Iran US Nuke Deal – Why Are Iranians Smiling So Much?

In the week when the US normalised relations with two of its historic foes – Cuba and Iran, the global media gave wall-to-wall coverage to the deal between the US and Iran, describing it as a historic deal that potentially changes the global political landscape. The accord was announced on Tuesday 14 July by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and the European Union’s Policy Chief Federica Mogherini in a joint statement in the Austrian capital. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the deal a “win-win” solution to end “an unnecessary crisis and open new horizons for dealing with serious problems that affect our international community. I believe this is a historic moment.” US President Barak Obama, in a White House briefing described the deal as: “Today after two years of negotiation the United States together with the international community has achieved something that decades of animosity has not: a comprehensive long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

The details of the deal show Iran capitulated to every US demand and in effect abandoned its nuclear programme. Under the terms of the deal, Tehran agreed to remove two-thirds of its centrifuges, reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium to a fraction of what would be needed to make a bomb and halt the use of advanced centrifuges for 10 years. Iran also promised not to build a new heavy water reactor for 15 years and will modify the core of its heavy-water plutonium reactor at Arak, while its spent fuel — a key component of a potential bomb — will be shipped outside of the country. On top of this Iran would allow UN inspectors round-the-clock access to nuclear sites.

The US President confirmed the series of sanctions would be gradually lifted — providing Tehran with access to between $100 billion and $150 billion in frozen funds — only after Iran demonstrates it is abiding by its commitments under the agreement and would be reimposed if Iran was caught cheating. He also reiterated that Washington reserved the right to use force to prevent Iran from obtaining a bomb. The US Congress now has 60 days in which to consider the deal, though Obama said he would veto any attempt to block it.

After over a decade of negotiations and after developing a nuclear programme, Iran submitted itself to US terms, not even defending any aspect of its nuclear programme. Despite this agreement taking so long which included lots of extensions, the deal is really the culmination of more than a decade of careful diplomacy, with much of it behind the scenes. This nuclear deal was just one part of US-Iran normalization of relations.

Throughout both the 20th and 21st century Iran and US have maintained ties despite periods of animosity. The Shah was America’s man in the Middle East and whilst Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini considered the US the devil, Iran always sold oil to the US and never fully cut ties. After the Grand Ayatollah’s death and the emergence of Ali Khamenei, on all the key issues be it Saddam Hussain, the Iraq invasion and the Afghan invasion both the US and Iran worked closely together. But it was the invasion of Iraq which began in 2003 which bled the US dry that the US desperately needed Iran.

When the Arab Spring reached Syria, the US was seriously worried about developments in the Middle East. It was here the US needed Iran to play a central role in extricating the US and saving it from being defeated. Iran responded by making all its proxies join in the US constructed political system in Iraq. This then allowed US forces to concentrate on the insurgency in central Iraq. Sayyid Ali as-Hussayni al-Sistani brought Sadr, Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and Da’wah factions together to form the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) that gained a large number of parliamentary seats in the 2005 elections. The group similarly won substantial seats in the 2010 parliamentary elections. Without Iran, the US would never have resolved the quagmire of Iraq. The US and Iran are so close in Iraq that when ISIS overran the Iraqi government in the Anbar province Iranian forces along with Shi’ah militia coordinated air attacks with Iranian ground attacks. But it is in Syria where US-Iranian interests directly converge, both see the al-Assad regime as the future of the country despite the public outcry for his removal. The US has had no problem with Iran propping up Bashar al-Assad as both are in agreement on this. In fact the US and Iran have been in agreement on much of the Middle East for a very long time despite their public rhetoric to the contrary.

Since 1979 Iran gained much support from the global Ummah for its stance against the US and the Jewish entity. Its support for Hezbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine gained it much notoriety when the groups took on the Jewish entity in many wars and made her bleed. But Iran has abandoned the Ummah for its national interests and now sees working with the US as the best way for it to maintain its influence in the region. This has been the dream of many clerics in Iran for decades, despite the constant rhetoric from Tehran. As a regional power, with a guerrilla force in the shape of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Iran is a power that both Saudi Arabia and Israel fear. Iran has every capability to bleed the US dry in the Middle East, but rather then turning the screws against the occupying forces in the region, Iran’s leaders decided to look the other way for strategic national interests. The Jewish entity’s criticism of the deal centers around it being America’s instrument in the Middle East, but now the US has her Persian ally as her main instrument in the Middle East.

