If so, let the U.S. isolate itself

Iran says nuclear deal depends on lifting of sanctions | Reuters This is a timely reminder to those who believe the Iran nuclear deal can be reduced to and hinges upon the deal between Congress and Obama. Says Iranian President Rouhani: “We are in talks with the major powers and not with the Congress,” Rouhani said. I draw three conclusions: 1. If there will be no deal, the main reason is the US and Israel. 2. The other 4P+1 countries should let the U.S. isolate itself and sign the deal with Iran. Everybody should then normalise relations with Iran and speed up all kinds of co-operation ASAP. 3. The punishment of the Iranian people has been unjustifiable from Day One and their suffering must end.

Read More →

Ignoring May 9 in Russia – another Western conflict-management blunder

The Guardian reports that Western top leaders are going to snub the commemoration in Moscow of the 70th Anniversary of the Allied Victory over Hitler Germany – on May 9. That they don’t want to attend a huge military parade is quite understandable, neither would I. But remembering the more than 20 million Russians who died in World War 2 would be more than appropriate for Western leaders in light of both their own people and the Russian people. Thus Angela Merkel is doing the right thing. This would have been a good informal opportunity for dialogues between Russian, Eastern and Western leaders in this particularly tense situation – but the latter are so much better at escalation, pinpricking and self-righteous policies than at conflict-resolution and reconciliation. Short-sighted and utterly unhelpful, I must say.

Read More →

Comments to Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

Today Charles Krauhammer – a well-known extreme rightist usually advocating war – writes in the Washington Post under the headline “The Iran deal: The anatomy of a disaster”. My comments under the article goes: The day Mr. Krauthammer will write about • sanctions on Israel for its nuclear weapons and international law violations; • anytime/anywhere inspections in all nuclear weapons countries including Israel (does he really believe that any country in the world would accept that?) • the relentless attempts at regional dominance by the U.S. and also look at Israel’s and Saudi-Arabia’s ambitions (i.e. apply a minimum of fairness), • how and why Iran’s status of non-nuclear country promotes a nuclear arms race more than the only nuclear weapons power in the region… – I for one would think Krauthammer was interesting to read. Now he repeats himself, doesn’t do analysis or real commentary but promotes Iranophobia (has he recently visited the country he has such negative views about?). It’s all sadly indicative of the real purpose – not nuclear issues but keeping Iran down forever. If we in the West are getting isolated, not Iran – perhaps he should ask what the reasons could be? It would be great and promote honest debate if Mr. Krauthammer could write about these issues and reveal a willingness and intellectual capability to connect dots and apply a comprehensive analysis of the issues and the region.

Read More →

Comment to Israel’s defence minister in Washington Post

Israel’s defence minister Moshe Ya’alon writes in Washington Post under the headline “Current Iran framework will make war more likely” When I wrote my comment there were already more than 1100 comments – so here it is: “Israel’s defence minister is an echo of PM Netanyahu. Nothing new, Israel’s official views are well-known, beamed out a thousand times more effectively than Iran’s to the world, not the least thanks to leading U.S. free and plural media. What makes you, Mr. Ya’alon, think that this whole discussion can go on forever as if Israel was not the main problem because of its military/militarism and its nuclear weapons? Your military expenditures are about the same as Iran’s, a country with about 10 times more people to defend. While you continue to hold occupied territory and fight wars for it – and you are a military man who mentions what he has been forced to do during war – you omit mention of the fact that Iran has not invaded anyone for more than 200 years. Israel, sadly, pursues law-defying policies and decades long ethnic cleansing instead of taking one step in the direction of trying to live together in a democracy-for-all state. You’ve got more power to change Israel’s policies than most Israelis. Morally – and I take you to be a moral man – you cannot contribute to punishing 80 million people (sanction, bombing threats, agents, propaganda, etc) who have done […]

Read More →

The Zionist Lobby does it again – and again

This is the second posting today on this issue… Please support Jake Lynch, a TFF Associate, from being sacked because of his solidarity with Palestine and SIGN this: Open letter to University of Sydney Vice-Chancellor: “Dr Spence, reject calls to punish Palestine-justice supporters” Sydney Staff for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (Sign after the list of signatures and before the comments)

Read More →

Isn’t it time to boycott pro-Zionist media?

Listen very carefully to the eloquent PM Netanyahu here again giving it full blast thanks to CNN in an interview in which he (again) says nothing new. Why – just why – is his views given coverage again and again and again in Western media? Does the Iranian or other P5+1 get anywhere near the same media coverage (I can’t remember every having seen a Chinese diplomat talk about the Iran deal). And why does this happen with nobody mentioning the nuclear weapons – 200+ – that this state leader commands on the basis of political paranoia and autism? Why is nobody stopping him when he questions the legality of Iran’s nuclear civilian program and talks about terrorism while he as Israel’s leader is responsible for series of violations of international law and state terrorism? If this is the free press it is either knowingly or unknowingly pro-Zionist and Iranophobic or influenced – “bought” in money or other terms – by Israeli billionaires or agents. You can boycott commodites from countries you do not sympathize with – to send a signal. I wonder whether it isn’t time to boycott media that continue to disseminate pro-Zionist propaganda without covering relevant other angles and countries’ views – and do so again and again. If you anyhow watch it, write to the editor and protest the bias. Or stop using the media and let them rcognize that their viewer and visitor figures are […]

