Saturday, November 1, 2014

BREAKING: Bodies of 3 US Citizens Found Near TX Border… And Look Who is Being Questioned

BREAKING: Bodies of 3 US Citizens Found Near TX Border… And Look Who is Being Questioned

The torched and dead bodies of three US citizens were discovered by Mexican authorities earlier this week alongside a rural road in Matamoros, Mexico. The bodies were just identified by relatives as those of 26-year-old Erica Alvarado, 22-yer-old Alex Alvarado and 21-year-old Jose Angel Alvarado, who mysteriously disappeared two weeks ago after taking a trip to Control, Tamaulipas to visit their father. (H/T Breitbart)
Raquel Alvarado, mother of the three siblings, said that the Mexican authorities did very little to help find her children when they originally went missing. There are also strong suspicions of foul play with a local tactical police unit in Matamoros called the “Hercules Group.” State prosecutors and other law enforcement have begun interrogating members of the unit, as they are suspected of helping the Gulf Cartel in the disappearance of the group.
Click here to get a FREE subscription to the Conservative Tribune.
The fourth body found with the siblings was that of Jose Guadalupe Castañeda, Erica Alvarado’s boyfriend, who has suspected ties to the stolen fuel trade for area Cartels. Authorities are attempting to figure out if his suspected connections with local crime led to the disappearance of the group of U.S. citizens.
Local news media often refuse to report on these types of situations for fear of retaliation from Cartel members. Local law enforcement, such as the unit in Matamoros, often are bribed or on the payroll of local Cartels, and make investigatory efforts much more difficult.
The three siblings lived in Progreso, TX with their mother, Raquel.

Thursday, the governor of Tamaulipas, Egidio Torre Cantu, issued a statement that said authorities would “double their efforts” to solve these murders.
With constant wars between rival cartels just south of the United States borders, sometimes involving shootouts that last hours and involve dozens of armed cartel thugs, it’s only a matter of time until the spillover into the U.S. racks up a body count that will be difficult to bring under control unless the Obama administration reverses their stance on immigration and makes the right decision to protect American citizens on our borders.
Share this on Facebook and Twitter if you believe that our borders should be sealed immediately to protect innocent Americans.

BREAKING: Report Drops Massive Bombshell About Obama and Islamic State… It’s Treason

BREAKING: Report Drops Massive Bombshell About Obama and Islamic State… It’s Treason

An incredible report by Fox News is claiming that some 20 to 30 former Guantanamo Bay prison detainees have returned to the battlefield to fight America, by joining the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, as well as the Al Qaeda affiliated Al Nusra rebel group.
This information comes from sources within the Intelligence and Defense communities, and confirms fears that released detainees will return to battle against the U.S., something many of the terrorists have vowed to do themselves.
Click here to get a FREE subscription to the Conservative Tribune.
Since the beginning of the War on Terror, about 620 terrorists have been released from Guantanamo, the bulk of that number during the Bush administration.  Many of those former detainees were low-level fighters that have simply returned to their home life since being released.
However, of those that were released, about 180 have returned to the fight, which is roughly about 30% of the total.
Another crucial factor worth noting is that most of the recently released and remaining detainees are some of the most hard-core fighters, who are nearly certain to rejoin the fight if given the chance.  This should be kept in mind as Obama pushes ahead with his plan to ultimately close down the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Even though President Obama has admitted himself that the released terrorists could attack Americans again, he and his administration remain completely detached from that reality, and insist that closing Gitmo will be a good thing for America.
“We know that some of the detainees that have come out of Guantanamo have gone back to the fight, the battlefield. We’re aware of that and we think that overall the policy of getting to close Guantanamo is clearly in the interest of the United States, as the president has articulated,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said, completely oblivious to the contradictory nature of his statement.
It appears that Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey is starting to get it, although he still downplayed the risks, saying, “We believe that the recidivism is a relatively small fraction of those detainees which have been placed into conditions where the risk of recidivism is mitigated. But even one would not make someone wearing the uniform very content.”
One man who certainly gets it, and has been worried about more released terrorists returning to battle for quite some time, is former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey.
“The majority have remained there, but there was always, if you will, a certain seepage,” he said. “These people are ideologically and essentially religiously committed to their evil cause, and it is very hard to sort out who are going to stay at home and who are going to return to the battlefield.”
Obama appears to be dead set on releasing all of the terrorists from Gitmo and closing down the prison, regardless of the obvious consequences.  In doing so, he is virtually guaranteeing that hardened jihadists will once again have the opportunity to launch attacks and kill Americans.
This is treason, as by definition, Obama’s actions are “aiding and abetting” the enemy while providing “material support” to known terrorist groups.
Hopefully a Republican-led Congress will hold Obama accountable for this treasonous act, but considering all of the other criminal and treasonous acts Obama has gotten away with already, this will likely just be added to the list.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you are still unable to wrap your head around why Obama would release the worst of the worst terrorists from Gitmo, when it is known there is a strong chance they will return to the battlefield against us.


U.S. is Responsible for the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa: Liberian Scientist

