Iran Nuclear Talks; Explosive Issues Amidst Burning Middle East.
By Christof Lehmann – The recent Nuclear talks of the five permanent members of the UNSC plus Germany(P5+1) with Iran in Baghdad and plans to continue the talks in Moscow can not be isolated from the NATO-led war which was initiated in 2011 under the euphemism “The Arab Spring” and the undeclared, unconventional war on Syria; the regional geo-political background of an Iran that is asserting it´s position as regional power against the expansion of NATO`s and Israel´s regional hegemony; the complex global geo-political background with a NATO that has declared interventionism, Libya-style, part of it´s new doctrine at the 25th NATO Summit in Chicago; a Russia that is reasserting it´s position as power with global reach and strong regional interests; and the return to a multi-polar world by virtue of the BRICS alliance and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; the global economic crisis and it´s propensity towards facilitating the onset of major conflicts; the coming U.S. elections; and standard U.S. negotiation strategies with respect to targeted nations.
Among the many uncertain factors that establish the wider backdrop for the Iran and P5+1 talks there is one factor that is absolute certain. The Iran Nuclear talks are taking place against the backdrop of explosive issues and high tension between NATO and the BRICS countries, as well as the backdrop of a de-facto ongoing Middle East War.
Decision to initiate war on Libya, Syria, Hezbollah and Iran taken long ago. Both Iran, Russia and the BRICS member nations are aware of the fact that the U.S. and E.U. would not engage in talks with Iran unless these talks could weaken Iran and strengthen the geo-strategic position of NATO and it´s allies.
In late August 2011 the author of this article received information from a high-ranking member of the U.S. Special Forces at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. The officer informed that U.S. Special Forces had for several months been actively preparing for an unconventional war on Libya, Syria, Hezbollah and Iran which would escalate in a conventional war. This included the training of foreign fighters belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group a.k.a. Al Qaeda and fighters from throughout the Middle East. In fact, Special Forces were already deployed in Syria, supervising insurgents and partaking with other logistical, communication as well as combat operations.(1) The Training Circular TC-18-01 was disclosed as containing the strategy that would be used to destabilize and bring about a subversion in Libya, Syria and Lebanon. (2) So far this information and analysis based on the TC 18-01 have proven to be extremely reliable.
Earlier this year the author received information from a reliable Palestinian Intelligence Source in Turkey that the Gaza Flotilla killings of nine Turkish citizens in 2010 was a precursor of Turkey´s involvement in the war against Syria as a front-line state in a war on Syria. The source informed that both the commander of the Al Qaeda associated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Abdelhakim Belhadj, now Military Commander of Tripoli and commander of parts of the so-called Free Syrian Army, as well as his next in command had been on board the Mavi Marmara. The nine Turkish citizens were prominent members of the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood who were opposed to a military campaign against Syria were lured on board so that they could be executed by Israel. (3)
Subsequently the P.M. of Turkey, R. Tayyip Erdogan, publicly blasted Israel for it´s high crimes and act of piracy and murder in international waters. Turkey severed all diplomatic ties to Israel and discontinued military cooperation. That is, for a few weeks, after which relations were quietly “normalized” again. Erdogan and his government however, used the sudden boost in publicity and public domestic as well as international support for his “strong response to Israel´s crimes” to strengthen his position so much that he could rid himself and the Turkish High Command of the most secular, and very influential Generals who were opposed to Erdogan´s martial ambitions. It should not be forgotten to mention that Erdogan, as well as many other European politicians such as former Danish P.M. Lars Løkke Rasmussen, has long-standing relations to both the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. A video published on nsnbc shows Erdogan posing with Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders and a photo of Rasmussen posing with Taliban, holding an AK-47 assault rifle. (4)
N.A.T.O. is branding the disastrous destabilization of Libya as ” a teachable moment” a “model for future interventions” and example of how well N.A.T.O. is meeting the challenge to live up to it´s “responsibility to protect”. (5)
US-American and European demands that Iran would take part in the negotiations in Baghdad and the planned negotiations in Moscow “in good faith” are meant for public consumption and for public consumption only. As we will see below, the U.S. negotiation strategies and media strategies with respect to the nuclear talks are most likely a precursor of, and pretext for an increased aggression against Iran.
