Iran partially suspends U.N. cooperation (Who Can Blame Them?)

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran announced Sunday that it was partially suspending cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, citing the “illegal and bullying” U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed on the country for its refusal to stop enriching uranium. Gholam Hossein Elham, a government spokesman, told state television that the suspension would “continue until Iran’s nuclear case is referred back to the IAEA from the U.N Security Council.”In New York, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said “a few select countries don’t have the right to abuse the Security Council.”“The Security Council has to be aware of its own position and status. Actions that are illegal, unwarranted and unjustified will reduce the credibility of the Security Council,” he said in Persian through a translator.He said Iran has repeatedly sought negotiations with the powers that drafted the resolution against the Islamic republic: the five permanent council members — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China — and Germany. But he accused those countries of lacking the political will to reach a breakthrough.

“If this political will existed, the other side wouldn’t have imposed preconditions on the talks,” Mottaki said, referring to demands by the U.S. and its allies that Iran first halt enrichment before they engage in negotiations on its nuclear program.

He said the world has two options to proceed on the nuclear issue: continued negotiations or confrontation.

“Choosing the path of confrontation … will have its own consequences,” he said without elaborating.

Elham said the Iranian Cabinet decided Sunday to suspend “code 1-3 of minor arrangements of the safeguards” with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Under Iran’s Safeguards Agreements with the IAEA, part of its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the country is obligated to inform the agency six months before it introduces nuclear material of any kind into any facility.

Beyond that, Iran has voluntarily committed itself to informing the agency of any planned new nuclear construction beforehand — a commitment it has not always kept. For instance, it delayed informing the agency three years ago that it was building tunnels in the central city of Isfahan to house parts of its uranium enrichment program.

The Security Council sanctions, which send a strong message that Iran’s defiance will leave it increasingly isolated and warn of even harsher penalties ahead, were immediately rejected by Iran, which said it had no intention of suspending enrichment.

The country claims it needs the uranium enrichment for electricity generating purposes while the United States and its allies fear the program is used for nuclear arms making.

Elham, the government spokesman, said until now Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA went beyond its requirements as a signatory to the international Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In the past Iran has kept “promptly informing” the IAEA under the organization’s safeguards about its nuclear plans, Elham said. In 2002, Iran began voluntarily implementing the IAEA safeguards.

Sunday’s decision is a response to “Saturday night’s illegal and bullying resolution by the Security Council,” Elham said.

Former U.N. nuclear inspector David Albright said Sunday’s decision could clear the way for Iran to carry out clandestine nuclear work related to enrichment — a possible pathway to nuclear arms. Albright, whose his Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security tracks Iran’s nuclear program, said that Iran may be looking to build a “backup facility” for enrichment that would remain undetected — and safe — in case of attack by the United States or Israel.

The new, moderately tougher sanctions include banning Iranian arms exports, and freezing the assets of 28 people and organizations involved in Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. About a third of those are linked to the Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps that answers to the leadership in Tehran.

They also ask countries to restrict travel by the individuals subject to sanctions, as well as arms sales to Iran and new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government.

The measure also said all sanctions would be suspended if Iran halts enrichment and made clear that the country can still accept a package of economic incentives and political rewards offered last year if it complies.

Source: Yahoo News

Neocon Advocates Civil War in Iraq as “Strategic” Policy

Daniel Pipes Finds Comfort in Muslims Killing Muslims?

By JOHN WALSH

One of the abiding myths about the War on Iraq is that the

neocons were too stupid to realize that they would confront an unrelenting, indigenous resistance to their occupation of

Iraq. Unwittingly, the story line goes, they led the

U.S. into a conflict which has now produced a civil war. But this simply does not fit the facts. The neocons clearly anticipated such an outcome before they launched their war as Stephen Zunes documents in Antiwar.com:

“Top analysts in the CIA and State Department, as well as large numbers of
Middle East experts, warned that a
U.S. invasion of

Iraq could result in a violent ethnic and sectarian conflict. Even some of the war’s intellectual architects acknowledged as much: In a 1997 paper, prior to becoming major figures in the Bush foreign policy team, David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith predicted that a post-Saddam Iraq would likely be “ripped apart” by sectarianism and other cleavages but called on the United States to “expedite” such a collapse anyway.”

Yet the line persists that the neocons had no idea what they were getting into. This cannot be correct as they think a lot about what they do and they plan carefully. Not only is that charge absurd on the face of it, but it is arrogant on the part of those who level it. And it is the worst political mistake possible ­ underestimating your adversary.