A History of Guatemala’s Syphilis Experiment: How a U.S. Led Team Performed Human Experimentations in Central America
Dr. Cyril Broderick, A Liberian scientist and a former professor of Plant Pathology at the University of Liberia’s College of Agriculture and Forestry says the West, particularly the U.S. is responsible for the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Dr. Broderick claims the following in an exclusive article published in the Daily Observer based in Monrovia, Liberia. He wrote the following:
The US Department of Defense (DoD) is funding Ebola trials on humans, trials which started just weeks before the Ebola outbreak in Guinea and Sierra Leone. The reports continue and state that the DoD gave a contract worth $140 million dollars to Tekmira, a Canadian pharmaceutical company, to conduct Ebola research. This research work involved injecting and infusing healthy humans with the deadly Ebola virus. Hence, the DoD is listed as a collaborator in a “First in Human” Ebola clinical trial (NCT02041715, which started in January 2014 shortly before an Ebola epidemic was declared in West Africa in March.
Is it possible that the United States Department of Defense (DOD) and other Western countries are directly responsible for infecting Africans with the Ebola virus? Dr. Broderick claims that the U.S. government has a research laboratory located in a town called Kenema in Sierra Leone that studies what he calls “viral fever bioterrorism”, It is also the town where he acknowledges that is the “epicentre of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.” Is it a fact? Is Dr. Broderick a conspiracy theorist? He says that “there is urgent need for affirmative action in protecting the less affluent of poorer countries, especially African citizens, whose countries are not as scientifically and industrially endowed as the United States and most Western countries, sources of most viral or bacterial GMOs that are strategically designed as biological weapons.” He also asks an important question when he says “It is most disturbing that the U. S. Government has been operating a viral hemorrhagic fever bioterrorism research laboratory in Sierra Leone. Are there others?”
Well, Mr. Broderick’s claims seem to be true. After all, the U.S. government has been experimenting with deadly diseases on human beings for a long time, history tells us so. One example is Guatemala. Between 1946 and 1948, the United States government under President Harry S. Truman in collaboration with Guatemalan President Juan José Arévalo and his health officials deliberately infected more than 1500 soldiers, prostitutes, prisoners and even mental patients with syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea and chancroid (a bacterial sexual infection) out of more than 5500 Guatemalan people who participated in the experiments. The worst part of it is that none of the test subjects infected with the diseases ever gave informed consent. The Boston Globe published the discovery made by Medical historian and professor at Wellesley College, Susan M. Reverby in 2010 called ‘Wellesley professor unearths a horror: Syphilis experiments in Guatemala.’ It stated how she came across her discovery:
Picking through musty files in a Pennsylvania archive, a Wellesley College professor made a heart-stopping discovery: US government scientists in the 1940s deliberately infected hundreds of Guatemalans with syphilis and gonorrhea in experiments conducted without the subjects’ permission. Medical historian Susan M. Reverby happened upon the documents four or five years ago while researching the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study and later shared her findings with US government officials.
The unethical research was not publicly disclosed until yesterday, when President Obama and two Cabinet secretaries apologized to Guatemala’s government and people and pledged to never repeat the mistakes of the past — an era when it was not uncommon for doctors to experiment on patients without their consent.
After Reverby’s discovery, the Obama administration apparently gave an apology to then-President Alvaro Colom according to the Boston Globe:
Yesterday, Obama called President Álvaro Colom Caballeros of Guatemala to apologize, and Obama’s spokesman told reporters the experiment was “tragic, and the United States by all means apologizes to all those who were impacted by this.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had called Colom Thursday night to break the news to him. In her conversation with the Guatemalan president, Clinton expressed “her personal outrage and deep regret that such reprehensible research could occur,’’ said Arturo Valenzuela, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs.
The study in Guatemala was led by John Cutler, a US health service physician who also took part in the controversial Tuskegee Syphilis experiments which began in the 1930’s. Researchers wanted to study the effects of a group of antibiotics called penicillin on affected individuals. The prevention and treatment of syphilis and other venereal diseases were also included in the experimentation. Although they were treated with antibiotics, more than 83 people had died according to BBC news in 2011 following a statement issued by Dr Amy Gutmann, head of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues:
The Commission said some 5,500 Guatemalans were involved in all the research that took place between 1946 and 1948. Of these, some 1,300 were deliberately infected with syphilis, gonorrhoea or another sexually transmitted disease, chancroid. And of that group only about 700 received some sort of treatment. According to documents the commission had studied, at least 83 of the 5,500 subjects had died by the end of 1953.
Washington’s reaction to the report is a farce. The apology made to Guatemala’s government was for the sake of public relations. Washington knows about its human experimentations in the past with deadly diseases conducted by government-funded laboratories that are known to be harmful to the public. The U.S. government is guilty in conducting numerous medical experiments on people not only in Guatemala but in other countries and on its own territory. As the Boston Globe report mentioned, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study occurred between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the “natural progression” of untreated syphilis in the African American population. The U.S. Public Health Service and the Tuskegee Institute collaborated in 1932 and enrolled 600 poor sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama to study the syphilis infection. However, it was documented that at least 400 of those had the disease (they were never informed that they actually had syphilis) while the remaining 200 did not. They received free medical care, food and even free burial insurance for participating in the study. Documents revealed that they were told that they had “bad blood” which meant that they had various medical conditions besides syphilis. The Tuskegee scientists continued to study the participants without treating their illnesses and they also withheld much-needed information from the participants about penicillin, which proved to be effective in treating Syphilis and other venereal diseases. The test subjects were under the impression that they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government while they were deliberately being lied to by the same administrators who were conducting the tests. Washington is fully aware of its human experimentations with deadly diseases. The government of Guatemala also knew about the Syphilis experiments according to the Boston Globe:
A representative of the Guatemalan government said his nation will investigate, too — looking in part at the culpability of officials in that country. The records of the experiment suggest that Guatemalan government officials were fully aware of the tests, sanctioned them, and may have done so in exchange for stockpiles of penicillin.
However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published the study ‘Fact Sheet on the 1946-1948 U.S. Public Health Service Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Inoculation Study’ and was forced to admit what happened in Guatemala during the syphilis experiments:
While conducting historical research on the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis, Professor Susan Reverby of Wellesley College recently discovered the archived papers of the late Dr. John Cutler, a U.S. Public Health Service medical officer and a Tuskegee investigator. The papers described another unethical study supported by the U.S. government in which highly vulnerable populations in Guatemala were intentionally infected with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The study, conducted between 1946 and 1948, was done with the knowledge of Dr. Cutler’s superiors and was funded by a grant from the U.S. National Institutes of Health to the Pan American Sanitary Bureau (which became the Pan American Health Organization) to several Guatemalan government ministries. The study had never been published.
The U.S. government admitted to its wrongdoing, 62 years too late. What Dr. Broderick wrote is not conspiratorial in any sense. The U.S. government has been involved in bioterrorism; Guatemala is a case in point. Dr. Broderick summarized what average people can do to prevent governments, especially those from the West from creating and exposing populations from diseases they experiment with in laboratories:
The challenge is global, and we request assistance from everywhere, including China, Japan, Australia, India, Germany, Italy, and even kind-hearted people in the U.S., France, the U.K., Russia, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and anywhere else whose desire is to help. The situation is bleaker than we on the outside can imagine, and we must provide assistance however we can. To ensure a future that has less of this kind of drama, it is important that we now demand that our leaders and governments be honest, transparent, fair, and productively engaged. They must answer to the people. Please stand up to stop Ebola testing and the spread of this dastardly disease.
After Guatemala’s ordeal with the U.S. government who deliberately infected people with syphilis, West African nations should be extremely skeptical about the U.S. government’s actions combating Ebola. Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois, College of Law questions the Obama administration’s actions in West Africa. RIA Novosti recently interviewed Boyle and he said the following:
US government agencies have a long history of carrying out allegedly defensive biological warfare research at labs in Liberia and Sierra Leone. This includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is now the point agency for managing the Ebola spill-over into the US,” Prof. Francis Boyle said.
Why has the Obama administration dispatched troops to Liberia when they have no training to provide medical treatment to dying Africans? How did Zaire/Ebola get to West Africa from about 3,500km away from where it was first identified in 1976?”
That’s a good question for Washington, but would the public get any answers? Not anytime soon, since it took more than 62 years for the  Guatemala syphilis experiments to be exposed to the public, not by the US government, by a medical historian.
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Anti-quarantine nurse Hickox was trained as intelligence officer by the CDC

