‘Iran put on notice’ after ballistic missile test – White House National Security Advisor
National
security adviser General Michael Flynn © Carlos Barria / Reuters
RT,
1
February, 2017
Washington
has put Tehran on ‘official notice’ over its recent ballistic
missile test, with White House National Security Advisor, Mike Flynn
describing it as provocative and destabilizing the situation across
the Middle East.
The
Trump administration "condemns
such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity and
stability throughout and beyond the Middle East that puts American
lives at risk," Flynn
told reporters Wednesday.
Reuters
reported that an anonymous White House official said the missile test
was carried out on Sunday from a site near Semnan, east of Tehran.
A
White House statement released by Flynn said the
missile test was in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 2231
which called upon the country “not
to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles.”
Iranian
officials on Tuesday, however, insisted that the country has complied
with the restrictions imposed in the Iran nuclear deal, according
to Al
Jazeera.
The
Russian deputy foreign minister also concurred the test does not
contravene the UN resolution.
"Such
actions, if they took place, do not breach the resolution," Sergei
Ryabkov, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, told Interfax news
agency, saying demands for UN talks were aimed at "heating
up the situation".
AP
reported that a defense official said the missile test ended with
a “failed” re-entry
into the earth’s atmosphere but had no details on the type of
missile.
Flynn
included with his criticism of a recent attack against a Saudi naval
vessel “conducted
by Iran-supported Houthi militants.”
Flynn
stated, "Iran
is now feeling emboldened," and
criticized the Obama administration.
“The
Obama Administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s
malign actions—including weapons transfers, support for terrorism,
and other violations of international norms,” said
Flynn in the statement.
Flynn
added that the Trump administration “condemns
such actions by Iran,”
and "we are officially putting Iran on notice," although
it's not clear what he meant.
As
Iran Dumps Dollar, Congress Quietly Slips in Bill for ‘Use of Force
Against Iran’
1
Febraury, 2017
On
March 21, The Islamic Republic of Iran will cease using the U.S.
dollar in all of its financial reporting. The decision to stop using
the dollar as a reference has been in the works for some time but
was expedited after the Trump administration decided to include Iran
as one of the seven countries banned from entering the United States.
Iranian PressTV reported,
“Valiollah Seif, the governor of the Central Bank of Iran, was
quoted by domestic media as saying that Iran would either replace the
US dollar with a new common foreign currency or use a basket of
currencies in all official financial and foreign exchange reports.”
Seif
reportedly stated the country of Iran needs a much more stable
foreign currency, that the dollar is insignificantly found in
exchange houses throughout the country, and Iran would be
better-suited trading in European Union Euros, Chinese Yen, or in
United Arab Emirates Dirham.
Following
Trump’s plan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and
Yemen have
all been banned from entering the US for
a period of at least 90 days. The decision has angered globalists who
see borders as just one more man-made obstacle to freedom to travel
the world, as well as anyone with family or conducting business in
those countries.
Even
with all the angst and outrage, if Iran goes ahead with its plan to
replace the dollar in its monetary system, the country’s theocratic
leaders run the risk of falling victim to U.S. vengeance.
In
fact, the United States is already preparing for potential conflict
with Iran, the US has introduced H.J.Res.10 – Authorization
of Use of Force Against Iran Resolution.
This
resolution was quietly introduced last month with absolutely no media
attention in spite of the fact that it“authorizes the
President to use the U.S. Armed forces as necessary in
order to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”
Other
countries and their leaders have attempted to do the same thing as
Iran, but it backfired in their faces and they were subsequently
invaded by the US.
TFTP’s Jay
Syrmopoulos reported
in January, NATO’s
involvement in Libya,
“was not for the protection of the people, but instead it was to
thwart Gaddafi’s attempt to create a gold-backed African currency
to compete with the Western central banking monopoly.”
Likewise,
the involvement of the USA in Libya’s affairs, “was also driven
by a desire to gain access to a greater share of Libyan oil
production, and to undermine a long term plan by Gaddafi to supplant
France as the dominant power in the Francophone Africa region.”
Just
as in Libya, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein waded into the currency
controversy when he announced Iraq would no
longer sell Iraqi oil in dollars. According
to The
New American,
“Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, once armed by the U.S. government to
make war on Iran, was threatening to start selling oil in currencies
other than the dollar just prior to the Bush administration’s
‘regime change’ (George W. Bush) mission.” The year
2000 Timearticle
stated Saddam’s purpose for making the change was for Iraq to no
longer deal “in the currency of the enemy”.
