Venezuela, Argentina Accuse US of Smear Campaign

December 13th 2007, by Chris Carlson for Venezuelanalysis.com

Government authorities from both Venezuela and Argentina accused the United States of carrying out a smear campaign against them yesterday after US officials arrested four individuals accused of being agents of the Venezuelan government. US officials alleged that the arrested individuals were involved in trying to cover up an "international scandal" between Venezuela and Argentina, but both countries have rejected the claims.

Three Venezuelan citizens and one Uruguayan citizen were arrested in Miami on Tuesday night and appeared before a federal court yesterday on charges of "acting and conspiring to act as agents of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela within the United States," according to an official statement from the US Department of Justice.

The Assistant US Attorney General for National Security Kenneth Wainstein accused the defendants of "coordinating and participating in a series of meetings" with the Venezuelan-American Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson, who was involved in the illegal trafficking of nearly US$ 800,000 from Venezuela to Argentina last August.

Argentinean customs officials caught Antonini on August 4th of this year attempting to enter the country with a suitcase that contained US$ 790,000. Argentinean officials confiscated the money, but Antonini returned to his home in South Florida.

According to the Assistant Attorney General, the four defendants were working on behalf of the Venezuelan government to get Antonini's help in covering up the source of the money, which, according to US officials, was for "the presidential campaign of Cristina [Fernandez] Kirchner."

"The complaint filed today outlines an alleged plot by agents of the Venezuelan government to manipulate an American citizen in Miami in an effort to keep the lid on a burgeoning international scandal," said Wainstein.

But both the Argentinean and Venezuelan governments have rejected the claims, calling them a "desperate attempt" to tarnish the growing ties between the two countries. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro assured that the case was part of a U.S. plan to damage Venezuela's image.

"This information from Miami makes the role of the US government in this campaign to damage the relations between our governments very clear," said Maduros who assured that they have "no doubt" that the United States is behind the political scandal.

"We are seeing a desperate effort by the government of the United States, using delicate mechanisms of judicial power for a political, psychological, and media war against the continent's progressive governments," he assured.

President of Argentina Cristina Fernandez also rejected the claims, comparing them to an American movie in which "you never know how much is true and how much is a lie." The Argentinean president assured that she "would not be pressured," and insisted that she would maintain her close ties to the Venezuelan government.

"All of our convictions and policies are going to be deepened because Argentina has never needed anyone to tell her who she can be friends with," she said.

President Fernandez, without actually mentioning the United States, accused the country of wanting to subordinate them to their own interests.

"Instead of wanting nations of friends, they want nations of employees and subordinates," she said.

But the president assured that she would continue efforts to strengthen Mercosur, the Bank of the South, and the construction of a "multilateral world."

Argentinean cabinet member Alberto Fernandez, who called the case a "US intelligence operation," also explained that the accusations of the US officials are unlikely to be true. He pointed out that Antonini was detained by the Argentinean officials upon entering the country, and the money was confiscated. Fernandez explained that if the Chavez government wanted to bring in money to finance the campaign of Cristina Fernandez, they could have easily done it a few days later when President Chavez visited the country.

"If the objective was to enter [the country] with a suitcase of money he could have entered the next day in Chavez' airplane and no one would have noticed," he said.

"But this thing has the characteristics of being a dirty trick to tarnish the presence of Chavez in Argentina," said Fernandez. "I have no doubt of that."

Fernandez called on the United States to answer Argentina's request for the extradition of Antonini Wilson, so that they can carry out an investigation with regards to the $800,000.

"If the United States is really interested in the truth, they should extradite Antonini Wilson. But I'm afraid they are protecting him," he said.

Torture, Israeli style

Prison interrogation techniques in Israel: Now you are paralyzed, as we promised

by Gideon Levy
Global Research, December 14, 2007
Haaretz

"We have to make you do a little sports," the Shin Bet interrogator said, launching four successive days of questioning accompanied by brutal physical torture. The result: Luwaii Ashqar can no longer stand on his feet. He sits in his wheelchair, dressed in a fashionable quasi-military suit, super-elegant, new Caterpillar-brand shoes on his paralyzed feet.

"I love this color," he says about his uniform. "It's the color of the soldiers who came to arrest me for the interrogation that did all this to me."