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
The five biggest lies about Ebola being pushed by government and mass media
Why does the CDC own a patent on Ebola 'invention?'
White House admits staging fake vaccination operation to gather DNA from the public
Ultraviolet light robot kills Ebola in two minutes; why doesn't every hospital have one of these?
EXCLUSIVE: Natural News tests flu vaccine for heavy metals, finds 25,000 times higher mercury level than EPA limit for water
Truvia sweetener a powerful pesticide; scientists shocked as fruit flies die in less than a week from eating GMO-derived erythritol
Irrefutable proof we are all being sprayed with poison: 571 tons of toxic lead 'chemtrailed' into America's skies every year
Russia taking McDonald's to court, threatens countrywide shutdown
Oregon man serving prison sentence for collecting rainwater on his own property
The best way to help your body protect itself against Ebola (or any virus or bacteria)
Senator who attacked Doctor Oz over dietary supplements received over $146,000 in campaign contributions from Big Pharma mega-retailer and Monsanto
Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions
Healthy 12-year-old girl dies shortly after receiving HPV vaccine
Ebola outbreak may already be uncontrollable; Monsanto invests in Ebola treatment drug company as pandemic spreads
HOAX confirmed: Michelle Obama 'GMOs for children' campaign a parody of modern agricultural politics
Ben & Jerry's switches to non-GMO, Fair Trade ice cream ingredients
W.H.O. contradicts CDC, admits Ebola can spread via coughing, sneezing and by touching contaminated surfaces
BREAKING: CDC whistleblower confesses to MMR vaccine research fraud in historic public statement
(NaturalNews) Nurse Kaci Hickox, who has made headlines over the last few days by refusing to quarantine herself after returning from the Ebola front lines in Africa, turns out to have been trained as an "intelligence officer" under a two-year CDC program modeled after the U.S. military.

As you can see from the document below, Hickox graduated from a two-year CDC intelligence officer training program in 2012. This is the same nurse whose LinkedIn page was recently scrubbed to hide her ties to the CDC, an agency that stands to benefit tremendously in both political power and budgets if an Ebola outbreak sweeps across America.

The official intelligence designation granted to Nurse Hickox by the CDC was "Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer," and she is a graduate of the 2012 EIS program according to this CDC document (PDF). (See page 138 - 139 for her name and photo, or view photo below.)

That same year, the CDC graduated 81 such "intelligence officers" whose names and photos are also listed in the public document.

The CDC models its operations after the U.S. military

What is a CDC intelligence officer? To understand the answer, you first have to realize that the CDC models itself after the U.S. military which is why CDC "officers" wear military costumes when appearing before Congress, complete with shoulder stripes, stars and badges.

Just as with the U.S. Army, the CDC also has "intelligence officers" whose jobs include gathering intelligence, analyzing intelligence and conducting counterintelligence ops. The CDC's sanitized description of this job is found on this web page which states:

EIS officers are on the public health frontlines, conducting epidemiologic investigations, research, and public health surveillance both nationally and internationally.

That same page shows a photograph of a CDC intelligence officer wearing a military costume, complete with multiple stars on the shirt collar and a military-style name tag. These are symbols used to project the appearance of authority by adopting military dress even though the CDC isn't even under the command of the Dept. of Defense.

The uniforms are just one sign of the militarization of the CDC, an organization so steeped in delusional theatrics that it still won't admit sneeze particles can travel farther than 3 feet or that Ebola actually has a 42-day incubation period, not the 21 days we are repeatedly told.

Serving the public, or endangering it?

With all this said, why is a CDC-trained intelligence officer screaming so loudly about putting herself into a home quarantine for 21 days to reduce the risk of transmitting Ebola to other Americans? If the CDC is supposed to be serving the public, then why is this CDC-trained intelligence officer clearly abandoning any real concern for public safety by refusing to comply with a sensible self-quarantine rule?

"I don't plan on sticking to the guidelines," she said in a Today interview. [1] "I remain appalled by these home quarantine policies that have been forced upon me... I'm not going to sit around and be bullied around by politicians and be forced to stay in my home when I am not a risk to the American public."

These are not the words of a concerned, ethically-driven epidemiologist. They are the words of a CDC intelligence operative who has been trained in the art of information warfare. Her words reflect the aims of the CDC which has openly opposed all sensible pandemic protections for Americans.

America's most important medical decisions, in other words, are right now being influenced by an intelligence operative trained by the CDC under a two-year program modeled after the military.

Are her actions and words now starting to make a lot more sense?

Sources for this article include:


Iranian nuclear file between scientific facts and political realities

Army Magazine - Issue 343 | January 2014

Studies and Research

Iranian nuclear file between scientific facts and political realities

Prepared by: Dr. Ahmed altitude Dean retired

«Speak to the wise men of arms, but they generally need to be translators ...».
(Bindar..haar ancient Greek)

In November 24, 2013, signed «nuclear agreement» between major countries set
(5 +1) and Iran in Geneva, Switzerland. Agreement, which called the «Geneva interim agreement has text» (Interim Geneva Accord) on the short-term the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for reducing the freeze imposed economic sanctions on Iran, while the signatory countries are working on a long-term agreement. This agreement is the first formal agreement between Iran and the United States 34 years ago.