Read More →

16 years since NATO started its war on Yugoslavia – all criminals still at large

Today – 16 years since NATO began to bomb Serbia and did so mercilessly for 78 days to carve out Kosovo as an independent state – still today a failed one. Remember that when you talk about Crimea today. Here is a link to “Yugoslavia – What Should Have Been Done?” – probably the world’s most comprehensive blog about the dissolution of Yugoslavia; it’s written since 1991 by three experts and published as they wrote it at the time. The people who masterminded this destruction without a UN mandate are all still at large – e.g. Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Javier Solana, Wesley Clark and Tony Blair – the latter, without an ounce of shame, today “adviser” to the government in… yes, oh yes, Belgrade! It was the largest ever NATO operation. It was conducted without a mandate from the UN Security Council. It was out-of-area and not in response to an attack on a member state according to Article 5 in NATO’s charter. It came in the wake of the – fraud – negotiations at the castle of Rambouillet outside Paris during which (the Serb and the the Albanian delegations never met face-to-face) the Serb side was forced to accept that NATO could roam around freely all over Serbia with no legal responsibility (and potentially arrest anyone, including President Milosevic) and without paying anything for it. That was when the Serbs said no – and NATO’s bombing started soon […]

Read More →

P1 Debats politiske tilrettelæggelse omkring missilforsvaret

De fleste mennesker, der lytter til radio eller ser TV, tænker næppe så meget over hvad der også kunne være foregået og med hvilke deltagere. De ser et færdigt produkt, ikke processen – og de tager, nok så forståeligt, stilling til det de ser og hører snarere end til noget andet, de i en forestillingsverden kunne have set eller hørt. Med de sociale medier kan man nu formidle informationer i rollen som mediemenneske og fortælle hvordan det også går til sådan bag kulisserne. Måske lyttede du til P1 Debat på Danmarks Radio nu idag kl 12:15-13:00 om missilskjoldet og den russiske ambassadørs åbne brev? I så fald kan kopien herunder af min korrespondence med P1 Debats redaktør Anne Henderson måske have din interesse. Den dokumenterer at jeg skriftligt blev inviteret til at deltage per telefon, at jeg sagde ja tak men under forudsætning af visse rammebetingelser kunne opfyldes gennem videre samtale – herunder a) at der blev mulighed for at forklare at missilforsvaret kan ses som en del af en større amerikansk atomkrigs-strategi og b) at der må være fair play med mig siddende udenfor studiet specielt når programmet efter min opfattelse allerede da er planlagt med en holdningsmæssig slagside. Den viser endvidere at der gik næsten et døgn inden Hendersons svarer og så pludselig mener at det dér med at sidde på en telefon medførte at man har besluttet at jeg alligevel ikke skal deltage. Vel, læs selv nedenfor.

Read More →

Politikere og medier savner aabenbart enhver ekspertise om missilskjoldet til at modstaa Washingtons salgsteknikker

Åbent brev sendt til 2200 mennesker i Norden herunder 325 danske medieadresser. Af Jan Øberg Dr.hc., forskningschef TFF 21. marts 2015 Missilskjoldet tjener til at gøre det muligt at udkæmpe og vinde en atomkrig – ikke at afskrække fra den Den russiske ambassadørs artikel i Jyllands-Posten kan maaske siges at være bombastisk formuleret men i grunden har han – og ikke udenrigsminister Lidegaard – ret. Ledende medier som f.eks. Danmarks Radio, Ritzaus og Politiken giver baggrund til missilforsvaret som vidner om total mangel paa fagkundskab om strategi og atomdoktriner. I stærk kontrast til hvad vi hører om missilskjoldet – som Danmark nu tilsyneladende skal bidrage til – er det det mest de-stabiliserende indslag i atompolitikken siden 1945. Det kan kun opfattes af Rusland og andre som en provokation. Her er den forklaring som beslutningstagerne næppe har modtaget fra Washington, ministerier eller militære kredse. Den gælder for atomvaaben saavel som for konventionelle: Den klassiske terrorbalance fra 1950-erne handler om at hvis A har kastet sine raketter – inkl atomare – paa B, saa vil B altid have tilstrækkeligt at gengælde med nemlig atomvaaben paa sine fly, ubaade og i siloer, som A ikke har mulighed for at slaa ud i sit første angreb. Det hed “gensidigt sikret ødelæggelse”- MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. Den afskrækkende værdi laa i at begge parter vidste at hvis de startede en atomkrig ville deres egne befolkninger dø i millionvis som følge af modpartens gengældelse. Hvad indebærer […]