His smile is captivating, his Hebrew rich and incisive. He is a young man whose world fell apart. He entered prison sound of body and mind and emerged a broken man. For four days and four nights nonstop, he says, he was interrogated and subjected to torture of the most brutal kind. The result is the person we see before us in the wheelchair , in the elegant home high in the village of Saida, north of Tul Karm, which was placed at his disposal by a friend after he was released from Israeli prison a month ago.

Was there a judgment by the High Court of Justice? There was. It banned precisely the types of torture he underwent: the "banana posture," the "shabah" (body stretching with hands tied to a chair), "invisible" blows and the "frog posture" (being forced to stand for hours on the toes in a crouching position) - all the way to a vicious kick to his chest that bent his body backward while he was tied to a chair with his arms and legs, and which was the probable cause of the partial paralysis of his legs.

Throwing up with the vomit entering his nostrils, losing consciousness and being given only saltwater to drink, relieving himself in his pants, not sleeping or resting - all of that for four consecutive days and nights.

What does the interrogator Maimon tell his children when he goes home? What do Eldad and Sagiv tell their wives about their daily labors before they turn in? That they tortured another helpless prisoner until they turned him into a cripple? That they beat this charming young man brutally and that at the end of the interrogation he was tried for only marginal offenses? And where is the Supreme Court, which in 1999 prohibited precisely the chain of torture that Luwaii Sati Ashqar, 30, who was married three years ago, underwent in the Kishon detention facility?

Ashqar is not alone. The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel has just issued a new report containing the testimonies of nine torture victims (English version: www.stoptorture.org.il//eng ). As the authors of the shocking report say, the testimonies "paint a dismal picture in which can be discerned various categories of secret-keeping collaborators, who, in keeping silent, protect the [Shin Bet] system of torture." ...

On the wall is a picture, a fine drawing of a kneeling prisoner, his head between his knees. The caption: "I am in the darkness of the prison, living on your memory. I am far from you, lying in my bed, my spirit cruising your land all night. God will release all the prisoners, the strong will triumph."

Ashqar is sitting in his wheelchair, his left leg completely enclosed in a cast, his right leg shaking nonstop. When he tries to get up and lean on his crutches, he threatens to topple over. "I was married in 2004, and I started to work in aluminum in the village to provide for my new household. On April 22, 2005, at 2:30 A.M., the soldiers came and started to throw grenades and to shout for everyone in the house to go outside. They blindfolded me with whatever they use and handcuffed me. I was taken in a jeep to prison and I was examined by an army doctor. He looked over my body - no operations, doesn't take medication, no illnesses. Again I was taken in a military jeep, this time to Kishon. 'Yehuda, incoming,' the warder said and transferred me to the interrogation office. They opened my eyes: Good morning. An excellent morning. One of the interrogators, Maimon, told me: I am responsible for your file. What file? The one you were arrested for. This is the major, and this tall guy is the colonel, this is Sagiv and this is Eldad. Eight interrogators.

"They said: We have no time, it will soon be our Passover and you have to finish everything in a short time. Finish what? You have to tell us what you have. I don't have anything to tell you. I begged. They said: We know all that nonsense. We are talking about security. Plans for terrorist attacks at Passover. I said: I don't understand what you are talking about. They said: The suicide bomber was at your place. What suicide bomber?

"After two hours of talking they said to me: If you don't give everything you have, we will have to take it by a different way. What is the different way? Did you hear of a military interrogation? You might leave here with your body battered or crippled. I was taken to a military interrogation. Here you pray to God that you will die, they said, but we won't give you that. We will let you die only after you spill out what we are looking for. He gave me a prison uniform and I told him that if I was going to die, I preferred my own clothes.

"They sat me down on a square chair without a back, which was attached to the floor and had sharp metal ends [sticking up]. My legs were tied to the legs of the chair with metal cuffs and my hands were tied behind my back with metal cuffs. One interrogator sat behind me and the other in front of me. The interrogator opposite me said: We have to give you a little sports, so you will be able to hold out in the military interrogation. The sports was that they pushed me backward by the chest, a backward somersault, and I would hold myself so my bones would not break. After a minute or two I would automatically fall on the floor, but the interrogator behind me would put his foot on my chest and press, and the interrogator in front would grab my hands and pull and pull behind the chair. They kept on like that until I don't know what happened to me, heat in every part of my body, puking everything I had in my stomach and it would go into my nostrils. I would wake up when they poured water on my face. When I woke up, we went back to the same situation. It went on like this 15-20 times an hour.