Iran´s regional geo-political interests. One U.S.-administration after the other have been positioning Iran as a regional threat to stability, peace and security. In fact this policy is the sole pretext for demanding negotiations about a perfectly legitimate Iranian nuclear program at all. Iran´s support of Palestinian resistance movements that struggle against an illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel is branded support of terrorism. Iran´s support of Lebanon´s Hezbollah who is fighting unlawful Israeli aggressions and repeated illegal Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory is branded as support of terrorism. Iran´s support of the Syrian government is branded as support of a tyrannical regime. Iran´s support of Human Rights and Civil Liberties organizations in Bahrain is decried as “the Iranian Conspiracy”. At the heart at the matter is, that Iran is under attack, that a war against it has been planned long ago, and that it naturally secures allies in the region. At the heart of the matter is also the fact that those who scapegoat Iran for supporting terrorism, NATO and the GCC member states, have allied themselves with everything from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, Jundullah plus other regional players, to wage an illegal, undeclared unconventional war. With respect to Syria the strategy of NATO seems to be to have the country so destabilized by “terrorists” and internal conflict that NATO has to make use of it´s “responsibility to protect the Syrian population.
At Iran´s eastern borders is NATO occupied Afghanistan. At it´s western border is Iraq that has a questionable position with respect to regional alliances. At it´s northern borders lies Turkey with major N.A.T.O. bases right up to it´s borders. The narrow passages of the Persian Gulf through which it can export the life blood of the Iranian economy is inundated by U.S. Carrier Groups and military bases and the entire Western Gulf Coast is a potential springboard for an assault on Iran. How one can expect Iran not to assert it´s political influence and support reform movements that demand political, social and legal reforms and the very democracy, freedom and human rights from tyrannical Saudi, Bahraini, Qatari Royalty which the West claims to support is absolutely beyond reason. Although it is a fact that Iran asserts it´s influence as regional player it is far from being the supporter of terrorism, instability and expansionism that is represented by N.A.T.O. and it´s allies in the region.
While Iran legally enriches uranium to 19.75 % for civilian purposes, Israel is armed with 200 plus nuclear warheads. Israel has repeatedly threatened Iran with attacking Iran´s nuclear installations. Iranian nuclear physicists are frequently murdered by Western Intelligence Services operatives. Confronted with these immense security challenges, it also has to relate to statements as that of E.U. foreign policy chief Cathrine Ashton, who stated that the two sides had found “some common ground but that there were significant differences”, and that she expected that the planned negotiations in Moscow on 18 and 19 June would be used to “expand on this common ground”. The question Cathrine Ashton, the US administration, France, the U.K. and Germany ought to answer is how Iran is expected to expand on the common ground, that NATO has long ago committed itself to wage a war against it. What common ground is meant other than possibly that of preventing a full-scale regional war with catastrophic consequences and if – if that can be achieved it is possible only because N.A.T.O. halts it´s unconventional and illegal aggressions against Syria, Lebanon and Iran.
Nuclear matters not the nucleus of the conflict. The overt demand of Western powers towards Iran is that it ceases it´s legitimate enrichment of uranium to 19.75 %. The demands are based on suspicions that Iran “could have intentions” to upgrade it´s capabilities so that it could enrich uranium to the 90% purity that is required for the production of nuclear weapons. It is important to remember the words “capability” and “intention” which have extremely dangerous operant implications when used by U.S. negotiators.
After the negotiations in Baghdad the Iranian chief negotiator Jalili emphasized Iran´s absolute right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, that the dispute only could be solved through dialog and that Iran was looking forward to the planned continuation of the negotiations in Moscow in June. Recently, the spokesperson for the E.U. Michael Mann stated that the West had presented a clear proposal that called on Iran to address international concerns about it´s nuclear program in return for reciprocal measures.
With Iran having been slammed with one set of sanctions after the other such reciprocal measures “could have been welcome” by Iran, was it not for the fact that the Iranian political leadership is acutely aware of the Wests war plans, was it not for the fact that Iran is aware of U.S. negotiation strategies with respect to sanctions, and was it not for the fact that it must be aware of the fact that the E.U. and U.S. economies are the ones that are hardest hit by the sanctions.