Welcoming and communicative
American publishing details of the agreement which was reached between Iran and major powers in Geneva in the early hours of Sunday November 24, 2013 morning, which he described President Obama b «important first step.»
The agency «Associated Press» News has reported (in November 2013) that officials in the administration of President Obama met secretly with the Iranians, and face to face, five times during the year 2013, in the State of Oman in attempts to find the exits to the crisis of the Iranian nuclear program. The agency also reported that President Obama has been briefed Benjamin Netanyahu on the results of these meetings in secret during the latter's visit to Washington at the end of September 2013.
Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warmly welcomed this agreement, describing it as «historic», International Atomic Energy Agency «Director Yukiya Amano also said» that the agreement is an important step in the framework of the agreement concluded between the IAEA and Iran, and to increase the international inspectors visits to Iranian nuclear facilities. In response to the agreement, the European Union announced a reduction of the sanctions imposed on Iran, starting from last December, while Canadian Prime Minister said that his country will maintain sanctions until reaching a final agreement.
Chinese Foreign Minister expressed the view that the agreement «will help the various parties to deal normally with Iran, which will contribute to securing a better life for the Iranians.»
Saudi Council of Ministers issued a statement saying that the agreement could represent «a preliminary step towards a comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear program, whether led to the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons in the Middle East and the Gulf region.»
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said «that what has been achieved in Geneva is not a historic agreement it is a historic mistake», also said «Today the world has become a more dangerous place because« the most dangerous regime in the world »has taken an important step towards getting the most dangerous weapon in the world step» and perhaps this is what proximity to the Saudi position of rejecting the initial possession of Iran's nuclear weapons.
In general, most countries welcomed the agreement between Iran and the big powers, although to varying degrees, but Arab public opinion on the need to gather Israel also signing a treaty to rid the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons.
This agreement aims to put an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions in exchange for a partial suspension of international and Western sanctions imposed on it, and will see a specific period of six months commencing early 2014 international precise control of Iran's nuclear activity and the extent of Tehran's commitment to its provisions.

Terms of the agreement
According to the agreement (with many details of the items contained), Iran is committed to the following:
- To stop enriching uranium to a higher rate of 5 percent.
- Get rid of the amount of uranium fertilized to 20 percent.
- Stop any development of the capacity to enrich uranium.
- Not to increase the stockpile of enriched uranium to the 3.5 percent ratio.
- Stop any activity in the Arak reactor and halt any progress in the field of uranium plutonium.
- In full transparency to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency, the sudden and daily inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities, including centrifuge plants.
The major powers to ease the obligations they include «a limited and temporary and changeable» system of sanctions on Iran, while retaining the basic structure of the sanctions as it is during the six-month period, and includes:
- Not to impose any new sanctions if Iran committed itself to what has been agreed upon during the period of 6 months.
- Suspension of specific sanctions such as penalties for dealing in gold and metals sector of the Iranian automotive and petrochemical exports including Iran provides them with $ 1.5 billion of oil revenues, and allow reforms and rehabilitation of some Iranian airlines.
- To keep the Iranian oil sales at the current low level (which is at least 60 percent from the levels of 2011), and allow the transfer of $ 4.2 billion of the proceeds from those sales to Iran in installments in conjunction with Tehran's commitment to its obligations in the agreement.
- Allow the transfer of $ 400 million from Iran's frozen assets to cover the expenses of Iranian students studying abroad.
In total, Iran would benefit by about $ 7 billion, but the bulk of foreign reserves (about 100 billion US dollars) will remain constrained by the penalties, and will remain the sanctions imposed on Iran's energy sales (will not be allowed to increase exports) as well as on Iran's central bank and a number of banks and other financial institutions.
As well as the penalties will continue to more than 600 figures and Iranian entities that have a relationship with the nuclear program and missile program. In addition to the basic sanctions on other sectors such as manufacturing and shipping military, and international sanctions, and those relating to the status of Iran as «state sponsor of terrorism».

Iran's nuclear file: from conflict to cooperation
The launch of Iran's nuclear program in the fifties of the twentieth century with the help of the United States in the framework of the program «Atoms for Peace», where the United States and European governments and Western participated in this program that the Iranian Revolution of 1979 overthrew the Shah of Iran.
Iran signed the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970, making Iran's nuclear program subject to verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
After the Islamic Revolution (1979), Imam Khomeini ordered the dissolution of the secret nuclear weapons research program, as this was considered prohibited weapons under the morality and Islamic jurisprudence. But he returned to allow small-scale research in nuclear weapons, and allowed to re-run the program during the Iran-Iraq war, the program has undergone major expansion after the death of Ayatollah 1989.
Iran's nuclear program has included several research sites are: uranium mines, a research reactor, and facilities that include a uranium enrichment plants of the three known address.
The «Bushehr» reactor first nuclear power plant in Iran, has been completed with the help provided by a large agency Rosatom, the Russian state. It was officially opened on 12 September 2011. Iran announced that it is working to create a new nuclear power plant in Darkhovin capacity 360 MW. Atomenergoprom company also announced (Russian engineering company contractor) that the Bushehr nuclear power plant will reach full production capacity of by the end of 2012, Iran has also made it clear that they will seek to medium-sized manufacturing plants for energy production and exploration of uranium mines in the future.

Research and experiments!
In November 2011, governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency board criticized Iran after IAEA report concluded that Iran had conducted probably research and experiments aimed at developing nuclear weapons capabilities before the year 2003.
A number of Western nuclear experts have stated that there was very little new in this report, and that the media gave importance exaggerated, Iran has rejected the details of the report and accused the IAEA's pro-Western bias, and threatened to cut cooperation with them.
In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in its report (2003), for the first time, that Iran did not declare nuclear contributions sensitive and activities in enrichment and reprocessing, which can be used to enrich uranium to produce fuel for reactors (in the higher levels of enrichment) for the manufacture of weapons. While Iran said that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, and that it had enriched uranium by less than 5 ?, consistent with fuel for a civilian nuclear power station. She added that she had to resort to secrecy after several US pressure.
The Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency demanded that Iran suspend uranium enrichment activities, while the Iranian president at the time, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that sanctions imposed by «arrogant powers which» is «illegal», and that Iran has decided to continue monitoring its own and through peaceful «Track appropriate legal ».
After public allegations about Iran's nuclear activities not previously announced, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has launched an investigation in November 2003 concluded that Iran had failed to meet the obligations stipulated in the NPT safeguards agreement, although it is acknowledged that there was no evidence of its nuclear weapons. Delayed conclusion IAEA Board of Governors on Iran for non-compliance with the NPT until September 2005, and report on the matter to the UN Security Council in February 2006.
Subsequently, the Security Council demanded in its resolution number 1696 (the date of July 31, 2006) Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program, and the imposition of sanctions under Resolution No. 1737 (December 23, 2006) after it refused to do so.