"After that they made me crouch on my toes, not letting me lean on the back of my foot. I was in that position for 40-50 minutes, maybe an hour - that was my estimate - until I felt my soles swelling and they turned blue and there was tremendous pain. After that, stand up, and they tied my hands and pressed as hard as they could on the metal handcuffs until the metal dug into my hand. Here are the signs, you can still see them. Because of the pressure, the key of the handcuffs didn't always work and they would bring huge metal scissors, like they use in construction, and tear off the handcuffs and then bring new ones, to go on. The color of my hands changed to blue, and when they opened [the handcuffs] my hands shook. The interrogator stood on the table and pulled me with a chain of handcuffs. When I fell, they pulled me by the hair.

"I would cry, beg, shout, and they came back to me with words, that it was impossible to stop, only after you start talking about what we want. I said to them: Tell me what you want. Tell me I am responsible for the attack on the Pentagon, I am ready to confess to everything, just tell me what. I want to end this death."

"There were always four interrogators and two rotated every four hours, day and night. The new ones would tell me they were stronger than the ones before, that the ones before were a joke, we are the strong ones. And that was true. The new ones tied me and started to beat me all over my body. One interrogator pressed hard on my testicles and on my feet with his shoes. When they slapped me and I tried to pull back, the major would say: What are you doing? If you move back, I will break your nose, and if you move forward I will rip off your ear. Be strong and take it sportingly, because you are a soldier and a fighter. They broke this tooth."

Ashqar suddenly stops talking. He turns pale and his face is covered with beads of perspiration. His father, Sati, quickly wipes his face with a damp cloth. "Every time I try to remember I get dizzy, even when I am alone." Quiet descends in the room. It will take Ashqar another few minutes to pull himself together.

"I was taken into detention on Friday morning, and that was the last light of day I saw before the interrogation. I came out for the first time on Monday night or before dawn on Tuesday morning. On those long days I sat in a chair and did not even go to the toilet. So you won't kill yourself, they said. I urinated in my clothes, and a terrible stench started. For four days I didn't eat anything. They told me: If we give you something to eat, something will happen to your stomach and your intestines. Maybe they will explode under the pressure of the food when we push you backward. You will drink only half a cup of saltwater. That is what they gave me every time after they bent me and I vomited. Why with salt? I asked. Give me without salt. No, so nothing will happen in your stomach and intestines. I would drink it and vomit.

"On Monday evening, they told me that five witnesses had testified that Luwaii had transported a wanted man. I told them that there was a famous wanted man named Luwaii Sadi, but my name is Luwaii Sati, and maybe they had mixed us up. He said to me: Are you saying the Shin Bet is that stupid? We know exactly what we're doing, and it is all correct. I said: Put me on trial for whatever you want. He said: Ya'allah, sports again. He pushes me backward in the chair. I will help you become a story in Palestinian history. He is talking to me and my head is down below. He pushes strongly with his leg and presses on my chest. I felt something like an explosion in my body. Like something broke. After that I don't know what happened. I woke up and they were pouring water on my face. Again they pushed me backward and again I fainted.

"He said to me: Stand on your feet. I felt that my legs were cold, like pins and needles in the legs. I said: I can't. He said: Now you are paralyzed. I said: I guess I am. He said: That is what we promised you and that is what you want."

"I discovered I had a wound in the back and it was bleeding - because of the sharp chair - and one of my bones was protruding. Because of the blood and because of the urine of four days there was such a stench that the interrogator could not come close to me. He said: Why do you stink like that? I told him: That is your perfume. A warder took me to the shower and threw me on the floor and said to me: Ya'allah, you have two minutes to shower. I looked at the faucet up above and I could not reach it. I pulled down my pants and the underpants stayed in place. I tried to pull them down - I could do it in front but behind it was stuck to my back. The two minutes went by and the warder started to pound on the door. Time's up. I told him: Give me another two minutes, I can't reach the faucet. He came in and asked: What do you have on your back? I said: I don't know.

