It is complete nonsense that Iran ordered the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-26528745
„A documentary claims to have uncovered fresh evidence that Iran, not Libya, ordered the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988.“

This claim is easily refutable nonsense. Why? Because the „source“, the „former senior Iranian intelligence official“ Abolghasem Mesbahi is all but reliable as already asserted by FBI officials who checked and analyzed his statements:

„The Iranian defector who was the source of Argentina’s allegation that Iranian officials began planning the July 18, 1994, terror bombing of a Jewish community center at a meeting nearly a year earlier had been dismissed as unreliable by US officials, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)agent who led the US team assisting the investigation in 1997-98.“
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA25Ak02.html

The source for the Lockerbie claim is the same dubious person: Abolghasem Mesbahi.

Huffington Posts German edition features an article which raises legitimate doubt regarding the authencity of Mesbahis claims:
http://www.huffingtonpost.de/ali-s-rad-/fakezeugen-aus-dem-iran-i_b_4870491.html
The article calls Mesbahi a „witness by profession“, who has been behind some of the wildest anti-Iranian claims: Not only did Mesbahi accused Iran of being behind Lockerbie and the Buenos Aires bombing. He even blamed Iran for being involved in the 9/11 attacks.

„American intelligence officials had concluded Mesbahi did not have the continued high-level access to Iranian intelligence officials throughout the 1990s and beyond that he was claiming. They regarded him as someone who was desperate for money and ready to „provide testimony to any country on any case involving Iran,“ according to Bernazzani.“
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/5798:crackpot-antiislam-activists-serial-fabricators-and-the-tale-of-iran-and-911

Why Israels claim of capturing Iranian weapons for Gaza is nonsense

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26516704
„the Israeli military unveiled what it alleged was a cache of Syrian-made weapons being sent by Iran to militants in the Gaza Strip.“

Here some reasons why this story is an Israeli fabrication to torpedo the US talks with Iran and another desperate attempt to mislead the international community:
a) For one thing, Syria is not at all in the position to „export“ weapons to anywhere, let alone to Iran, a country with decades of experience in development and production of various short range rockets
b) The Syrian army needs every single bullet right now. Why does not Iran export own rockets to Hamas and instead reduces Syrias bitterly needed arsenal?
c) Syrias relationship with Hamas is at an all time low. Why should they help arm Hamas right now?
d) The Persian Gulf is full of american warships:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Forces_Central_Command
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Fifth_Fleet
Why should rockets be flown from Syria to Bandar Abbas and then all the way back to Iraq, risking to be intercepted by the US navy:
ship_490_ENGLISH
e) How was the alleged Iranian weapons shipment supposed to break through the Israeli maritime blockade of Gazas coast when even aid flotillas are not passed through?
f) Iran currently has not a good relationship with Hamas and has met with PLO officials in Teheran just recently. One of the main reason is that Hamas took an anti-government position in the Syrian civil war and supports the rebel side
g) Hamas is also in tensions with the new Egyptian government so it would be no good idea to move Hamas bound weapons through the Suez canal
h) What should be the advantage of allegedy hiding the rockets below cement bags when Israel does not allow cement to enter Gaza either? Israel says it could be used to build bunkers or tunnels
i) Why are the cement bags labelled „Made in I.R. Iran“ in English letters but without any Farsi/Arabic script? Is Iran now a proud exporter of cement to non-middle-eastern countries?

Iran 2009 vs. Syria 2011

The mass demonstrations and protests in Iran after the allegedly forged presidential elections of June 2009 were on a much bigger scale than what happened in Syria after Macrh 2011.
Despite the participation of up to 3 Million people on some days in Tehran alone and despite the disproportional use of lethal violence by the security forces the „green revolution“ ebbed away after a few weeks.