Iran refuses to abandon its
In exchange for halting its uranium enrichment program, offered Iran «a comprehensive and long-term arrangement that would allow the development of relations and cooperation based on mutual respect and build international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program». However, Iran has refused to abandon its uranium enrichment program, arguing that it is essential for the security of their energy, and because «the overall arrangements for the long-term» can not be relied upon in itself ... in June 2009, following the presidential elections in which Iran agreed in principle to agreement to give up its stockpile of low-enriched uranium in exchange for fuel for a medical research reactor, but then reneged on the deal.
To allay fears that its uranium enrichment program can be converted to use non-peaceful, Iran offered to put more restrictions on its enrichment program including, for example, to ratify the Additional Protocol to allow inspections more stringent than before the International Atomic Energy Agency, and operating facility uranium enrichment in «Natanz» as a fuel multinational participation of foreign representatives, and plutonium reprocessing, and the conversion of enriched uranium into fuel rods for the reactor. Iran also offered to open its uranium enrichment program private and public foreign posts, in response to the suggestions of the Committee on International Atomic Energy Agency experts, which can contribute to the reduction of national capacities for the production of nuclear weapons has been supported by some US experts, non-governmental, this approach.
The United States has insisted that Iran meet the demands of the UN Security Council to suspend its uranium enrichment program, the existence of a doubt that Iran is conducting a secret uranium or reprocessing.
Pierre Goldschmidt noted, former deputy director general and head of security assurances in the agency, and Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Center for Nonproliferation Policy Education, the cases are never reported to the Security Council. South Korea is, for example, is enriching uranium to levels close to weapons-grade production, this country has voluntarily informed himself about his activities, and Goldschmidt said: «political considerations also played a dominant role in the Council's decision not to raise to the Security Council a formal non-compliance result».
On 23 March 2012, quote the US Congress report Research February service for 2012 return to report the twenty-fourth agency, saying that Iran had stockpiled 240 pounds of uranium by uranium to 20% - a level of enrichment needed for medical applications - and in the context of significance on its ability to reach levels higher.
Officials have said the CIA interviewed by The New York Times reported in March 2012; they continued to assess the Iran situation, and they think they did not re-run its own weapons program, which had been stopped in 2003, and although it has found evidence that there are some related to military activities are still taking place, also reported that the Israeli Mossad involved in this belief.

Security Council and the crisis
The UN Security Council issued a number of decisions dealing with the Iranian nuclear crisis and responded mostly under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, namely:
- Resolution No. 1696 Date of July 31, 2006, and the request for suspension of uranium enrichment under the implications of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
- Resolution No. 1737 Date December 23, 2006, the imposition of sanctions on Iran for its failure to comply with the previous resolution.
- Resolution No. 1747 Date March 24, 2007, and to expand the sanctions and welcomed the initiative of the five major countries + Germany to intervene in resolving the Iranian problem.
- Resolution 1803 dated 3 March 2008, includes the expansion of the sanctions and to prevent the export of some products that could help Iran's nuclear and missile program.
- Resolution 1835 dated 27 September 2008, confirms the previous four decisions, which is the only decision-making among the seven who did not respond under Chapter VII.
- Resolution No. 1929 Date June 9, 2010, spent a halt Tsidirba types of weapons to Iran, which is related to ballistic missiles and ship-borne inspection and detention, and freeze the assets of members of the Revolutionary Guards, and shipping lines.
- Resolution No. 1984 Date June 8, 2011, and the decision to extend the previous work for an additional 12 months.

Iran's nuclear program between scientific facts and political realities
Featuring the Iranian nuclear file from other contemporary international crises and conflicts files being based on a lot of the elements of uncertainty in the intentions and little scientific facts and concrete facts and proven conclusively. This has expanded the security debate and political conflict and economic raised area around it and continuing for more than a decade between Iran and its neighbors in the region (the Gulf states and Israel), as well as Mabinha and between the major powers, especially the United States of America.
It is known that the States have the right to enrich uranium to a level of 5% for the production of civilian energy such as electricity and this Matkvlh Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as up to 20% for the production of some of the radiographic material to treat certain diseases such as cancer. But the use of these rights is subject to the rules and principles and measures to provide for the protection of the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors continued through specific means and so monitored. Since the NPT States has blocked the production of nuclear weapons, any more than the state of the uranium enrichment ratio somewhat above twenty percent is considered that it is seeking to produce nuclear weapons, which can be obtained after the enrichment ratio above 80 to 90 percent. It is known that it requires a complex process of scientific and technical equipment and the potential for expensive and time periods longer or shorter according to the potential of these countries and their experiences.
Considered Iran a state seeking to acquire nuclear weapons through some of the indicators and scientific evidence and that it is seeking to enrich uranium to a higher percentage than the 5% has reached 20% according to some intelligence reports and some IAEA inspectors who prevented Iran sometimes access to its nuclear facilities, which raising the degree of uncertainty in its nuclear program and push the big countries, especially the United States and the Gulf states and Israel, to raise their voices in general this enrichment and demand it stop. The crisis has reached the extent of threatening to beat up these facilities or to wage war by Israel, and even by the United States of America. The Iran adheres to the legal right to enrichment and declare the intention to produce nuclear weapons. But between the Western suspicion of Iran's nuclear intentions and denial of Iran to these suspicions and accusations, the wider gap between Iran and the big powers that used the UN Security Council and political clout to impose sanctions on Iran influenced effectively in the Iranian economy and reflected on the political and economic life and on the nuclear file management. The obvious question here is: Why prevent major countries Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to intervene to prevent the enrichment process and did not intervene in cases such as Israel, India, Pakistan and Korea? And whether the issue is the issue of uranium enrichment and nuclear weapons or that the other dimensions of the case?