"He called the interrogator and said: Come and see the prisoner. The interrogator came and asked: What do you have, Luwaii? I said: I don't know what I have on my back, I can't pull the underpants down and I can't reach the faucet. He said: Ya'allah, we will go up and finish the story and take you to the doctor.

"Two warders took me in a Prisons Service vehicle to Rambam [Medical Center in Haifa]. In emergency, my hands and feet were tied and a Russian doctor asked me: What hurts you? I told him: My whole body hurts from the interrogation. The Druze warder said: Shut up. The doctor turned me on the side and stuck a finger into my ass. I asked him: What are you doing? He said: I am checking whether you have hemorrhoids. Why didn't you ask me first? I am a professional, he said. I said: What about the wound on the back? He put ointment there and dressed it. After 10 minutes I was taken back to interrogation. Again I was tied to the square chair. The bandage fell off and the wound started to bleed again. After that, they stopped the military interrogation."

He was interrogated for another two months, but without physical torture. He was told that his wife had been arrested because of him - a complete fabrication - and he was given a lie detector test ("the falsehoods machine," in his Hebrew). For two weeks he was placed in a cell with stool pigeons. In the end, he was indicted on only two counts, in Prosecution File 2157/05: assisting a wanted person to hide and using a forged document. No ticking and no bomb. Ashqar was sentenced to 26 months in prison and was released a month ago. In the meantime, his younger brother, Osaimar, disappeared. Soldiers came to the house looking for him, but he was not there. His family has not seen him since: He told them that he was not willing to undergo what Luwaii did.

Luwaii is now looking for a way to get medical treatment in Israel or abroad, after his physician told him that he would not be able to get rehabilitation in the West Bank. His lawyer told him that the Shin Bet will almost certainly prevent him from going anywhere.

Analysis and Request for Comments: who is behind the assassinations campaign in Lebanon?

Introduction: the latest assassination - Al-Manar reports:

Two years to the day to a bombing that killed Lebanese journalist Jibran Tueini, an explosion occurred in the Baabda area east of Beirut and claimed the life of Brigadier General Francois Hajj who heads the Lebanese Army Operations department. Four others were killed, presumably soldiers. The army command issued a statement confirming that Hajj had been killed in the explosion. "This morning, the criminal hand targeted head of army operations Brig. Gen. Francois Hajj with a bomb as he drove in his car opposite Baabda municipality, which led to his death along with a number of soldiers, and wounded others," said the statement.

Hajj had headed the grounded operations at the Nahr el-Bared camp, which ended in September with the army defeating the Fatah al-Islam militants. Hajj was tipped to replace the army's top commander General Michel Sleiman, who is the frontrunner to become Lebanon's next president. According to retired army Brigadier General Walid Sukkariyeh, martyr Hajj had an honorable history of patriotism. He had refused to cooperate with the Israelis during their occupation of Lebanon. Israeli occupation forces had bombed his car in his southern town of Rmeish and expelled to Beirut. In the late 80's Hajj was fighting along then army General Michel Aoun against Samir Geagea's Lebanese Forces. According to Sukkariyeh, martyr Hajj was concerned over a rise of power by the Lebanese Forces. "I fear control by the Lebanese Forces and take vengeance on us," retired Brigadier General Sukkariyeh quoted martyr Hajj as saying.

Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea had earlier predicted that assassinations in the country have not ended. He proposed the Lebanese Army changes its doctrine. Changing the army doctrine means that Israel would no longer become an enemy state.

Brigadier General Hajj's assassination comes amid heightened tension on the political level over a delay to elect a new head of state.

Heroes Never Die

Family and friends of martyr Hajj reacted with grief and horror in his southern hometown of Rmeish, vowing he would always be remembered as a 'hero'.
"My son is a hero and heroes never die, he will remain alive in our hearts," cried Kafa al-Aalam, the mother of Brigadier General Francois el-Hajj. The 79-year-old woman beat her head in grief as other black-clad women attempted to calm her.
"I heard that there was an explosion, so I called him on his mobile. He did not answer, then I saw on television that my Francois is dead," she said. "He was due to marry his son over Christmas, he will never have to joy to see his son getting married.
"May God crush the hearts of all those who have crushed mine at the holiday season," she added, as female relatives embraced portraits of the 54-year-old slain general.