There are several reasons why the protests did not turn into an armed rebellion but the main factors differentiating Irans „green revolution“ from the Syrian version of the „arab spring“ were the following:
– The protesters were not armed and nobody armed them in the process either. There were few casualties among the riot police and the Bassij militia but not as a result of systematic guerilla like violence
– The protesters were not instigated by outside powers to fight against an autocratic regime that was tyrannizing and killing them on sectarian (or ethnic) grounds
– There is a persian saying „The knife has not reached the bone (yet)“ which basically means that despite many social injustices, reprisals, persecutions, economic inequalities and mismanagement and the governments constant interference in peoples private life…still daily life was very much on an acceptable level

In Syria, however, from early on there were deadly ambushes on army and police leaving to the deaths of dozens of security personell in the very first weeks. It is factually completely untrue that the protests were nothing but peaceful for months.
The protests were „contaminated“ quite early with anti-regime accusations and complaints on religious grounds. The state was accused of applying injustice and violence against its opponents because of the latters religious affiliation.
This was by and large utter nonsense but it was meant to serve a well-planned purpose, namely to defame a secular (although autocratic) government as sectarian. Not only there are many Sunnis in the highest political, economic and military ranks of Syrias elite, Bashar al Assad and his brother are married to Sunni women and their paternal grandmother was also Sunni. Now, one could check how many Saudi, Bahraini, Qatari or other „Gulf“ princes and „notables“ are married to Shia women…

The intention behind Syrias portrayal as an allegedly anti-Sunni regime was clearly to incite sectarian sentiment and play the majority card:
a) „Alawite“ Syria is between Sunni countries or border areas with high Sunni presence (Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, western Iraq). This itself makes it totally inconceivable to accuse the Assad regime of having made the conflict sectarian
b) The western-friendly Arab petrodollar monarchies of the Persian Gulf are all ruled by Sunni Kings and Princes. They control the two most influential media networks of the Arab world: Al-Jazeera and l-Arabiyya
c) Hundreds of Millions of North African Arabs are Sunni allowing for a recruiting potential of tens of thousands of „Jihadists“ from among vast numbers of unemployed or socially weak youth. In fact it has turned out that the Jihad idea has attracted even central asian and european Sunnis

The question is whether there was a movement aiming at more reforms, freedoms, human rights and democracy that was hijacked quite quickly or whether this short-lived „secular“ revolution was on a too small scale to be considered a mass movement.
At any rate the power driving the Syrian insurgency is clearly militant Salafi islamism. The forces fighting are not even distantly moderate, academic or technocratic. Their motivation is establishing a (probably sectarian) religious state, not a civil democracy adhering to human rights:

„In fact, the only rebel factions still strong enough to resist and fight the regime on the latest fronts are the radical Islamists. The town of Azizeh, just outside the Marjeh area in the east, the strategically vital Sheikh Najjar industrial zone, the old city and Aleppo’s central prison are all defended by al-Qaeda’s affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, as well as Salafist militants Ahrar al-Sham, a member of the Islamic Front.“
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/02/barrel-bombing-syria-aleppo-rebels-regime-war.html

Of course, the US, UK and France along with their Arab „partners“, Israel and Turkey still want to stick to the now grotesque narrative that Syrias war is between a hated, russian/iranian-held, sectarian minority regime and the majority of „it´s“ reform demanding, peaceful, secular, moderate, pro western, democracy minded…people.
So, no matter how much it turns that the „bad guys“ are not only ISIS and JN, but also the other Salafi Islamists who
– are either openly hailing Al Qaeda and its principles
– or closely cooperating with JN (and sometimes even ISIS) as Al Qaedas Syrian branch:
http://www.thenational.ae/the-syrian-rebels-who-have-no-problem-fighting-alongside-al-qaeda
See also: http://100wordz.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/islamic-front-no-answer-for-syria-conflict/

 

 

Israels Haaretz admits Israeli terrorism against Iran

So, finally Israeli press is admitting that Israel has been assassinating Iranian scientists for years, which is nothing short of (state) terrorism:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.577360

Of course, you won´t hear western press and even less western politicians admit these acts of terror, let alone condemn them.

Read also: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-pushing-israel-to-stop-assassinating-iranian-nuclear-scientists/
An important secondary insight of the terror revelations by Israeli sources themselves is that the Iranians were damn right when they were accusing Israel of terrorism for years. All the time their allegations were brushed off as either conspiracy theory or „propaganda“.

In case you did not know: Iran is sending money and fighters to Al Qaida to kill Shias in Syria

Is this supposed to be a joke?