Agreement or deal?
Iran managed this file in a manner ranging between sclerosis in maintaining its right to enrichment and diplomacy in attempts to reach a solution is not to deny that right or to abolish it with the Permanent announcing its nuclear program is peaceful and the desire to establish the best of relations with its neighbors.
With the geopolitical changes that have affected the political reality in the region and the ocean, and alter the balance of geostrategic power between the parties to the changing world order, and with the emergence of terrorism as a lever for a multitude of movements for change in the region, and the emergence of Iran as a regional player «many arms», influential and active on the geopolitical stage and geostrategic extending from Afghanistan Even the Mediterranean Sea, the major countries of the view that up to «appropriate agreement» with them (the confluence of interests), was the interim Geneva agreement this expression of a new and pragmatic vision in resolving complex international crises through diplomatic means, which may establish an international understandings coming addresses resolve other crises chronic issue Palestine, as a crisis or a modern Syria, Iraq, or possibly face more complex and urgent, such as terrorism and religious movements expiatory emerging in the region, including threatening the interests of the major powers the same risk.
Moreover, this agreement may reflect positively and ease tension in the region between Iran and neighboring countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, and between Iran and the United States is behind Israel and the Palestinian cause, and related crises are intertwined, and interests intersect over the Greater Middle East (Theater North Africa and Egypt to Yemen, and the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Abralarac, Syria, Lebanon, and an extension to Turkey and the Caspian Sea, and from there to Afghanistan and Central Asian states, Russia and China).
You might as well pay the agreed Iranian - American (specifically), or pay some affected by the establishment of an alliance Mnawye to limit Iran's strategic gains in the region, and this is what mysteries and Tbachireh began to emerge ...


Saudi Arabia have indicated their willingness to negotiate with Iran and extend an invitation to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Saudi Arabia have indicated their willingness to negotiate with Iran and extend an invitation to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

© AFP / archive
Last updated: 05/14/2014

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said on Tuesday in Riyadh, the kingdom invited Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had explaining that Riyadh was ready to "negotiate" with Tehran.

Saudi Arabia has welcomed earlier, and cautiously, the agreement of Geneva, saying that it could be an "initial step towards a comprehensive solution" to the Iranian nuclear program if the "availability of good intentions."
In a visit of the US for President Barack Obama to Saudi Arabia, a US official on the importance of this visit confirmed and said, "I think it was important to get a chance to come to see the king and the face-to-face and to clarify the extent of the insistence of the president to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. "
Prince Turki al-Faisal, former intelligence chief had said earlier in a security conference in the Bahraini capital Manama, it is for the Gulf States should also be prepared for any possible outcome of the talks of nuclear Iran with world powers.
On Tuesday, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal in Riyadh that the kingdom invited Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had explaining that Riyadh was ready to "negotiate" with Tehran.
He said during a press conference on the sidelines of a forum of cooperation between the Arab world and Central Asia, "We want a meeting with Iran's neighbor in our relationships with them and we will conduct negotiations with it."
He said al-Faisal, "We will talk with them and if there was a hope that the differences will be settled to the satisfaction of the two countries. We also hope that Iran be included in efforts to make a safe and prosperous region and not be part of the problem of insecurity in the region."
He pointed to the expression of a desire to restore communication between the two countries expressed by Iranian President (Hassan Rohani) and Foreign Minister (Javad Zarif). "
"We have sent the invitation of Foreign Minister to visit Saudi Arabia, but determined to do the visit did not turn into reality yet. But we Snstqublh at any time it deems appropriate" to come.
The tense relations between the two countries since the Islamic Revolution in Tehran in 1979, but worsening in the past years due to the conflict in Syria in particular.
In addition to that Tehran supports the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, it is the main backer of the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah, which is fighting alongside the Syrian regime forces against armed opponents.
Saudi Arabia openly supports some Syrian opposition parties.
Coincides invitation Riyadh to Tehran with the start of the Western powers and Iran at the Vienna negotiations on its nuclear program.
As well as nuclear and Syrian files, Saudi Arabia does not consider favorably to what it describes as "interference" in Bahrain, Iran, Iraq and Yemen are all adjacent to the kingdom from the east and the north and south.

Iranian nuclear agreement in Geneva

Iranian nuclear agreement in Geneva
Number thirteen year 1 4 4 (zero Muharram 1435 AH) December 2013 m)
By: Mahmoud Ismail