Hajj's 35-year-old sister, Esperance, wept silently as she recalled her brother as a loving man committed to his troops. "He was a very loving person. Why did they kill him? Because he was a hero? Because he fought against the terrorists," she said. In a nearby house belonging to Hajj's uncle, male relatives sat silently in the living room as villagers filed through to present their condolences. The general last came to his hometown on Tuesday, as he accompanied army chief Michel Sleiman on a tour of army positions and UN peacekeeping bases in the south.

Hajj is married to Lody Andraos. They have their son Elie, 25, their daughters Racha, 22, and Jessica, 20.

Hezbollah and Michel Aoun condemn assassination

Hezbollah issued a statement condemning the assassination of army Brigadier General martyr Francois Hajj. The statement denounced the assassination as a criminal act that targets the military institution and its role in preserving peace in the country. "The assassination targets the army and its doctrine that stipulates resisting occupation and adhering to independence," the statement said. Hezbollah's statement called for solidarity with the Lebanese army and working consistently and constructively to establish political agreement to save Lebanon from narrow considerations. "We are facing a severe national loss given that the martyr had been playing a patriotic role. We call for uncovering the circumstances of this crime and punishing the perpetrators." The statement offered Hezbollah's condolences to the military institution and the families of the martyrs.

The Head of the Change and Reform parliamentary bloc MP General Michel Aoun condemned the assassination of Brigadier General Francois Hajj and lashed out at Fouad Saniora's government and his interior minister Hasan Sabaa. Aoun said that Sabaa's term has been marred by more than 15 assassination cases, none of which have been solved. Aoun also criticized "political children" for releasing irresponsible statements and accusing this or that side of the assassination. "We are used to seeing a group exploiting a political crime locally and internationally every time such assassinations take place. Exploiting the crime and evading responsibilities signal a conspiracy between the beneficiary from the crime and the perpetrators, who could be the same person," the general said.

Aoun also criticized international security and intelligence bodies that are helping Lebanon solve previous crimes. "We have to know who is behind the ongoing obstruction especially that we were close to reaching an understanding to elect a president next Monday. We have doubts that those protecting us are the ones killing us. I do not want to limit my accusation to one side, however the circumstances of the crime lead us to believe that the this has been a protected crime."

When asked about the recent escalatory position by the head of the "majority" MP Saad Hariri upon his return from Saudi Arabia, Aoun said: "I felt pessimism when I heard those recent political stances." Hariri had threatened to "take steps that can speed up elections" and said in a statement: "We will not fail to take action if a president were not elected. We know what we have to do." General Aoun whose facial expressions reflected his deep regret and anger at the crime, offered his sincere condolences to the Lebanese army and the families of the martyrs.
-------

Commentary:

It is quite obvious that Lebanon is undergoing a determined destabilization campaign. Currently, nobody seems to know for sure who might be behind these assassinations, although the Western corporate media usually points the finger at some nebulous "Islamists" or Syrian elements. Let me confess here that I do not know either "who done it". Still, I think some rational guesses can be made on the traditional crime-solving basis of 1) opportunity and 2) motive. Let's take the main actors one by one.

Christian Falangists: they definitely had the means (opportunity) to do so and most of these assassinations happened in areas controlled by these Falangists. Did they have a motive? Possibly. They are loosing power not only to the popularity of Hezbollah, but more generally to the Muslim birth rates in Lebanon. Still, to organize such a campaign of assassination would entail finding accomplices inside the Falange and not getting caught. This would be, I guess, rather dangerous and very difficult.

