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 ...

References:

• en.wikipedia.org/.../Geneva_interim_agreement_on_Iranian_nuclear_pr

• www.stratfor.com/weekly/israelis-saudis-and-iranian-agreement

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

• 
  
• Twitter
• 
  
• 
  

• print

© AFP / archive

Text France 24 france24_ar Follow on Twitter

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 Home page Front page Previous issues Director-General: Sheikh Mohammed Amr Editor: Ghassan Abdullah Director in charge: Ali Youssef al-Musawi Site supervision: Ali Pro Messaging	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.
	Top of page

Debate in Israel about Obama's visit and «nuclear concessions» Iran

Graphic and distributed by the Israeli government press office in the framework of preparations for Obama's visit. (A.b.o)

Translation - Abdel-Aziz al-Muzaini

Israeli security website reported that US President Barack Obama is very determined to visit Israel on the twentieth of March / March whether this formed the new Netanyahu government, or continued the previous government.

According to confirm the White House spokesman, on the ninth of this month, the Obama will not try to influence the final formation of the new government, and that Netanyahu and his responsibility.

According to the security site permit from the US Secretary of State John Kerry issued the same day, contrary to what he said a spokesman for the White House, where Kerry stressed that it was not appropriate to visit Israel before the formation of the new government.

And saw "Tech Deepak" that the previous statements by American officials are not only political tricks, and never to value differences about the appropriate time to visit Israel, and when the ends of the Netanyahu government is formed. Israeli site and confirmed that the problem has become -tbaka sources of private, complex and dangerous, according to a number of Israeli officials.

Obama will visit Israel shortly after the meeting between Iran and world powers (5 +1) almost two weeks ago in Kazakhstan, which elaborated the US media and the West in talking about it through reports and many analyzes, which included all signals without detailing the existence of optimism unusual, and talk about that there is little light at the end of the dark tunnel.

Israeli website, quoting Western sources said that the next meeting between Iran and the group (5 +1) will clarify whether there was such optimism based or not, and this meeting will be held in April next after Obama's planned visit to Israel shortly, and will be allocated to support this progress .

It seems that behind this diplomatic rhetoric are three basic reasons made both from Washington, London, Moscow, Paris and Berlin see the dim light at the end of the Iranian nuclear tunnel.

The first reason is President Obama's approval on the survival of the nuclear reactor (Fordow) held by Iran's underground works, which means that the Iranians will not be forced to close as Israel wants.

The second reason is Obama's approval on the Iranians continue to enrich uranium to 20 percent, and this is also strongly opposed by Israel.

The third reason is that it will not be required after the Iranians now send enriched uranium at a rate ranging between 3.5 to 5 percent out of the country.

Israeli security site and said there is a humiliating no reason for the surprise of Obama's cancellation of his visit to the Knesset of its agenda in Israel, because he knows that he can not there to justify the concessions made by the Iranians, and would only give a speech in the Office of the Presidency of the government to pass his message to the public opinion in Israel.

He said, "Tech Deepak," it seems that the former head of military intelligence, Amos Yadlin Division was right when he said that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will take only one night, the Air Force terminate Iran's nuclear file permanently. At a time when the US president's plane landing at the airport, the military band and start playing greet him the moment he came out of the plane, a small group of Israeli fighters away from the noise of this implementation of the action, which does not take place only a few hours.

Democrats send threatening letters to voters: We're watching to see if you vote

Use your key for the next article

Next: Alabama rights flap indicative of problem in gun community

November 1, 2014 10:20 AM MST

• 
  

Democrats send threatening letters to voters in "vote-shaming" effort.

Darren McCollester/Getty Images

It seems that Democrats in at least two states have adopted a rather unique way of getting out the vote. On Thursday, Jonathan Coulton, a musician based in Brooklyn, New York, posted a picture of a letter he received from local Democrats, The Blaze said on Friday. The letter, Erica Ritz said, is similar to one sent by Democrats in North Carolina.
"Who you vote for is your secret," the letter said. "But whether or not you vote is public record." The letter goes on to say that "many" organizations are monitoring turnout in his neighborhood and, the letter adds, "are disappointed" by the inconsistent turnout of his neighbors.
But the letter doesn't end there. It goes on to tell Coulton they will be "reviewing" voter rolls to see if "you joined your neighbors who voted" in the midterm elections this Tuesday. "If you do not vote this year," the letter concludes, "we will be interested to hear why not."
"I think the Democrats just threatened me," Coulton said on Twitter. One person responded to Coulter: "We just got the same letter!"
"Wow dude, that's desperate, frightening, and a good reason to vote for someone else just to deny that tactic from working," another person said. Another Twitter respondent called it "creepy."
According to WRAL in North Carolina, voters in at least four counties received two versions of a letter characterized as "vote-shaming." One letter provides a "report card" of their voting history while the other version suggests the voter would be surveyed as to whether or not they cast a ballot in November's general election.
The letters say they were paid for by the North Carolina Democratic Party, and include Democratic Party logos. They are also signed by Patsy Keever, who is identified as the "election day coordinator." Keever, WRAL adds, is a former state representative and a current vice-chairman of the state Democratic Party.
One letter says that "public records will tell the community at-large whether you vote or not. As a service, our organization monitors turnout in your community, and it would be an understatement to say that we are disappointed by the inconsistent voting of many of your neighbors." The letter also says the Party intends to conduct a survey on the voting experience and includes a somewhat veiled threat: "If you do not vote this year, we will be interested to hear why not."
On Wednesday, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh attacked the letters, calling them another sign of desperation by Democrats. He also said the tactic would backfire.
"If you ask me, this kind of thing could backfire big time," he said. "The primary agent of fear employed is, 'They don't care whether you vote! They want to find out where you are. The Man wants to find out who you are. The Man wants to be able to track you,' right? That's what they tell people the voter ID is really for, and they scare them by that the voter ID is nothing more than The Man being able to track 'em."
"This is a common ploy used by the Reverend Jackson and Al Sharpton and any of these other civil rights activists who are opposed to voter ID, because without voter ID, they can cheat," he added. "With voter ID it's tougher and tougher to cheat. So they prey on the fears of African-Americans who have already been told to distrust the authorities. And the voter ID is just a trick."
Now, he said, Democratic Party officials are sending letters telling them they're being watched. "But once again," he said, "it's another sign of desperation on the Democrat Party side about the election and vote turnout and all of these things that are tied into it."
State Board of Elections officials said in 2012 the letters aren't illegal, WRAL added. This year, Mark Binker said, election officials did not comment on the letters.

Suggested Links

• Affidavit: Minnesota Democrat threatens to kill president of gun rights group
• Black pastor target of death threats for supporting Republican candidate
• Idaho Democrat with history of mental illness arrested for aggravated assault
• Sheila Jackson Lee staffer calls blogger 'un-American,' threatens IRS action
• Supporter of Colo. Dem. Evie Hudak threatens to murder recall petitioners

I AM POSTING UP ALL MY DOCS ON WORD PRESS EVERY THING I HAVE OVER 3000

20100224_aws_trans http://wp.me/p4ie7h-2AU via @wordpressdotcom