Now the neocons are beginning to advocate for civil war in

Iraq quite openly. The clearest statement of this strategy as yet comes from pre-eminent neocon and ardent Zionist Daniel Pipes. In a recent piece in the

Jerusalem Post, Pipes spills the beans. He writes:

“The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in

Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy.

Iraq‘s plight is neither a coalition responsibility nor a particular danger to the West. Fixing
Iraq is neither the coalition’s responsibility, nor its burden. When Sunni terrorists target Shi’ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in
Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy, but not a strategic one.”

As ever Pipes’s anti-Arab racism is simply too rabid to be hidden. If Muslims are busy killing other Muslims, then “non-Muslims” are less likely to be hurt!! What does that say about Muslim lives? And of course both Sunnis and Shia must be labeled “terrorists.” Pipes is doing nothing more endorsing than the oldest of colonial strategies: Divide et impera.Pipes envisions other “benefits” to the civil war “strategy,” such as inhibiting the spread of democracy in the Middle East. Pipes again:
“Civil war will “terminate the dream of
Iraq serving as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, thus delaying the push toward elections. This would have the effect of keeping Islamists from being legitimated by the popular vote, as Hamas was just a month ago.”

And finally Pipes declares that a civil war “would likely invite Syrian and Iranian participation hastening the possibility of confrontation with these two states, with which tensions are already high.” It is no secret that the neocons have been aching for the
U.S. to strike at
Iran and
Syria, so here too the civil war strategy of the neocons makes good sense to them. Of course the added death and destruction is not their problem since the victims will be Muslims and some unwitting American soldiers.

There seems to be only one fly in this neocon ointment. That is, will it be possible to control the flow of oil in the midst of turmoil in
Iraq. Here I suspect the neocons who put

Israel first might have their differences with the oil barons, presently their allies. But the neocons have certainly given a lot of thought to that, and it probably explains why the location of the large and permanent
U.S. bases in
Iraq is not known. It would seem, however, that there are great uncertainties in this and it may cause some trouble among the neocons and their allies over the longer term.

The only real question is whether the civil war emerged spontaneously as Wurmser, Perle and Feith predicted or whether the Iraqis had to be goaded into it by the
U.S. Given all the intrigues and mysteries in
Iraq, including the bombing of the Askariya shrine in
Samarra and the shadowy death squads and torture chambers which the
U.S. claims to know nothing about, the latter seems more likely as of now. It certainly fits the civil war strategy, and it is quite reminiscent of the Iran-Iraq war in which the
U.S. and
Israel fanned the flames that consumed over 1 million Muslim lives.

The fact is that the neocons who control
U.S. strategy have no interest in preventing a civil war but only in inciting one. Sectarian tensions were virtually unknown in
Iraq before the
U.S. invasion. And in fact the Iraqi Shia fought loyally as Iraqis against Iranian Shia in the disastrous Iran-Iraq war. So to avoid an Iraqi civil war, the most important step is to get all the

U.S. troops home and thus to terminate
U.S. provocations. For it is now crystal clear that the neocon strategy is one of civil war to divide and destroy
Iraq; and such a strategy amounts to a crime against humanity.

The Source of this post is: CounterPunch

9/11 remains possibly used on roads: court papers

By Edith Honan Fri Mar 23, 7:59 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Debris that may have contained bits of bone from victims of the World Trade Center attacks was used to fill potholes and pave city roads, according to court papers filed on Friday.

The charge was made in an affidavit filed in Manhattan federal court in an ongoing case filed in 2005 by family members of those killed in the attacks against the city. They say the city did not do enough to search for remains, denying victims a proper burial.

Eric Beck, a construction worker employed at the Fresh Kills landfill in the borough of Staten Island, where the rubble was taken after the Twin Towers fell, said in his affidavit that the process of sifting through the debris was rushed.

Beck said he saw sanitation workers removing small pieces of debris containing possible bone fragments and loading them “onto tractors, and using it to pave roads and fill in potholes, dips and ruts.”

Kimberly Miu, a spokeswoman for the city’s legal office, declined to comment on the latest filing, saying it would be inappropriate to talk about a pending motion.

The WTC Families for Proper Burial, the group that filed the suit, has also battled the city over how to honor the 2,749 people who died in the attacks on the Twin Towers.

Some relatives of victims have opposed any effort to rebuild on Ground Zero, calling it sacred ground and saying it would disrespect those who perished there.

Construction of the planned memorial and skyscraper has repeatedly been delayed, in part due to concerns expressed by victims’ families.

The remains of about 40 percent of the victims were never recovered, and hundreds of bone fragments have been discovered in and around Ground Zero in the last six months, the lawsuit says.

Source of this post is: The Raw Story.