Hannu Virtanen

Hannu Virtanen
Location
-, -
Bio
I do not support the advertiser who might show up on my blog. I have not chosen that ad, nor do I benefit any way from their infringement on this space. I do not support the big company, which has made the arrangements of those ads. I'm using 'Firefox' browser (with Debian GNU/linux operating system) and have installed 'Adblock Plus' extension with it, so I don't see those ads myself. You can install 'Adblock', too. You don't need to use linux, you can use 'Adblock Plus' with 'Firefox' with other operating systems, too.

Hannu Virtanen's Links

MY LINKS
No links in this category.
JANUARY 15, 2012 7:15AM

Who are terrorists? America, Israel?

Rate: 1 Flag

On  Wednesday, Jan 11, 2012 Glenn Greenwald wrote in his article:

More murder of Iranian scientists: still terrorism?

... "Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds criticized President Bush for not doing enough to stop Iran’s nuclear program and then advocated that the U.S. respond by murdering that nation’s religious leaders and nuclear scientists. “We should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and Iranian atomic scientists . . . ,” he argued. The backlash against Reynolds’ suggestion was intense, especially among progressive writers."... "What is most amazing about all this is that, a mere three years later, some combination of Israel and the U.S. are doing exactly that which Reynolds recommended. Numerous Iranian nuclear scientists are indeed being murdered."  ...

”Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, the Israeli military spokesman, wrote on his Facebook page that ‘I don’t know who took revenge on the Iranian scientist, but I am definitely not shedding a tear,’ Agence France-Presse reported.”


http://www.salon.com/2012/01/11/more_murder_of_iranian_scientists_still_terrorism

Besides that Israeli comment as quoted above, there were quick American official comments, too.  

 "In Washington, Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, said in reaction to the attack: “The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this. We strongly condemn all acts of violence, including acts of violence like what is being reported today.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/middleeast/iran-reports-killing-of-nuclear-scientist.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

There have been of course many international comments on the case.

Der Spiegel wrote “There is little doubt in the shadowy world of intelligence agencies that Israel is behind the assassination of Darioush Rezaei.” The Israeli intelligence official told the reporter, “That was the first serious action taken by the new Mossad chief Tamir Pardo.”

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/01/11/iranian-nuclear-scientist-killed-in-car-bomb-attack

---

 I think that in this case Obama's administration might be telling the truth. They were maybe not behind this. Because they knew that it wouldn't be agreed by American public to do such murders. And there are other reasons. Obama doesn't want war with Iran, at least not yet.  As it is generally known, Obama's administration holds the view that Iran's nuclear program is still mainly civilian; their scientists now just want to build the technical capacity for nuclear weapons; it is the matter of the Iran's politicians to decide, if they want to build the bomb later.

"The intelligence official admitted to the Post that Iran isn’t building a nuclear weapon. “Our belief is that they are reserving judgment on whether to continue with key steps they haven’t taken regarding nuclear weapons,” he said. “It’s not a technical problem.”  

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/01/10/goal-of-iran-sanctions-is-regime-change-us-official-says

I think that is the reason why Panetta cautioned Israel not to do anything unilateral, and also said that it is better to act together.

Panetta cautioned against a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities, saying the action could trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the region.

"We have common cause here" with Israel, he said. "And the better approach is for us to work together."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/asia-mainmenu-33/10494-panetta-says-no-nukes-for-iran-yet-but-calls-for-continued-sanctions

 ---

 Panetta seems to be thinking that Iran is not yet committed to make the bomb. Acting wrongly could just push them to make it.

Among American politicians in my opinion Ron Paul seems to be on the right course.

Ron Paul agrees with Panetta that Iran is nowhere close to producing a nuclear bomb, he has vehemently opposed the sanctions and “diplomatic pressure” being pursued by the Obama administration, arguing that it will do little more than strengthen Iran’s resolve to produce nuclear weapons, as well as place the U.S. on a collision course for war with the Middle Eastern country.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/asia-mainmenu-33/10494-panetta-says-no-nukes-for-iran-yet-but-calls-for-continued-sanctions
 ---

But Obama's administration might be doing the right things just now, too... I think that they are trying to prevent Israel of murdering people.

Author tags:

america, israel, iran, terrorism, war, politics

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Of course I cannot know what is really happening there in Iran, we don't know, which kind of person was killed and who killed him. We can only see some of the political moves.

I think that for various reasons Obama's administration is not ready for a war with Iran.

About Israel's political leaders I'm not sure. They might be afraid that Israel's power and influence in the area is now inevitably weakening and they might think that this is the last point to do something. Thinking that way they could be stupid enough to start even a war.

But they might be realists accepting the reality of the changing Middle East and the whole world. And their public speak is so just moves in the politics inside Israel to satisfy hard core right wingers of Israel.
Where ever there is oil there is a very interested eye of the people who direct the agenda of the USA. Iraq, the pipeline through Afghanistan, Libya, and probably Venezuela in the near future. Whether Iran is planning nuclear armaments or not is even a flimsier scam than the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein but the pumping up of tension is along the same path. There is lots of oil in Iran. The trick was done once there with the ouster of Mohammad Mosaddegh and his replacement with the Shah by a coup engineered by the CIA and Iran is not particularly happy about that sequence.
See http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/13/war-on-iran-it%E2%80%99s-not-a-matter-of-%E2%80%9Cif%E2%80%9D/
Thank you for your comment, Jan Sand.

You wrote:

"Where ever there is oil there is a very interested eye of the people who direct the agenda of the USA."

I agree that oil is the original reason, why USA has been interested in attacking Iran.

I agree with that Counterpunch article about this issue, too:

"It’s somewhat immaterial to ask whether Obama really wants war with Iran, thus interfering with the “strategic pivot” to Asia. Presidents are creatures of circumstances and lobbies, and Obama is certainly no exception. We have to hope that the traditional prudence of Iran’s leadership prompts them not to make some desperate retaliatory lunge, such as mining the Straits of Hormuz,.."

Now, I think that even if Iran would mine all the Hormuz, it wouldn't hurt America's economy much, so little oil to America is coming from that region. It is another matter with Europeans and maybe with Chinese, too. So Americans might be planning to get Iran to do just that, to get at least Europeans on the side of Americans.

But there are other big things going on. Both the US dollar and EU's euro are now in problems. I think that Americans are trying to push European economy down to help themselves. The problem with that policy is that Europeans might to become an ally of Russians, who have got similar interests to back euro currency and who have got enough oil to save Europe, if the oil flow from Middle East would become in danger.

The whole thing is so tricky that I don't think that Obama's administration is (yet) willing to start the war. It is not a matter of Obama's administration being on the side of peaceful solutions, but cynic power politics.

On the other hand, as I said earlier in my other article, I still don't understand why Iran is at all interested in nuclear energy...

They have got so much oil, that nuclear energy is not needed there at all. Maybe they just want the bomb, to prevent Americans and Israel to start war against them?
Having the bomb seemed to work wonders with calming down US attitudes towards North Korea. I am not sure what the bomb has to do with the relationships to Pakistan but the situation looks rather disturbing.
A wacky as some of the Iranian leadership is in its religious position I sincerely doubt it would do anything to provoke a nuclear retaliation from Israel which, it seems to me, is the real loose canon in the area.