Here is a look at what is behind this historic deal:
1. Following the agreement the US president immediately delivered a speech in front of the White House allotted to this agreement, he said, “We have reached a historic understanding with Iran over its nuclear program, it would, if carried out prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” He said, “We have reached a deal to stop the progress of Iran’s nuclear program” and added that “Tehran has fulfilled their duties and opened the way for inspection.” He described the deal “as good and that it meets our core objectives” and said, “Iran accepted an unprecedented type of inspection system and the door to Iran’s enrichment of uranium will be closed, and there will be reduction of the stock of enriched uranium and centrifuge by two thirds.” He also said, “We will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon ever, and in return we will gradually reduce the sanctions that we had imposed and that imposed by the Security Council,” and noted that “the negotiations will continue until June to agree on the exact details.” Also stressed that “the nuclear inspectors will have unprecedented influence on Iran’s nuclear facilities.” He said, “For the Iranian people, we are ready to work for the common interests” (American Radio Sawa 02/04/2015)… These statements of the US president shows how keen is the US administration to reach this agreement, and this agreement was in the interest of America, it achieved its objective, and there is no reason for the others to object. He mentioned the position of those who opposed the agreement of the Republicans in Congress and the prime minister of the Jewish entity, Netanyahu. Obama said that he wants to work with Iran under the common interest, i.e. to use Iran to achieve the American projects in the region, he does not want Iran to remain busy with the threats of the Jewish entity, and incitements of the European trio: Britain, France, and Germany, and raising new problems for Iran, allowing it to remain living under the threat of sanctions.
2. Iran has agreed to reduce its stockpile of low-enrichment uranium (LEU) from 10 thousand kilograms to 300 kilograms at a rate of 3.67% for 15 years, and pledged not to build any new nuclear facilities for the enrichment of uranium for 15 years. It has agreed to reduce the centrifuges by two-thirds bringing it down from the current 19,000 to 6104 under the agreement, with only 5,060 allowed to enrich uranium over the next 10 years. Natanz Facility will be the only facility used for the enrichment of uranium in Iran with decreased amounts. Iran will not enrich uranium at the Fordow Facility for 15 years, instead it will be utilized for nuclear and physics research. Iran is committed to a plan to enrichment and research which it will provide to the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that it will prevent it from developing a nuclear bomb for 10 years. The agreement grants the right to the international observers to monitor the uranium mines and sites of yellow cake manufacturing for 25 years, they also have the right to continuous monitoring of the centrifuges and the stores for 20 years with the freezing of the centrifuges manufacturing.” (Middle East 03/04/2015). Iranian President Hassan Rohani said, “Iran will fulfill all the obligations they have undertaken, provided that the other party fulfills its commitments.” (World Iranian page 3/4/2015). Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said, “The lifting of sanctions will be a fundamental step forward. We have stopped following an undesirable path by everyone. Not desirable for the process of nuclear non-proliferation or any other party.” This goes to show that Iran had agreed to halt its activities of increasing uranium enrichment and accepted to bring it down to a minimum, so it cannot produce a nuclear weapon. It also reduced the number of centrifuges to one-third, and it will remain under international control for 25 years. This will be binding throughout this period as stated by its president. What matters to Iran is the lifting of its sanctions, Javad Zarif said, “The sanctions imposed on Iran will end when the procedures that have been agreed upon with the major powers are implemented.”
3. As for the rest of the P5+1 countries it was clear that their role is marginal, the actual negotiations were often taking place between America and Iran only, publicly and secret, and the role of the remaining parties is closer to spectators than that of a role player. Indications show that America has guaranteed its agreement with Iran, and what was left was its production process in stages the rest of the P5+1 states were on the lookout, if they see something they do not like they are left to sulk, leave to calm down and then return to sign or delegate someone to do so on their behalf! This was evident in the positions of ministers of these countries; Lavrov said during a visit to Tajikistan that “the situation is unusual, unprecedented…” and noted that “the significance of the current stage lies in the formulation of a political framework agreement and it has become clear in all its components.” The Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Alexander Ukashević said, “Russia does not see an urgent need for the return of its Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to Lausanne, but what the participants are doing now in the negotiations is to check the initial agreements.”