„Today the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced the designation of a key Iran-based al-Qa’ida facilitator who supports al-Qa’ida’s vital facilitation network in Iran, that operates there with the knowledge of Iranian authorities.  The network also uses Iran as a transit point for moving funding and foreign fighters through Turkey to support al-Qa’ida-affiliated elements in Syria, including the al-Nusrah Front.“
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2287.aspx

Give me a break: Is the department really claiming that Iran is now sending funds and fighters to al-Qaida in Syria, including the Nusrah Front?
The claim is not only shameless, it is totally sick.
The Nusrah has publicly and more than once taken „credit“ for having targetted and killed Iranians and Shias in Syria. They have proudly burned Husseiniyas and shelled Shia mosques. They have beheaded prisoners of war after having accused them of being „Iranian dogs“ or „Shia infidels“.

No person with a single functioning brain cell does believe this garbage, unless one finds it plausible to claim that Iran is simultaneously supporting and fighting each of Syrias warring factions . Why? Because according to the US and many pro-rebel (mainly arab) sources Iran is behind Assad, Hizbullah and Iraqi Shia militias as well as their most deadly adversaries Nusra Front and ISIS.

The biggest threat to the world of Islam are EXTREMIST (Takfiri) Sunnis

The statements in this article are not relating to or directed against mainstream Sunnis, be they  „moderate/secular“ or conservatively pious.
I am specifically speaking of the „Takfeeris“, those who declare other muslims, especially non-Sunni muslims or nonconforming moderate Sunni muslims Unbelievers (Kuffar). The next step which the Takfeeris call for and actively work on – be it through arming and funding Jihadis or going to „Jihad“ themselves – is the extermination of the „Unbelievers“.

The broad majority of Takfeeris belong to the Wahhabi/Salafi school of thought , which itself is a part of the minority school of Hanbalis within Sunni Islam. The problem, however, is that this radical ideology is widespread among both private and political circles of the Arab monarchies of the southern Persian Gulf, which the West cannot really afford to antagnoize and punish because
a) they are (among) the most important global suppliers of petroleum and natural gas
b) they are harbouring US military forces
c) they are (especially Saudi Arabia) very important buyers of western weapons
d) they have bought themselves into western companies and economies
e) they are hostile to Iran
f) they have deposited hundreds of billions of USD in american banks, which if transferred elsewhere could cause a massive economic crash for the US.

The article below written by awarded expert journalist Patrick Cockburn highlights the irresponsible behaviour of the Gulf monarchies and the dangers that are threatening the Shia people:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/sunni-monarchs-back-youtube-hate-preachers-antishia-propaganda-threatens-a-sectarian-civil-war-which-will-engulf-the-entire-muslim-world-9028538.html

Why Iran is supporting Syria

Some notes on the Iranian support for the syrian regime:
1. First of all, Iran does not support Assad as a person. Iran supports the Syrian regime which is and has been a decade long ally of Iran in the region.
2. Irans motives are neither (a) “expansion of Shiism” nor (b) “suppression of Sunnis”
Had it been (a), Iran would forcefully (try to) “shiitize” the non-Shia parts of Iran.
Had it been (b) Iran would not have supported Sunni Palestinians, Sunni Bosnians or the Sunni majority “Northern Alliance” in Afghanistan. Plus, Iran in the 80s accepted millions of overwhelmingly Sunni afghan refugees while itself being at war with an arab country that was strongly supported by wahhabi Sunni states Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Reflecting on these FACTS anyone should be able to dump all the nonsensical trash regarding Irans alleged plan to “exterminate Sunnis” (as Yusuf al Qaradawi ridculously claimed)
3. Irans support for Syria is a defensive action. Iran did not out of the sudden send material and later men to Syria to fight an offensive war for territorial expansion or ideological export. Irans actions are an attempt to save a regime that is Iran friendly and that has a frontier with Israel but – contrary to Jordan – has not signed a peace with Israel.

To counter the constant Israeli threats Iran needs Syria as a transit land for weapons deliveries to the Hezbollah.
Now, Hezbollah is neither willing nor capable to seriously attack Israel or “liberate” Israeli territory. Instead Hezbollah has 2 roles:
a) defend the mostly Shiite southern Lebanon from getting an Israeli buffer zone again (where Palestinians could be exiled or mass deported)
b) be Irans “Joker” in case Israel attacks Iran. It is a totally different issue whether Israel has to take into account at least medium damage and casualties resulting from Hezbollah counter attacks or whether Iran has no militia on Israels doorstep to retaliate for Iran that itself lacks a common border with Israel and the necessary long range aircraft to reach that country.