Issued by Muslim scholars gathered in Lebanon

Sheikh Mohammed Amr

Ghassan Abdullah

Director in charge:
Ali Youssef al-Musawi

Site supervision:
Ali Pro

Finally, after years of negotiations, the major countries of the Islamic Republic have reached an agreement on Iran's nuclear program at the end of marathon talks in Geneva. Agreement, which was announced the dawn of November 24 to respect Iran's right to acquire nuclear knowledge states. Will ease the sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic gradually, including economic sanctions, which will disappear after six months from the signing of the agreement.
I've been Declaration agreement during a press conference attended by Iranian negotiators, led by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, and the foreign ministers of the six countries, as well as EU foreign minister Catherine Ashton, that followed in the United Nations headquarters in Geneva a joint declaration includes an agreement on a plan work on the Iranian nuclear program, marking the six major powers reach an agreement with Iran to solve its nuclear program.
Reactions on the agreement
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that the nuclear agreement is an important result, but it is only a first step, hoping that the parties will be able to progress in a way that allows re confidence.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, welcomed the agreement, expressing confidence in Iran's cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, pointing out that the agreement means that "we agree on the need to recognize Iran's right for peaceful atom, including the right to enrichment." Lavrov stressed that the nuclear deal may be reflected positively on the Syrian crisis .. US President Barack Obama welcomed the agreement, saying it is an important first step, stressing that no sanctions on Iran during the six months if committed by agreement.
For his part, US Secretary of State John Kerry said that the agreement on the nuclear program will make the world safer.
In turn, French President Francois Hollande, welcomed the agreement, regarding it as an important step in the right direction, and thus towards the "normalization of our relations with Iran." French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius also hailed the Geneva agreement, describing it as an important progress on the path to peace and security.
As described by German Foreign Minister Guido faster Philly Geneva agreement a turning point, Syria welcomed the agreement, which it described as historic, and considered the Syrian Foreign Ministry that Israel remains the only obstacle to a world free of weapons of mass destruction Middle East.
Chairman of the enemy government, Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the agreement, describing the historical error and bad matter, while his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said that the agreement represents a major diplomatic victory for Iran years ago.
Maybe a new regional scene is taking shape in the region after the agreement reached by the Islamic Republic of Iran on its nuclear program with six world powers, especially with regard to the Syrian crisis. The agreement is a new stage in the Western relationship with Iran, are supposed to reflect on the relationship between Iran and the countries of the region.
Islamic Republic of Iran have succeeded in concluding an agreement on its nuclear program, which in this success has imposed itself as a player regionally and internationally will have an important active role in finding solutions to the outstanding issues in the region, particularly the Syrian crisis.
Crown transcendence time .. America is reaching out to Iran!
Crown acerbic remarks time, threats and directing is no longer a military strike against Tehran useless, this scene is a summary of recent American policy direction of Iran. Talk now, revolves around the American-Iranian rapprochement, and open a new page in relations between the two countries, visits between the two countries, officials openly, and telephone contact between US President Barack Obama with Iranian President Hassan Rohani in a gesture is the first of its kind since the Islamic revolution in Iran 1979.
The question arises: What is the secret behind America's rush toward the "Tehran" and alleviate the confrontation with them after years of historical animosity between the two countries?
Many believe that the recent events in the region and the inability of Washington for a military strike on Syria and placed in an awkward position. America, the most powerful military state in the world, did not dare to commit "Follies" in Syria, especially after the strong statements of Syria's allies (Russia, Iran).
American retreat from the strike in spite of possessing marine fleets did not come only after deep and careful studies, and possibly US officials saw the futility directing such a strike because they will not achieve any benefits for them.
What is known is that the US influence in the region vanished away. I have shaken America and implicated after entering Iraq, and here now get involved more and lose their balance in the region, especially after the growing influence of the axis of "resistance and opposition," and therefore America has held that there is no room to open a new page with Iran, and to improve the relationship dramatically with Tehran.
It has nothing to do specifically with President Hassan Rohani, described as the head of a moderate, unlike the previous counterpart Ahmadinejad, since each stage her experiences .. and Ahmadinejad play its role to the fullest, and was the right man to stand against American threats and Astalaúha on others. If America wants to reach out to Iran to have done before, especially in the era of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, the president is known as the most moderate of all Iranian presidents, but did not do so, as Saudi Arabia did not do in spite of attempts by Khatami convergence hard with it. America has realized that it is pointless war and threats of assault on others, and also the feasibility of sanctions and beaten with an iron fist, The year 2013 is different than others, and the world is now before the new system is not where America is the strongest.
Locally will be American - Iranian rapprochement many gains, would be "breaking the embargo" imposed on Iran, the most prominent result of this convergence, which is beneficial to the Iranian economy.
And the Arab world, will be less units Arab hostility to Iran, and will be forced American allies of Arab States to deal with Iran as a "friendly country", and thus Cetkmm the mouths of these direction of Iran's nuclear program, as will stop Saudi Arabia from the use of "sectarian card" and hit the Arabs disagreements sectarian (Sunni, Shia) In order to deepen the hatred for the Iranians.
American-Iranian rapprochement does not mean Iran to give up its Arab allies and the Russians, Vmhor "resistance and opposition" will increase the strength and hardness, and will result in a lot of resolving Arab differences.
In the region, the more wary of this convergence is Israel. Netanyahu explained that publicly and said he would seek to reduce this convergence.
According to Israeli media reports that the Prime Minister of the State of the failure of the US occupation will be remembered their contacts with North Korea, and the US side will say that it is better not to reach any agreement.
The Israelis want to be "Tehran" in the range of "American anger," Iran is the only country in the Middle East region, which constitutes a real threat, as well as the great supporter of the Palestinian and Lebanese resistances, and the interests of the Zionists is a continuation of US-Iranian hostility and the lack of any rapprochement. We are, then, in front of new developments, but the outcome of these results undoubtedly in the interest of the axis of resistance and opposition, which adds another victory against the other axis.
Nuclear deal to slap a new Israel
Interim Agreement between the Islamic Republic and the group form (5 +1) over Tehran's nuclear program, a new slap to Tel Aviv, which is reflected by senior political leaders and security statements, as well as the Media that the enemy, which began to focus on the monitoring of these statements and the campaign of anger and criticism of Washington's direction . This anger shows the existence of a serious Israeli fears of a change in the form of the international map, after the deal, which would give Iran the real weight in the region and the world.
Israel has launched a diplomatic campaign aimed at eliminating what it considers a bad deal with Iran on its nuclear program. The campaign included phone calls directly between Netanyahu and a number of Western leaders to persuade them to refrain from any hasty agreement that does not lead to the desired goal completely stop Tehran from enriching uranium. One of those leaders objected responded by saying, "From our perspective, these negotiations and this transaction is a positive development."
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu did not miss a single opportunity to express their opposition to resolve between Tehran and major powers to end the nuclear crisis. Highlighted the emergence of Netanyahu was his speech to the annual meeting of the Jewish Federation of North America, when the face Speaking to attend, describing the agreement as a serious and affect the existence of the Jews, and then asked, "Do you want it?", Came to answer "no", Netanyahu said then, "If Feltvalo something about the subject. "
Netanyahu's opposition to any deal with Iran had backfired and led to securing a satisfactory agreement for the American side and the West. But Netanyahu, risking the possibility of deterioration of the distinguished relations between Israel and the United States if the negotiations fail, which could lead to a military confrontation, then Netanyahu will bear the responsibility.