What appears from the Russians’ statements that the matter was previously planned and ready, what only remains is to sign it, this is why they did not see the need for the Foreign Minister to go back to sign. He was the one who stated that the matter was unusual, referring to US Secretary of State, who met with the Iranians the most, headed by their Minister of Foreign Affairs Javad Zarif, for weeks alone, and he intensified the meetings non-stop in the last week of 26/3/2015 till the time for signing at the end of last month. He called the foreign ministers from the rest of the group’s member states to participate in the signing! But before signing day, they left the meeting when they found everything was arranged, and that the United States insists on signing the agreement as is. The French foreign minister left angrily through the back door, and the German foreign minister was about to travel to the Baltic Republics, and the Russians, as mentioned above, did not return, and left his deputy there. The Chinese minister was not concerned with the issue, and the coolness of the British minister overwhelmed, so he did not show his outrage, nor satisfaction, but was waiting for what will happen in the usual English brilliance. But everyone eventually returned to the signing ceremony session, but to save face they began debating what was prepared by America, and they extended the debate to two days, and then signed the agreement without being able to change anything of significance in it.
Russia’s Foreign Minister has said that the agreement between America and Iran was agreed prior to today, signing it now is only a political move, therefore, he did not see the need for his attendance in Lausanne, his deputy signed instead. Thus, the main role in the agreement was between America and Iran.
4. The Republicans who control Congress showed their dissatisfaction with the agreement for partisan opposition reasons and electoral purposes to come. The deal was signed by the Obama administration, despite their opposition so that this administration achieves successes in foreign policy and to be able to use Iran in the implementation of projects and plans in the region. Chairman of the US House of Representatives John Boehner said, “The final agreement standards represent a disturbing difference in comparison with the basic goals set by the White House,” and he said, “The Congress must have the right to fully consider the details of any agreement before sanctions are lifted. The Foreign Affairs Committee in Congress is scheduled to vote on the 14th of this month on a proposal that imposes on Obama’s administration to present the agreement to the Council and then vote on it. However, the Obama administration rejects that and says that the conclusion of such an agreement is part of the powers of the executive authority exclusively and the congressional interference in the matter will create a precedent.
5. As for the position of the Zionist entity, Netanyahu said, “The framework agreement on Iran’s nuclear program threatens the survival of Israel.” knowing that before the announcement of a deal in Lausanne he called for any agreement should oblige a “significant reduction in the nuclear capacity of Iran” and he said “the best agreement would be the one that reduces the nuclear infrastructure. The best agreement will link the lifting of sanctions imposed to Tehran’s nuclear program by changing Iranian behavior”, all of this was materialized in the Lausanne agreement. The extortionate position of Netanyahu is to get more aid and US pledges to protect the Zionist entity, and to confirm his previous position he expressed on this issue for the purposes of the election which he won, and to strengthen his relationship with the Republicans coming to power, as he perceives, in the upcoming US presidential election in 2016. Netanyahu went to America to deliver a speech in Congress at the invitation of the Republicans and spoke to them about the dangers of the agreement with Iran. He knows that the agreement undermines Iran’s capabilities to produce nuclear weapons and knows that Iran is playing a role in the region decreed to them; Iran protects the Syrian regime, which ensures its security on the Golan Heights, and it will occupy the area in internal wars and prevent the unity of the Muslims under one central leadership.
As for Iran, it has waived its programs to increase uranium enrichment and accepted to bring it down to a minimum, so that it cannot produce a nuclear weapon. The number of centrifuges has been reduced to one-third. And will remain under international control for 25 years. It will be committed to it for all the agreed time, this was stated by its president.
What matters to Iran is the lifting of the sanctions and engagement in the region to play its role under the pretext of common interests and achieve a regional supremacy for itself by joining hands with western powers under the supreme leadership of the state which was once dubbed by Iranian clerics as Shaitan-e-Buzurg. The clerics have placed the country´s economic issues before its strategic goals. While many may choose to criticize the Ayatollahs for the treaty, common Iranians will feel less curious since the Ayatollahs had never faltered in delivering fatwas (religious edicts) against the building of nuclear weapons, seen by the religious establishment as unIslamic and against the Holy Law (Shareeah). Iranian clerics can now smile all the way back claiming they got something really big from the international community by giving up what they never wanted (nukes) in the first place anyway!