(b) also applies to Syria and even on a much broader scale. Syrias military, militias etc. have by far more man power and better weaponry than Hezbollah. Syria offers much more territorial depth for Iran to deploy parts of it airforce there to bridge the distance to Israel.
Even though technically inferior to the Israeli airforce a medium size fleet along with missile defence systems around and in front of it starting from syrian soil towards Israel would leave Israel less time to react.
Iran could also place ground forces and short range artillery in the Golan area to accompany possible aerial attacks with ground attacks.
All this would not be enough to defeat Israel but it would be enough deterrence to let Israel think twice before attacking Iran for no valid reason.

So, these are the reasons why Israel and the US and at least indirectly UK and France are so keen on regime change in Syria. They know exactly that Assads removal would severely weaken Hezbollah.
Saudi Arabia and Qatars motivations for regime change are clearly the following:
– weaken Iran
– denounce and weaken Hezbollah, a Shia movement that enjoyed popularity and support among many non-Wahhabi Sunnis
– Secure further american support in case they have to encounter their own “arab springs”

Being awash in money and lacking military man power the Gulf arab countries run a huge defamation campaign against Iran and it´s arab allies by inventing the legend of an alleged large scale campaign to marginalize, suppress and kill Sunnis simply because the are Sunnis, as though Assad, Hezbollah and Iran were leading a religious war, an inner-islamic crusade against the majority of Sunnis who outnumber the Shia 15:1.
That this is pure trashtalk is obvious to anyone who is able to think without religious fervor, but some arab audience, especially in poor, socially neglected rural areas with unemployed youth suffering from low or no education proves to be receptive for such propaganda.

Israels bombing of Latakia is for torpedoing Rouhani

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24767571

„Israeli aircraft have carried out a strike near the Syrian coastal city of Latakia, a US official says.“

There is close to zero logic and military necessity in attacking defensive weapons of a neighboring country that is already stuck in a vicious and devastating civil war. The unprovoked attack on a country with which Israel is (at least officially) not at war does not become any more meaningful or legitimate even if we accept Israels claim that the destroyed weapons were supposed to be transferred to the lebanese Hezbollah.
Why is Israel so much concerned about the possible boost of the defensive capabilities of a militia in another neighboring country which has not violated a ceasefire that began 7 years ago?

Needles to object to Israels apparently unlimited „carte blanche“ to attack souvereign countries with impunity. This was the fifth or sixth such attack on Syria which Israel itself did not officially admit and which did not subject Israel to any criticism by the international mainstream media or by more or less unconditionally supportive western states. This is a disgraceful manifestation of blatant double standard. Just imagine Iran would attack a military airbase in Croatia to destroy weapons that were (allegedly or really) about to be shipped to Syrian rebels. Or Syria would attack a military convoy on the Turkish side of the border claiming it were carrying weapons for rebel fighters in Northern Syria. Nato would have declared war on Syria and each and every media outlet would have torn Assad apart.

The real motivation and purpose for Israels renewed attack on Syria is two-fold:
a) Provoke Syria to make the „mistake“ to retaliate, thus giving Israel and probably also Obama the pretext to unleash massive air raids on Syrian army positions and weaponry in order to help the rebels win a fight that they would not win otherwise in the short and mid term.
b) and this is much more important and relevant: „bomb“ Rouhani, his charm offensive and any perspective of US-Iranian rapprochment. Humiliating Syria and Assad once again is meant to provoke Iranian hardliners to undermine and defame Rouhanis peace initiative. Rouhani would be portrayed as a traitor and weak if he and Iran would ignore continuous unjustified attacks on Irans most important arab ally by the US´ most important anti-Iranian ally Israel.

The attack and also it´s time of occurrence – on the day the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said all Syria’s declared equipment for making chemical weapons had been destroyed – is no coincidence. Israel is the true and most active systematic „destabilizer“ of the Middle East and currently Israels number one priority is to achieve Rouhanis failure.