Hezollah: they are, by far, the most formidable force in Lebanon. Not only are they the most powerful and well-trained military force in Lebanon, but they also have the most sophisticated and capable intelligence apparatus of the entire Middle-East. Could they pull off such an assassination campaign? Undeniably. Hezbollah has an extremely effective counter-intelligence branch and their operational security has never been compromised, in particular at the higher levels (as far as I know). Hezbollah could count on Iranian support, but really, they would not need it at all, at least not inside Lebanon. How about motive? I would argue that Hezbollah has everything to loose from engaging in such assassinations. Hezbollah takes great pride from the fact that it never turned its guns on other Lebanese factions (with the exception of a minor Hezbollah-Amal clash once which was immediately contained). If any proof was ever found of Hezbollah's participation in these murders it would loose one of its most potent propaganda tools: the argument that it is solely a liberation movement for all the Lebanese people. Lastly, Hezbollah has nothing to gain from destabilizing Lebanon precisely at a time when it is about to be dropped in its hand as a ripe fruit. No a party on the rise like Hezbollah would be crazy to mess things up right now.

Syria: It is hard to estimate whether Syria really still has the means to organize such a campaign but let us assume that it might. Was is certain is that Syria now is in a very tough spot following the Hariri murder. I personally do not believe that Syria was behind this murder at all, but even if it was, the skillful exploitation of the Hariri assassination by the anti-Syrian forces (lead by the USA) resulted in such hell to pay for Assad and his regime that it would appear highly unlikely that they would ask for more. On balance, I would wager that Syria had neither motive nor opportunity to engage is such a systematic campaign.

Israel: Israel has a less than stellar record on assassinations and it badly screwed up so many times that it is hard to imagine for me that they could pull off nine murders in two years without really screwing it up again. Motive? You betcha Israel does. Destabilizing Lebanon, in particular at a time of the rise of the power of Hezbollah, would be trademark Israeli style. They could hope that a weakened Lebanon would also weaken Hezbollah and that should a civil war result and Hezbollah come to power as a result of it they would have the perfect pretext to continue bombing and raiding, if not re-trying an land operation.

USA: The USA's record on assisinating people is arguably marginally better then Israel's, but that does not apply to Lebanon where the USA has never been able to do much better than to subcontract its murders to the Falangists. Since the USA is not able to define its own foreign policy in the Middle-East but simply parrots whatever the Likud tells them to say, we can simply assume that if Israel has a motive, so does the USA.

Al-Qaeda: It is often overlooked that Al-Qaeda is becoming more and more powerful in Lebanon, not only under its own name, but under the name of its local franchise Fatah-Al-Islam. In fact, Hajj was chief of operations when Lebanon's army fought eventually defeated Fatah al-Islam (and destroyed Nahr al-Bared in the process). Wahabi Sunnis have been active all over Lebanon, including in the north, Beirut and Sidon in the south. Al-Qaeda has a reputation for good operational security and it can probably act somewhat 'under the radar' of most Lebanese security services which are used to other threats and targets. Al-Qaeda can only draw on many highly trained operators to direct or assist local assets. As for motive, Al-Qaeda would benefit more than any other faction from chaos in Lebanon as it has zero political prospectives in a stable situation.

Others: there are other interests and forces in the Middle-East and Lebanon, but I simply see no basis upon which to conclude that any one of them would have the motive and opportunity wage such a high-risk and high-visibility campaign in Lebanon. Therefore I will not even look any further into other more exotic culprits, at least until somebody provides me with a plausible reason to do so.

For all these reasons I guess my guess is that either Al-Qaeda or Israel are behind this terror campaign with, however, a preference for the Al-Qaeda theory. It is, of course, rather paradoxical to state that Al-Qaeda and Israel have the same political interests in Lebanon, but that paradox is only superficial. In reality they are both external forces who only care about Lebanon insomuch as it is a playground for their power schemes. They also both know that they have everything to loose from a stable and democratic Lebanon and everything to gain from chaos or civil war.

I might well be wrong in my guesses and I would welcome any comments, criticisms or insights of this short analysis.

The Saker

That was awesome, let's do it again

Remember this next time you see a "Support our troops" sticker:

American Kulturtraegers call in a 'surgical strike' in Iraq

No comment needed, just listen to these guys...

Americans treated like cattle, electric torture used everywhere

One of the most worrying trends in the US society since 911 has been the grotesque bloating of the power of the various intelligence, police and security forces in the USA. Even the TSA goons at the airport randomly yell at people not immediately obeying them.

The 'trademark' of the new post 911 US is that those in authority now want to be obeyed immediately and if the citizen does not comply immediately they use tasers on them not to subdue them, or protect anyone, but to make them comply.