Advertisements

Rockefeller family and the war in Syria

 The Rockefeller global oil and banking empire has been the subject of much critical commentary on the Internet. However, the Rockefeller Octopus’s tentacles into every facet of America’s banking, oil (through their control of Standard Oil), military, educational, and foreign policy apparatus was exposed in a monograph prepared by the Soviet Union in 1959. An English translation of the Soviet article prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency’s Foreign Documents Division and dated December 16, 1959, was uncovered from the CIA’s archives. The paper is titled: “About Those Who Are Against Peace.”

The arguments in the Soviet paper generally concur with President Dwight Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the American people shortly before the inauguration of President Kennedy in January 1961. In his speech, Eisenhower warned the American people about the dangers posed to America’s democracy by the “military-industrial complex.”

There is nothing in the Soviet paper that rings false about the Rockefellers… The oligarchic family has exercised control over America’s foreign policy through their part-sponsorship of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderberg Group – all three shadowy organizations of the world’s elite class who determine monetary, foreign, and military policies behind closed doors. Rockefeller funding of Columbia University and the University of Chicago have helped inflict on the United States some of the most brazen neo-conservatives serving inside and outside of government.

The paper states “In 1957, the Rockefeller oligarchy of American oil industrialists controlled a capital of 61.4 billion dollars. The precise size of the Rockefeller fortune is a state secret in America: the American press noted at one time that special measures are taken so that data concerning the largest fortunes of the U.S. are not published.”

Fifty-three years later, the fortunes of America’s elite are still secret as can be seen with the secrecy surrounding Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s taxes and his offshore financial holdings in such locations as the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Bermuda, and, according to some reports, the British Virgin Islands.

But the Rockefellers wrote the book on hiding their immense fortune in corporate contrivances and secret bank accounts, an easy task considering they own Chase Manhattan Bank, which is now known as J P Morgan Chase.

The Soviet article also exposed the Rockefellers’ much-ballyhooed “philanthropy” and “work ethic.” The article revealed: “The Rockefellers do not buy yachts worth many millions, like the Vanderbilt magnates; they do not install doorknobs and water fountains of pure gold in their palaces. But love for luxury is not alien to them. The play house where the children of the Rockefellers frolic cost a half million dollars. Bourgeois newspapers, willingly ‘forgetting’ about such ‘trifles,’ relate with tears of sympathy how the children of the billionaires earn pocket money by raising rabbits, cleaning boots, and even destroying flies at ten cents per hundred.”

Today, the successors of the same “bourgeois” media of 1959 prattle on about how Mitt and Ann Romney had it so “tough” after graduating from college. CNN’s Anderson Cooper, the son of billionaire heiress Gloria Vanderbilt, goes on about how tough it was for him to break into the news media, as if his mother had nothing to do with his rapid ascension in the corporate media.

The Soviet paper paints a picture of the Rockefellers that is similar to today’s Romney family: “The people want to know the truth. And the truth about the wealth of the Rockefellers consists of dark deeds, thousands of ruined families, hundreds of thousands of workers in many countries of the world tormented by work beyond their strength. The truth is the concealed history of many wars – it is oil stained with blood.” Of course, today the same can be said about the Rockefeller-linked Bush family, as well as Dick Cheney, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, and the Rothschild family.

The article identifies the Rockefeller clan members in 1959: “John D. Rockefeller II does not direct his wide empire alone. He has five sons – John D. III, Laurance, David, Winthrop, and Nelson. They are all large capitalists. Each has his role, his department. Only Winthrop has not become famous for anything, unless one counts a scandalous divorce.” In fact, Winthrop became famous later when he was elected governor of Arkansas in 1966. His brother Nelson had served as Governor of New York since 1959.

David is the only survivor among John D. II’s sons and he has been a major player in secret organizations like the Bilderbergs and Trilateralists. David Rockefeller’s off demeanor is described in the Soviet article: “The bourgeois press advertises him as the owner of the best collection of insects in the world, and as possessing extremely gentlemanly manners. But when he enters the office of the bank [Chase Manhattan] and the steel doors close behind his back, the lover of butterflies turns into a greedy seeker after dollars. The hired biographers have every basis for calling him ‘the personification of the virtues of Wall Street.’”

Nelson Rockefeller, who, in 1975, would have become President of the United States had two attempted assassins’ bullets hit their target – President Gerald Ford – is recognized in the Soviet article for his scheming in Latin America, scheming that was supplemented by Richard Nixon and Ford Secretary of State and Rockefeller consigliore Henry Kissinger. The article states: “The Rockefellers have long nourished an irresistible attraction for the countries in Latin America: the provocatory smell of oil reaches them from the South American continent. Therefore, Nelson Rockefeller, who had long been trying to turn South America into his family estate, was at one time placed at the head of the so-called “Bureau of Inter-American Affairs.”