Why Irans support of Syrias regime is justified

[This was in response to a blogger, who attacked Iran for supporting Assad and squarely blamed Iran for Syrias carnage. Since, the original blog was closed, I „imported“ my entry to Radioyaran]

Iran has remained a faithful ally to a regime that despite its undeniable deficiencies and crimes is still a far better choice than “rebels” who have excelled at faking video clips right from the beginning, kidnapping, besieging, torturing and killing all kinds of “non-aligned” civilians under the farcical charge that the victims have been “Shabeeha” and as such had deserved to die.
We are speaking of “freedom fighters” who ambushed and killed TV anchormen, actors, footballers, journalists, reporters, doctors, lawyers, clerics, teachers, factory workers and unarmed policemen due to their being “supportive” of the regime or otherwise not sharing the ideology and future plans of the “revolution”.
We have an allegedly peaceful and nonviolent opposition movement that was later exposed as armed rebellion which started as early as March, 2011.
We have moderate rebels who did not hesitate to praise their radical “brothers” and in fact lamented the latters being designated as terrorists despite them engaging in repeated acts of mass executions of soldiers, alleged pro-regime militias and even Sunni clan members in favor of the government.
We have members of the moderate factions such as Farooq brigade cutting out the heart of a dead soldier or – as reported by German Spiegel in March 2012 – proudly speaking of having executed (through decapitation) mostly “Shiite” captured soldiers.
The so called revolution, completely undeserving of such a romantic and deceptive label, is more and more relying on chechen, gulf arab or North african suicide bombers and Jihadists, of which definitely noone suffered from Assads jails.

Anybody sincerely interested in stopping “Assads crimes” and bringing peace and change to Syria, should first work towards a peace conference and not torpedo it by bringing ever more unrealistic preconditions. If the syrian opposition and their mostly foreign allies are so sure that Assad is totally hated by the broad majority, they should not be afraid of Assad being a candidate in free elections under UN supervision.
But this will never happen, because Assad is still much more popular then the Ahmad Jarbaas of this world.

A response to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawis latest hate speech against Iran

1. The Sheikh says that Iran and Hezbollah want „to exterminate Sunnis“. About Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollahs leader he says: „The leader of the Party of Satan comes to fight the Sunnis… Now we know what the Iranians want… They want continued massacres to kill Sunnis,“

Comments:
a) 60% of the Syrian Army are Sunnis. If they would consider Hezbollahs motivation as „extermination of Sunnis“ they would either join the rebels or leave the battlefield
b) Hezbollah has never been a sectarian anti-Sunni movement in Lebanon and has always had coalition and political alliances with different Sunni lebanese factions
c) If Hezbollah was interested in „exterminating“ Sunnis, they would not go to Qusair and lose dozens of men. Instead they would attack Lebanons Sunni civilian population
d) Neither is Iran interested in „exterminating“ the Sunnis. If so, Iran would attack its own Sunni population in Iranian Kurdistan, Khorasan or Baluchestan
e) Not a single Iranian or Hezbollah official has ever attacked the syrian rebels for being Sunnis. Never were the rebels called „Sunni unbelievers“, „Sunni apostates“ or „Sunni traitors“
f) For many years Iran (and Assads Syria) supported the Sunni Hamas. Iran also supported the mainly Sunni afghan Northern Alliance of General Massoud against the Taliban
g) In the syrian civil war, the rebels and their wahhabi gulf-arab sponsors have clearly been the side that has acted and spoken sectarian anti-Alawi and anti-Shia. Assad and the syrian regime not once used the word „Sunni“ to characterize or „denounce“ the rebels
h) Unlike the prostitute-like character of the Hamas who turned the back on Assad after being hosted and protected by his regime for many years, Hezbollah has proven to be loyal to the syrian regime. Hezbollahs motivation to fight in Syria is not to „exterminate Sunnis“ but to secure their own supply lines from Syria to Lebanon AND to help the only arab regime that shares a border with Lebanon and supports Hezbollah.

2. The Sheikh asks „How could 100 million Shiites (worldwide) defeat 1.7 billion (Sunnis)?“

Comments:
a) Only in the Sheikhs twisted phantasy the worlds Shia are fighting (and defeating!) the wordls Sunnis. The broad majority of Shias and Sunnis have either no contact or live peaceful together
b) Where there are continuous sectarian killings it is either totally one-sided against the Shia like in Pakistan or it is the Shia who have lost much more people through attacks on pilgrims or bombings of market places, mosques and even funerals in Iraq where they even constitute the majority of the people

3. The Sheikh called Alawites „more infidel than Christians and Jews“

Comment:
Now this statement is really bewildering and embarassing for the Sheikh. Since when are Christians and Jews considered „Infidels“ in Islam? The Quran calls these communities „People of the book“ and considers them in general as „believers“