Tasers have now become the cattle prods use to make Americans comply immediately and fully to whatever any uniformed person tells them to do. Should they even object or question the order, they are immediately subjected to what is little more than electric torture not unlike the 'picana electrica' beloved by South American dictators and their thugs.

A portable torture instrument for any uniformed goon. What a truly wonderful idea, isn't it?!

Most people probably remember the student tasered for asking Senator Kerry the 'wrong' questions and they might even have heard that the enforcers who tasered him were fully vindicated by the subsequent enquiry.

Here is yet another example of how any moron with a badge can now treat a arguing citizen:






All this is extremely important telling because Americans who used not to fear their cops (unless they were Black or Latino, of course) are now literally conditioned, trained, to become highly obedient, compliant and fearful.

As in any police state the citizenry is becoming used to fear its authorities and worship their power. And that is definitely a sign of the Fascism which is taken over the daily life of all Americans.

Venezuela to donate more heating oil to U.S. poor

By Jason Szep

BOSTON, Dec 10 (Reuters) - Standing on the deck of an oil tanker in Massachusetts Bay on Monday, Venezuelan energy officials kicked off the third year of a controversial program of delivering subsidized home-heating oil for the U.S. poor.

A Houston unit of a state-owned company backed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a foe of the Bush administration, will supply oil at 40 percent below market prices in 23 states, an expansion from 16 states last year.

The donations by Citgo Petroleum Corp, owned by Venezuelan state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela, are worth about $147 million at market prices.

Deliveries began arriving at homes just as a deadly ice storm swept the U.S. Plains and many Americans start to grapple with record heating bills to heat this winter.

"This is the biggest social program any oil company has ever done in this country," Citgo Petroleum president Alejandro Granado told reporters at a port in Braintree, Massachusetts.

"We didn't stop and think about politics. We need to share a little bit of our tremendous profits."

Flush with funds from soaring oil prices, Chavez has used Venezuela's petroleum wealth to secure closer ties with South American neighbors and in 2005 proposed the U.S. heating oil program to trim costs for America's poor -- a group he says President George W. Bush's government has neglected.

Chavez, who last year called Bush "the devil" in a speech to the United Nations, has called the heating oil donations "humanitarian aid" although Venezuela's per capita income is about 1/10th that of the United States.

The conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal harshly criticized the program last year for assisting "an anti-American tyrant at the expense of the Venezuelan people".

But Joseph Kennedy, a former Democratic congressman whose nonprofit Citizens Energy Corp is a major distributor of the heating oil, said the program has nothing to do with politics.

"The politics side of this is absurd," said Kennedy, the nephew of former president John F. Kennedy.

He noted that more than 10 percent of U.S. gasoline supplies come from Venezuela anyway, along with most of the heating oil and jet fuel in the United States.

"No one is saying any of that should be given up," Kennedy told Reuters. "The only time this discussion comes up is when we're talking about discounted heating oil for the poor."

"The price of oil has gone up 130 or 140 percent in the last four years and there are now hundreds of thousands of low-income folks who need this oil," he said.

Venezuela, the world's No. 5 crude exporter, supplies about 15 percent of U.S. oil imports.

The Venezuelan heating oil program comprises 112 million gallons of oil and is intended for 235,000 families drawn from low-income home energy assistance programs in the 23 states.

"To the degree that they have reduced the cost to the elderly and those who cannot afford it, this program is a good thing," said Sarah Emerson, managing director at Energy Security Analysis in Wakefield, Massachusetts.

Reflections on the NIE on Iran and its consequences

It has been over a week since the publications on the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran and a number of observations about ti can now be made with some confidence.

First and foremost, this NIE is clearly the product of long and protracted negotiations between the UN intelligence community and the Administration. It appears that the office of the VP finally agreed to release this NIE as a way, or so they thought, to preempt the upcoming El-Baradei report which will finally clear Iran from all the accusations of having concealed a nuclear weapons program.

