, he said, according to participants in the meeting. He said the strategic partnership deal was ultimately an Afghan decision. But, he added, neither Pakistan nor other neighbors were likely to accept such a pact.

Mr. Gilani’s office didn’t return calls seeking comment. A senior ISI official, speaking about the meeting, said: “It is us who should be cheesed because we are totally out of the loop on what the Americans are doing in Afghanistan.…We have been telling President Karzai that we will support any and all decisions that you take for Afghanistan as long as the process is Afghan-led and not dictated by outside interests.”

Although a U.S. ally, Pakistan has its own interests in Afghanistan, believing it needs a pliant government in Kabul to protect its rear flank from India. Pakistani officials regularly complain of how India’s influence over Afghanistan has grown in the past decade. Some Pakistani officials say the presence of U.S. and allied forces is the true problem in the region, not the Taliban.

-Siobhan Gorman
contributed to this article.

The Libya Blitzkrieg and the Coming Iran War

March 22, 2011

by Zen Gardner

If you’re following the news on the Libya developments, it’s a master stroke of NWO control. The speed with which they’ve managed to supposedly get international concensus not just to create a so-called “no fly” zone, but to pound whatever targets they want, has been a diplomatic blitzkrieg.

What took ages to convince wary NATO nations to sanction in the attack on Iraq, has only taken a couple of weeks for Libya.

And the public is on apparently on board and trusting this “UN sanctioned” action. There isn’t a shred of protest or criticism to all this except in the alternative media. And even though Ghaddafi called for a cease fire, the press insisted the fighting continued so they’ve gone ahead and engaged and now it will unfold.

Mideast Crisis Gives the PTBs Momentum

These globalist strategies are creating the desired momentum to bring in the complete militarization and domination of the entire middle east. Expect the PTBs to build on it and quickly during this time period, especially as the attacks on Libya escalate. While the world is looking there you can be sure they’ll be up to some power grabs in other countries, so keep looking around for the “unreported” stories or issues that they’re trying to disguise or cover up.

Hillary Takes the Mount

Something else that’s happening is the growing signal from the media that they are endorsing Hillary Clinton’s so-called ability to “take action”, while contrasting it to Obama’s clear lack of leadership. Like the dollar, Obama’s “leadership” is what you believe it to be, while actually he’s just a figment of the NWO’s imagination.

(As we know, Obama’s image is only worth as much as the NWO mouthpiece MSM says it is. It’s apparent to any thinking person there’s not a leader’s bone in his cardboard cut-out body, as is the case of all placed NWO puppets.)

But watch, it appears they may be positioning Hillary as the “mover and shaker” lately, while allowing more and more criticism of Obama. His publicized preoccupation with sports and now touring Latin America in the midst of all this it meant to be a disconnect for some reason. It’ll be gradual, but if this trend continues we could be seeing a new presidential candidate being promoted, or tested in the public arena. Even Drudge has been calling this “Hillary’s War”. But we have to wonder, why the posturing?

Watch the Mainstream Programming

It’s all about cover up, truth reversal and omission. That the US is seemingly taking a back seat to the aggression on Libya is a major signal in itself: they want us to know that “a new world order will be more effective than just letting the US police the world”. It also gets international involvement in whatever follows the Libya takedown. Very clever.

France jumped to the tune of the fiddler to take the lead in the attack. Wonder what they were told to turn on a former friend?

Masonic greeting exchanged by members of the “brotherhood”. You mean they betray each other? You bet.

More Media Misleads

Those who are awake know we cannot believe the government’s downplaying of the radiation dangers-after all, look their post 9/11 “all clear” at ground zero that has led to the death and sickness of thousands. Or the downplaying and media silence over the Gulf disaster.

The irony, as it so often is, is that the US will harshly accuse other nations of “human rights abuses” and “oppression of their people” or “not informing their public of the truth of the matter” while blatantly being the chief offender.

Similarly, the media positioning of middle eastern events and who to “back” is complete smoke and mirrors. The assumptive language instructs the masses who is “good”, who is “bad” and “who needs to be replaced”. Try reversing just about everything the MSM is saying and you’ll get close.

Again, it’s Orwellian.

Incredibly enough, Americans eat this stuff up. Hypocrisy apparently makes good news, as long as it “pumps you up!”

An attack on Ghaddafi is the perfect prelude to an attack on Iran

The speed of this UN/Arab League (owned) imprimatur for an aggression on Libya not only indicates the huge progress the NWO has made in consolidating their hold on global powers, but it speaks of a profound ‘group think’ impression in much of the western world. The negative emotions regarding Ghadaffi have been carefully cultivated for 40 years now, giving the typical western media mush-mind the impression that “we can never get rid of these renegade bastards”.

Now, concurrent to the apparent global awakening of the truly oppressed, true to their ‘ordo ab chao’ mantra and Hegelian dialectic, the PTBs are injecting an opposite “it’s time to take care of these problems” mindset into the strategically framed opposite mainstream western mindset.

While Ghadaffi has been a bought off, militarily supported puppet of the west since his “revolution” and they scared the hell out of him, he is serving a greater purpose. Now it is time to sacrifice the demon they so carefully LET exist all these years for a “greater good”.

Why? The cathartic release, as all wars precipitate, will provoke Americans and other hoodwinked and intimidated peoples to endorse the removal of other such long-standing “pests” and hindrances to a “peaceful, global society.”

Just watch.

Get their Game? It’s On.

Be prepared, and stay on top of it.

Love, Zen

They’re doing it without us!

February 24, 2011

Rendering a decade of U.S. policy irrelevant, the people of the Middle East are transforming the region themselves.

By Andrew J. Bacevich

The ongoing upheaval in the Arab world (and in Iran) has rendered a definitive judgment on U.S. policy over the last decade. Relying on their own resources and employing means of their own devising, the people of the Middle East intent on transforming that region have effectively consigned the entire “war on terror” to the category of strategic irrelevance.

When first conceived in the wake of 9/11, two convictions underpinned that war. According to the first, precluding further attacks on the United States meant that the Islamic world needed to change. According to the second, because Muslims were manifestly unable to change on their own, the United States needed to engineer the process, with American military might serving as catalyst. Freedom (or at least submission) would issue from the barrel of a GI’s assault rifle.

In Afghanistan, then Iraq and now, of course, AfPak, U.S. efforts to promote change have achieved – at best – mixed results. Meanwhile, the costs incurred have proved painfully high. In terms of treasure expended, lives lost and moral authority squandered, Americans have paid a lot and gotten precious little in return.

It now turns out that those exertions were unnecessary or, at the very least, superfluous. For nine years, the U.S. has been pushing in on a door that opens outward. More amazing still, that door swings open of its own volition. Events of the last several weeks have made it abundantly clear not only that important parts of the Islamic world are ripe for change but that the impetus for change comes from within. Transformation is not something that outsiders can induce or impose or control. The process is organic, spontaneous and self-sustaining.

So poor Muslims tired of living in squalor, and the not-so-poor fed up with suffering under the boot of corrupt authoritarian regimes (not infrequently allied with the United States), don’t need Washington’s coaching. They don’t need us to “liberate” them. They are perfectly capable of liberating themselves. And their doing so basically doesn’t cost the American taxpayer a nickel.