The article quotes the left-wing newspaper the Daily Compass, which once published the muckraking columns of investigative journalist I. F. Stone, in describing the Rockefellers’ stranglehold over the U.S. State Department: “The policy of the State Department is born in the offices of Standard Oil. From there it is transmitted to the Department of Defense, where the heads of the Army and Navy approve it. When this policy gets to the State Department, it becomes the policy of the government and is supposed to be confirmed by Congress quickly and without any changes whatever. When an order for laws designed to protect the interests of the oil kings comes from the Rockefeller dynasty itself, the entire Congress – from the small to the great – comes to ‘attention’ and does what the bosses order it to do.”

Considering the recent U.S. and NATO intervention in Libya and Syria, countries where oil is key, little has changed in how U.S. foreign and war policy is manufactured.

The Rockefellers ties to the CIA and Israel’s Mossad are also laid out in the Soviet monograph. The article reveals that the Rockefellers supplied a U.S. intelligence “cut out” – the School of Eastern Studies in Jerusalem – with money from the Arabian-American oil company (ARAMCO). The school, which operated with the full knowledge of the Mossad, trained American officers to conduct espionage throughout the Middle East.

There was a time when the U.S. government and the corporate (bourgeois) press dismissed such articles as the Soviet monograph on the Rockefellers as pure propaganda. In retrospect, the Soviet authors of the article understood in 1959 what many Americans have come late to fathoming: that the United States is being destroyed by a mega-wealthy elite intent on preying on the United States like a swarm of locusts.

Wayne Madsen

Geronimo the American Warrior

He is considered to be one of the greatest Indian warrior chiefs. In 1858 Geronimo’s family was attacked by Mexican soldiers killing his mother, wife and three children. He took up arms from then on and made raids on Mexican provinces. Later on, he extended his attacks on US troops, which he continued to do for 30 years. This is what Geronimo wrote in his diary:

“Late one afternoon when returning from town we were met by a few women and children who told us that Mexican troops from some other town had attacked our camp, killed all the warriors of the guard, captured all our ponies, secured our arms, destroyed our supplies, and killed many of our women and children. Quickly we separated, concealing ourselves as best we could until nightfall, when we assembled at our appointed place of rendezvous—a thicket by the river. Silently we stole in one by one: sentinels were placed, and, when all were counted, I found that my aged mother, my young wife, and my three small children were among the slain. There were no lights in camp, so without being noticed I silently turned away and stood by the river. How long I stood there I do not know, but when I saw the warriors arranging for a council I took my place.”

Man’s basic instinct is to resist any illegal action against his rights and properties. Whenever  a nation’s legal system is unjust, racist or biased towards a particular group there will be armed conflict. In 1856 America had an unfair legal system which favored the ‘white man’ against his native compatriot Indians, who were not granted equal citizens status.

Indians were kept in reservations, a zoo for humans with plenty of alcohol, gambling money and without family law. Their life in reservations was absolutely contrary to their way of living. The native american race was being turned into an extinct species good for charming visitors at circuses.

Whenever Indians ‘escaped’ from reservations US troop swould hunt them down, as if an animal had escaped from a zoo. This must be the first instance in modern history when a man caged another man in his own country. Afghans today must be feeling similar pain of living in reservations of a new kind.

In his diary Geronimo gives an account of a conversation with a US General: General Crook said to me, “Why did you leave the reservation?” I said: “You told me that I might live in the reservation the same as white people lived. One year I raised a crop of corn, and gathered and stored it, and the next year I put in a crop of oats, and when the crop was almost ready to harvest, you told your soldiers to put me in prison, and if I resisted to kill me. If I had been let alone l would now have been in good circumstances, but instead of that you and the Mexicans are hunting me with soldiers”.

Colonizers manipulate the economy to keep their control. British colonizers made sure that Manchester overtook Murshidabad as the global textile center. This is now true for Middle East and Central Asian states. Arab oil and gas is proprietary natural resource of the US.

All global oil trading must be in US Dollars only. Oil producers can only sell their oil in the buyer’s currency. Usually the seller should have the right to choose the currency for the trade. Arab countries control 70% of world oil supply but they cant ask to be paid in their own currency, let alone gold which would be more justified. Any move to unite the Arabs’ currencies into one strong unit which could become the standard unit for oil trading is a red line never to be crossed.  Arabs cant do this with oil trade, for the same reason that Geronimo could’nt grow corn and oats in his own land.