In
2006, just prior to Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad being called by U.S.
officials as a genocidal war criminal who needs to step down,
the Chicago
Tribune reported
“Syria has switched the primary hard currency it uses for foreign
goods and services from the U.S. dollar to the euro in a
bid to make it less vulnerable to pressure from Washington. The
decree signed by Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otari on Monday
ordered government bodies and public-sector companies to
use euros to pay for foreign transactions.” The announcement may
seem insignificant, but it may have been the last straw in an already
chilly relationship with Syria. After all, Syria had made business
arrangements with nearly all of America’s foes and major
competitors; Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Iran, Russia, and China.
That
plan backfired quickly after the U.S. targeted Assad for removal,
going so far as to provide arms and cash to Sunni rebels in a proxy
war against Syria’s Assad.
Donald
Trump has said he may pursue a more diplomatic solution. However,
that is yet to be seen. For the moment, he’s simply banning all
immigration from Syria amid talk of establishing “safe zones” for
Syrians to be able to remain in their homeland. It remains to be seen
if the terms “safe zone” are equivalent to what the previous Bush
administrations called “no-fly zones,” a tactical move which led
to air superiority over Iraq and Libya, later leading to those
countries’ downfalls.
As
The Free Thought Project has reported on numerous occasions, Muammar
Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Bashar Al-Assad all attempted to move
away from the dollar and replace it with another currency. All three
saw their countries destroyed. Only Assad remains in power for the
moment, protected only by Russia, and Syrian ally Iran. But after
Russia withdraws, one could only expect the conflict to resume, with
the expressed intents and purposes of overthrowing Syria and allowing
for Western companies to enter and exploit Syria’s natural
resources, and establish a more dollar-friendly national currency.
Make
no mistake, the US has no problem invading Iran and will do so on a
whim — all the while, maintain support of the citizens — in the
name of spreading
freedom.
House
bill would allow Trump to wage preventive war on Iran
1
February, 2017
Washington
- A joint resolution introduced in the House of Representatives last
month authorizes preventive war against Iran to stop the Islamic
Republic from developing nuclear weapons.
H.J.
Res. 10, the “Authorization of Use of Force Against Iran
Resolution," is sponsored by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) and
permits the president to wage war as he sees fit, with the goal of
thwarting Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.
"The
President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States
as the President determines necessary and appropriate in order to
achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,"
the measure states, adding that any such action is subject to the War
Powers Resolution, which limits military action to 60 days unless
Congress offers the Commander-in-Chief an authorization for use of
military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war.
"The
United States must do all that is necessary to ensure that all of
Iran’s pathways to obtaining a nuclear weapon are blocked,"
the resolution declares, adding that "Iran’s pursuit of a
nuclear weapon is a threat not only to the United States but also to
our allies in the region" and "Iran’s sincerity in
forgoing the procurement of a nuclear weapon has created legitimate
cause for concern."
The
last national intelligence assessment showed consensus among all 16
U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear
weapons, a conclusion also reached by leading Israeli intelligence
officials. Despite this, Republican lawmakers have long called for a
U.S. war on Iran. Perhaps most alarmingly, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
called for a nuclear attack against Iranian nuclear sites.
"If
you have to hit Iran, you don't put boots on the ground," Hunter
said in 2013. "You do it with tactical nuclear devices and you
set them back a decade or two or three. I think there's a way to do
it with a massive aerial bombardment campaign."
The
United States is the only nation to have ever waged nuclear war,
killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
in August 1945 and for years to come from radiation, cancer and other
ailments.
Iran
has not initiated a war in nearly 200 years, although the Islamic
Republic does sponsor groups considered terrorists by the United
States, Israel and other Western nations. The U.S., Israel and others
also sponsor their own campaigns of state terrorism against Iran,
allegedly launching cyberattacks against the nation's nuclear
facilities and assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists. The U.S.
also trained and supports the Iranian exile terrorist group MEK,
which has carried out attacks against regime targets for decades.
Crippling economic sanctions have hamstrung the Iranian economy and
hurt ordinary Iranians the most.
The
concept of preventive war gained popularity within the George W. Bush
administration following the Islamist terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001. While military experts say there are times when preemptive
war may be necessary to thwart an immediate foreign threat, the far
more nebulous notion of preventive war — waged on the mere
possibility that a threat may one day emerge — is much more
dubious. The infamous 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a
textbook preventive strike, meant to eliminate the U.S. Navy threat
in the Pacific and thus avert the type of war that eventually led to
the destruction of much of Japan.
President
Dwight D. Eisenhower, faced with calls for a preventive attack on the
Soviet Union, scoffed: “All of us have heard this term ‘preventive
war’ since the earliest days of Hitler... I don’t believe there
is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn’t even listen to anyone
seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.”
Bush's
determination to wage preventive war in Iraq — a nation which had
nothing to do with 9/11 and which had long ago given up developing
weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) — is widely considered one of
the most disastrous decisions in U.S. history, resulting in hundreds
of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and thousands of U.S. troops
killed and a country left in ruins and ripe for exploitation by
Islamist extremist groups like Islamic State.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.