Israeli comments on the nuclear agreement in Geneva was least of which is the expression of disappointment, because the approval of all attempts to topple obstruction pursued by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and put Iran on the nuclear threshold.
Media that the enemy and began counting the Israeli casualties and how Netanyahu's efforts went in vain, although the French respond to him. Maariv newspaper considered that the loss is the largest in the exclusion of the military option off the table what it means loss of $ 11 billion spent by Israel on the setting for this option, because Iran graduated from the battle without being attacked or disintegration of its nuclear program or the fall of the regime.
Israeli newspapers focused on the post-agreement with respect to the growing regional role of Iran in the region and carrying out a key role in regional arrangements, in exchange for Israeli influence diminished.
In the same context, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman warned that the recognition of Iran's right to enrich uranium would lead to a dangerous and crazy nuclear arms race in the Middle East race.
Strained relations between Washington and Tel Aviv
The relationship between Israel and the United States are ambiguous, the dispute is about this time is the first step in the nuclear deal with Iran. The current crisis is already one of the largest eruptions of anger in relations between the United States and Israel, has been getting worse before it gets better. Since Menachem Begin, Ronald Reagan rejected a peace plan in 1982, did not criticize Israel, that any American diplomatic initiative a major publicity.
In a rousing speech on November 10, it came Netanyahu to invite Jewish leaders in the United States to exploit their influence to stop what he called a bad deal with Iran.
Has never ascended the Foreign Minister of US podium in an Arab capital to draw a warning to the Israeli prime minister to stop interfering in the American diplomatic efforts, and provide a critique until after the agreement was reached. This is what John Kerry in a remarkable news conference held to consider in November 11 in the United Arab Emirates.
There are three main aspects to criticize Israel for the policy of the United States, Iran's direction are:
1. The terms of the strategy: Israel is concerned that the US administration has quietly abandoned its insistence that Iran suspend all enrichment activities, so that the goal is no longer to put an end to this enrichment.
2. The terms of tactics: Israel fears that the agreement in Geneva would not lead to any decline in the capabilities of Iran's uranium enrichment.
3. In practice: Israel has complained of not carrying out the details of the Geneva agreement before accomplished.
What exacerbates things, and that Washington and Tel Aviv are suffering from a crisis of confidence parallel to the peace process between the Palestinians and the Zionists.
Some err when seen tensions between Washington and Tel Aviv on the Iranian nuclear program as an additional chapter of the differences between Obama and Netanyahu, the tension between the United States and Israel stems from disagreements over a deeper respect national interests between the two countries. The Israeli government considers any preliminary agreement on Iran's nuclear program is a gift from the US administration to the Iranian government, which spent the past two decades in the construction of an expanded nuclear program threatens to Tehran to obtain a nuclear bomb, in the opinion of Israel.
The Israeli officials persuaded the US Congress against the White House and proceed to impose additional sanctions on Iran, and a gold member of the Senate as far as accusing Kerry of pursuing an anti-Israel line. The rising voice of Israel in the face of the issue it considers a threat to its existence is not surprising, but this is a coordinated campaign to derail the agreement with Iran gives the impression that Israel Tthriq of the war, demanding the US administration put Israel's interests above the interests of Washington.
France tried to block Iranian nuclear deal
Secret negotiations resulted in an agreement in principle reached by the Iranians and the Americans, which Laurent Fabius, French Foreign Minister to defer payment of all his appointments and go directly to Geneva, where he expressed his pessimism has taken place. Then, is no longer room for doubt that it comes to an offensive strategy by the French minister. Fabius, said, "There are beaten with sticks, we want to avoid to achieve half the victory." The Fabius's comments, which quickly circulated and news agencies have been strained scenes Inter Continental Hotel, where the delegates were holding consultations in various respects, and that was the first time you go out to the public about specific points of the agreement. Then, there is no longer only talk about the obstruction of the French talks.
Rose American act did not wait too long, as expressed by one of the members of the delegation accompanying John Kerry in an interview with some journalists saying, "The Americans and the European Union and the Iranians are working hard together months ago to this proposal, and this is only an attempt by Fabius to show himself that he linked to the negotiations in including late stage. "
These statements came back and repeated the French foreign minister twice after the plenary session of the negotiations, the statements had drawn attention to it, especially since Fabius was the only one who spoke publicly, and most of the time against the current, clearly registered differentiation.
Tehran, President Tweets Rohani came on (Twitter) "Make no mistake, the Cold War mentality zero-sum, and lead to the loss of everyone." But the agreement seemed to be out from behind bars. The hit sticks, they were resumed in November 20 with the recent resumption of negotiations.
The position requires France was a real anger if he had already had an opportunity weaker agreement between Iran and America, but the French position and a chance to make the conclusion of the agreement between the two largest.
The position of France has the approval and acceptance of the neo-conservatives in Washington. The US administration has wondered: Why France take it upon themselves to slow the momentum of the negotiations with Iran, although it is in a state of war with Tehran to occur, the Washington will bear the bulk of the cost? France, like other players in the Iranian drama has dubious motives.
During a visit by French President Francois Hollande, the Zionist entity, put four conditions to reach a solution with Iran over its nuclear program are:
1. Full nuclear facilities under international control mode immediately.
2 - suspension of uranium enrichment by 20%.
3. The reduction of the existing inventory.
4. stop building the Arak reactor.
Hollande confirmed that negotiations always remains better than resorting to force with Iran, adding that the goal is to completely abandon France Iran for nuclear weapons.
New regional architecture
Last summer, President Barack Obama asked the national security adviser, Susan Rice, a list of core interests in the Middle East, the result was two items. First, is the entity that talks between the enemy and the Palestinians, despite the fact that everyone in the US administration realizes the long-term it a shot.
The second item, is to follow the nuclear diplomacy with Iran, which has long been a priority, because the only alternatives of successful negotiations are war or Iran's possession of nuclear weapons.
After a number of rounds of negotiations with the Iranian president, Sheikh Hassan Rohani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, there was optimistic in the US administration believe that the big strategic opportunity can be grasped at this level.
It seems that America will not play the role of policeman in the Middle East in the future. Has begun to talk about a new regional architecture, in addition to questioning the traditional strategic accounts in the region, which is heading toward destabilizing the existing balance of power in decades, which worries Saudi Arabia and Israel alike.
There is a change in the basis of the direction of US policy on the region's current variables, this change is based on three priorities: the negotiations with Iran, pay negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and the search for a political solution to the crisis in Syria.
These priorities are set by Susan Rice, the national security adviser, in her article, where he explained that the goal of this policy is to avoid sinking of President of the United States in the recurrent crises in the Middle East, at a time when there are other bets, such as those that appear in Asia, which require attention. Perhaps the most striking indicator of this policy is the negotiations, which began with Tehran, which constitutes an essential element of this transformation, the simple act for these negotiations should be on the countries in the region to look at the consequences of the agreement.
The first expressed displeasure of the new US policy is to Saudi Arabia. Saudi situation is in conformity with the Israeli position in this regard, because there is an implicit agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel, even though they were not be living formal relations, but there are frequent informal contacts have become official if needed. Saudi Arabia recognizes that the US deal with Iran, not only in order to obtain assurances about its nuclear program, but it has to do with the recognition of Iran's regional role, and this is what worries Saudi Arabia and paid to support the armed groups in Syria and to consider their relationship with al-Qaeda that is secondary.