The mind of Geronimo, if I want to understand with empathy, was occupied by a spiritual energy to break free from the oppression of the ‘white man’. Geronimo’s attacks on US troops could be the equivalent to French resistance against German occupation, both arising out of a state of suppression and domination.

Geronimo was forced to do what every human soul wants, to demand freedom from an inhuman enslavement of the human spirit.

In the words of Geronimo, The Indians always tried to live peaceably with the white soldiers and settlers. One day during the time that the soldiers were stationed at Apache Pass I made a treaty with the post. This was done by shaking hands and promising to be brothers. Cochise and Mangus-Colorado did likewise. I do not know the name of the officer in command, but this was the first regiment that ever came to Apache Pass. This treaty was made about a year before we were attacked in a tent, as above related. In a few days after the attack at Apache Pass we organized in the mountains and returned to fight the soldiers.

To physically subdue another race or nation, by the use of weapons, is an old tactic and yet the spirit of freedom and liberty is armed with an equally deadly weapon, ie spiritual awakening, which can rise up to defend the natural qualities of a free man.

Quit Afghanistan – fast

Attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 was the biggest mistake by USA. Western dominance always had something to do with the third world’s perception of a just legal system in Europe and USA. It becomes clear when we see Asians and Arabs lining up at western capitals seeking political sylum to escape from brutal regimes back in their homelands. When one cant find justice in his country he looks towards the west hoping to be protected by a system that values human rights.

Attacking Afghanistan showed an ugly face of the west which betrayed its professed human values. It did not follow any of those concepts while it invaded a country which harbored an alleged criminal. Maybe, Osama and his men were responsible, and maybe Talibans supported his plans, and maybe the talibans and al-qaeda were getting ready to take over the world, and maybe and maybe and maybe. There is nothing to suggest any concrete evidence that can justify the invasion of a country in retaliation to its citizens’ actions. The 7/7 London bombers were British citizens, should’nt NATO then bomb London back to the stone ages for it?

Talibans, despite their shortcomings, made in my opinion a wise offer. They were ready to handover Bin Laden to either Pakistan, or to a third muslim country or in a worst case scenario to the The Hague. Why were these offers refused? Trying Bin Laden under the law was ruled out by USA which wants the world’s respect as the leading state founded on the principles of law and justice. Anyone could tell the Americans back in 2001 they were heading towards a massive human disaster.

British, Russians and now Americans have confirmed the theory that Afghans will never surrender to anyone.  Afghans dont run after the material world like the rest of consummerism driven societies. Their needs revolve around a concept called “honor”. Materialism for Afghans is an evil which is the main cause for man’s destruction in this world and in the hereafter. To show courage in battlefield is a time honored tradition which is passed on from generation to generation with immense pride and honor.

For Afghans, martyrdom is more valuable than anything else in this world. No amount of materials can dilute that belief because it is firmly rooted in his mind and this unique idea forms his civilization. An Afghan who can compromise on his principles will cease to be an Afghan and to loose his Afghan identity will mean the end of the world for him. It is quite similar to another civilization, the American civilization. When an American compromises his love for freedom and integrity he stops being an American.

The fight in Afghanistan is less about talibans and bin ladens but more about the right to protect ones’ civilization. America cant destroy the Afghan civilization with bombs, they got to understand this vital point. Neither can soft power work in a land where rulers live in caves. Thus, the only option left for America is to get the hell out of Afghanistan, as fast as possible.

Afghanistan’s Post-NATO Future.

Why the U.S. May Be Secretly Cheering a Muslim Brotherhood Run For Egypt’s Presidency

DId the Muslim Brotherhood compromise on their traditional anti Israeli rhetoric? It looks like it. Its all about coming to power and then staying there as long as possible.

World

Liberals and secularists are furious at the decision this week by Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to name Khairat al-Shater as its candidate next month’s presidential election. Even many members and leaders of the Brotherhood itself are livid at the decision, an eleventh-hour reversal of a longstanding undertaking to stay out of the race to elect a successor to President Hosni Mubarak. Curiously enough, though, the New York Times reports that U.S. official are “untroubled and even optimistic about the Brotherhood’s reversal of its pledge not to seek the presidency”.

View original post 1,141 more words