Last things first and who carries the donkey? In exchange for ceasing it´s enrichment of uranium to 19.75 % Iran could be offered the deal that “some” sanctions will be “eased”. In other words, Iran should give up it´s legal enrichment program so that the West can continue with sanctions against Iran, but sanctions that are not nearly as painful for Europe and the USA as the current and the currently planned sanctions? That really makes sense, right ?
For Iranian negotiators there ought to be, and probably are a few points that are at the heart of the matter from an Iranian perspective. They are for one, that the West is waging an undeclared war against it´s allies and against Iran itself. The negotiators will be acutely aware of the fact that no Iranian concessions on the nuclear issue, regardless how extensive they are, will change the long-standing US and NATO plans for global full spectrum dominance. Iran knows that it´s independence and geo-political position is one of the main obstacles to achieving that goal. Iranian negotiators will also know that Iran must be acutely aware of the standard negotiations strategies of the USA with regards to sanctions, promises of lifting of sanctions, and subsequent increased aggression. The history of Libya and Iraq have taught valuable lessons in that regard.
U.S. negotiation strategies and worth to be expected. The most teachable of these lessons is the fate of Iraq. Before Iraq was attacked in 2004 it was devastated by sanctions that were responsible for the death of over one million Iraqis. Iraq was desperate to having the sanctions lifted. It offered and pleaded to the US and UN to resume weapons inspections; it offered the US to open a FBI office in Iraq; it offered prime oil and other contracts to the USA for lifting the sanctions and it was willing to cooperate on all possible items – but it pleaded that the USA would clearly specify the terms and conditions Iraq would have to fulfill to make sure that the sanctions would be lifted.
Standard US negotiations strategy with nations that are targeted with sanctions and targeted for aggression is to state that the USA is willing to negotiate; that it expects the targeted nation to “negotiate in good faith”; to make impossible demands, such as the one that Iran should document that it does not have “intentions” to upgrade it´s enrichment capabilities or “intentions” to pursue a nuclear weapons program. When the targeted nations, for good and obvious reasons can not provide “negative evidence”, when they can not “document the lack of ill intentions”, the US will position the targeted nation as “non-cooperative, obstinate, deceptive”. The next step of US negotiations “in good faith” is usually “shock and awe”. A televised orgy of perverted power unleashed like the bombing of Baghdad. Former CIA Asset, Peace Activist and back-channel negotiator between the US and Iraq at the UN documented in her book Extreme Prejudice how this strategy was applied against Iraq.(6) Iran, Russia, BRICS, and in particular anyone who has ever had the experience of having been targeted with sanctions by the USA is aware of it.
To the best of my knowledge, the sudden US initiative to negotiate with Iran is a precursor of increased positioning of Iran as unwilling to adhere to “the international communities concerns” which translates into US dictates. It is likely to be a precursor for that increased aggressions against Iran are to be expected.
Obama needs them and the Pentagon and NATO have long-planned for them and are implementing them in Syria, Lebanon and throughout the region.
1) Arabian Summer or NATO´s Fall. Christof Lehmann (2011) http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/arabian-summer-or-nato%C2%B4s-fall/
2) TC 18-01 Training Circular 18-01. Special Forces Unconventional Warfare. http://nsnbc.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf
3) Was the Gaza Flotilla Massacre a Turkish False Flag and Precursor to the War on Syria ? Martin Iqbal (2012) http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/was-the-gaza-flotilla-massacre-a-turkish-israeli-false-flag-and-precursor-to-the-war-on-syria/
4) Syria The Cradle of Civilization and Possibly the Beginning of Civilizations End. Christof Lehmann (2011) – contains Erdogan Video . http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/syria-the-cradle-of-civilization-and-potentially-the-beginning-of-civilizations-end/
5) NATO`s 25th Summit in Chicago in Preparation of Global Full Spectrum Dominance, Interventionism, Possible Preparations for A Regional War Directed against Russia and China, and Developments in Global Security. Christof Lehmann (2012) http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/natos-25th-summit-in-chicago-in-preparation-of-global-full-spectrum-dominance-interventionism-possible-preparations-for-a-regional-war-directed-against-russia-and-china-and-developments-in-global/
6) Extreme Prejudice. Susan Lindauer. http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Prejudice-Terrifying-Story-Patriot/dp/1453642757