Read More →

Missilforsvaret er ikke et forsvar, det sænker tærsklen for atomkrig

Den russiske ambassadør i Danmark skriver om det, der kalder missilforsvaret eller missilskjoldet. Det bliver den danske udenrigsminister og danske politikere vrede over. Sagligt set har den russiske ambassadør imidlertid fuldstændigt ret i at missil”forsvaret” aldeles ikke er et forsvar og helt rigtigt ikke først og fremmest retter sig imod slyngelstater men mod Rusland. Det er filosofisk og teknisk nok så kompliceret men – og jeg véd det er stærke ord – enten véd danske politikere med udenrigsministeren i spidsen ikke hvad det er eller også lyver de fordi de véd hvad det er og véd at de aldrig vil få danskerne med på det hér hvis danskerne forstår hvad det er. Missilforsvaret gør atomkrig mere acceptabel og mindre utænkelig. Det er de-stabiliserende, underminerer den såkaldte terrorbalance og kan kun opfattes som truende/aggressivt hos andre. Derfor skal det stoppes. Hvis Danmark går med på det er det udelukkende fordi man ikke tør sige nej til USA – det vil kun mindske danskernes sikkerhed i et meget speget spil. Og derfor bør man opfatte ambassadørens artikel som en venligt ment opfordring til netop at gennemtænke det hér og ikke på nogen måde som en trussel. PS Danmarks Radios dækning og røde faktarude er horribelt ukyndig- og anonym (som læst 21. marts 01:14)

Read More →

EU agrees on sanctions on Russia – but what about peace?

EU agrees Russia sanctions to stay until Ukraine peace terms met (Reuters). Exactly as expected. If the EU can make a conflict-resolution mistake, rest assured that it will! Minsk is not a peace agreement – but at Reuters they don’t know the difference between a ceasefire and a peace agreement. The looming catastrophe is exactly that there is no follow-up to Minsk II, no process for conflict-resolution, the future structure of Ukraine, nothing on UN peacekeeping, reconciliation, confidence-building and peace. These sanction are the only known follow-up and only signaling: We don’t trust you damn Russians! NATO knows only military saber-rattling, EU only sanctions – nobody knows peace. What a Europe! What a danger to all of us having to live with the long-term consequences of such peace illiteracy! I’ve written a longer piece on what I believe would be a much safer policy – with absolutely no indications of an interest from the local or international media.

Read More →

Fogh Rasmussen efterlader en verden i kaos

Interview med Jens Malling – Publiceret i Arbejderen Efterlader en verden i kaos Anders Fogh Rasmussen træder tilbage som Natos generalsekretær i dag efter fem år på posten. Aggressivitet over for Rusland og hykleri når det gælder Irak har ifølge fredsforsker Jan Øberg kendetegnet hans sidste år i spidsen for organisationen. Et udtryk for Vestens moralske forfald, mener han AF JENS MALLING ”Verden er et mere usikkert sted nu, end da jeg trådte til”. Så klart udtrykte den afgående generalsekretær Anders Fogh Rasmussen sig efter Nato-topmødet i Wales i september, ifølge DR. Med situationen i Mellemøsten fuldstændig ude af kontrol samt en dødsensfarlig og eskalerende konfrontation med Rusland over Ukraine kan udtalelsen virke som fornuftig selverkendelse. Den rækker dog ikke længere end at Fogh Rasmussen i interviewet med det samme bruger de to konflikter som argument for et endnu stærkere Nato. Han dvæler ikke ved, at den organisation han på femte år står i spidsen for – samt enkelte medlemslande – kan siges at have en væsentlig del af ansvaret for den tragiske udvikling i både Ukraine og Irak. Men det mener fredsforsker Jan Øberg at generalsekretæren bør gøre. ”Natos ekspansion i Østeuropa – og særligt den planlagte indlemmelse af Georgien og Ukraine – er den væsentligste årsag til at Rusland omsider viser tænder. I Kreml opfattes Nato-udvidelse som en alvorlig sikkerhedspolitisk trussel. Putin har sagt stop og prøver at sætte sig imod, at organisationen inddæmmer Rusland fra Baltikum til […]

Read More →

US ambassador to Sweden: Join NATO

This is how pressure is put on other countries and a rare glimpse by media into processes presumably meant to be semi-official and basically hidden to the public. And of course, it is up to sovereign Sweden to decide what to do – but, however, not joining NATO will have a price. See below the ambassador’s formulation and hint at Ukraine’s situation. The truth is that Sweden doesn’t need to join because it is strategically important enough where it is. Added February 18, 2016: And this is why the host nation support agreement between Sweden and NATO is so important. And should be refused mainly through broad popular debate and democratic pressure on the government. Here is a first a Google translation of the article in Svenska Dagbladet, April 28, 2014 – followed by the original text in Swedish: Monday April 28, 2014, Svenska Dagbladet ”Sweden should join NATO “ If Russia threatens Sweden , we can not count on any help from NATO or the United States. Should Sweden be defended , we should join NATO . In the midst of the Ukraine crisis , the U.S. has given this clear message to all Swedish parliamentary parties . Today there are only a realistic security actor in Europe who can provide you with a guarantee of security, says U.S. Stockholm Ambassador Mark Brzezinski in his arguments for Swedish NATO membership . PHOTOS: Jonas Ekströmer / TT April 27, 2014 […]

Read More →