By saying that Iran had a program until 2003 the Neocons can thereby 'prove' that such a program could, in fact, by run right under the noses of the IAEA inspectors. The US intelligence analysts probably figured that making such a concession (putting a totally fabricated 'fact' inside the NIE) was a price worth paying if it could at least undermine the Neocon propaganda about 'an Iranian existential threat to Israel'. So who won, the Neocons in the Administration or the intelligence analysts? Though only time will show, my guess is that the latter did.

Sure, the Neocons can claim that the Iranian nuclear weapons program can be restarted at any time and that therefore Iran is as much a threat as it was in the past. Still, this NIE report release still represented a huge loss of momentum for the Neocon's propaganda campaign. It is one thing to get a nation to war to 'save Israel' and quite another to do some because maybe, in the future, a threat for Israel might possibly materialize.

The trademark of this administration has always been a total incompetence of absolutely breathtaking magnitude and a systematic sacrifice of middle to long term strategic objective to short term tactical goals (and even those were usually screwed-up). The release of this NIE is, I believe, exactly such a miscalculation.

If I am correct, this might very well be the proof that the 'old Anglo guard' has made good use of the removal of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and others to weaken the Neocons for whom time is now running out and who need to re-create the momentum towards war with Iran.

To see why the Neocons need a war with Iran at all costs it is absolutely crucial to understand what the absence of such a war would mean to the Neocons. Should this war *not* happen this would mean that:

1) Iran succeeded in calling the Neocon's bluff and that the Neocons "blinked first". It would prove to the entire Middle-East that the USA is not the superpower it claims to be and that it can be openly challenged and deterred.

2) It would very much weaken the position of the "Reformists" in Iran who were harshly criticizing Ahmadinejad for acting in a provocative way towards the West and who now will be told by Ahmadinejad that his hard stance won Iran a victory which the Reformists would have never achieved with their appeasing policies.

3) It would prove to the Israeli Liukudniks that the USA cannot be counted on to obediently execute any policy decided upon by the Neocons and that Israel cannot use the threat to "unleash the USA" on Iran. Think about it: Israel's armed forces were defeated by less than 1000 Hezbollah combatants in 2006 and the USA was deterred by Iran in 2007. Such an outcome would leave Israel tremendously weakened.

4) Last, but not least, short of a war with Iran the Republicans will be booted out of the White House in 2008 and even though I have written many times that the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is about as meaningful as the difference between (Kosher) Coca-Cola and (Kosher) Pepsi-Cola, the Democrats might well sacrifice some of the most hated Republican leaders to the anger of the US people. Keeping in mind that the Republicans are clearly guilty of a long list of criminal acts loosing the White House in 2008 might well land some of the Republicans behind bars.

For all these reasons I would argue that the absence of a war with Iran represents an existential threat to the Neocons and their interests. However, the Neocons and their policies represent an existential threat to the US Empire as envisioned and designed by the Old Anglo Guard. We are now entering into a dangerous period of time in which the struggle between these two groups is entering something of an end-game in which one of the two sides will be mated. Which side will win? My guess is that in the end the Neocon control over the US corporate media and Congress will prove crucial to the outcome.

There are, however, cracks appearing here and there in this control.

First, the kind of language and policies pushed forward by Ron Paul and his immense popularity in the only media which, at least for the time being, escapes Neocon control - the Internet - is a sign that an increasing number of Americans are really getting fed up with what is being done to their country.

Second, the kind of angry anti-Bush editorials which Keith Olbermann has recently aired on MSNBC shows that cracks are also appearing in the corporate media:




I have to add here that the very fact that such commentaries are aired and that no action has been taken, at least so far, against Olbermann or MSNBC is a powerful illustration that the USA has not become a true Fascist state yet.

In a truly Fascist state Olbermann would have been arrested for sedition or sabotage, and MSNBC would have been promptly taken off the air (I even doubt that there are many countries in Europe in which a mainstream journalist would be allowed to criticize the President with the kind of language Olbermann uses). I am not a fan of Olbermann, of the corporate media, and even less so of journalists making commentaries (I do not even own a TV) - but I have to say that the fact that this kind of dissent is allowed in the USA is hugely encouraging for democracy.

Coming back to the NIE and the situation in Iran, I would like to strongly recommend the very interesting interview Scott Horton made with Scott Ritter recently (click here to listen to it). Scott Ritter is one of the very best US analysts on Iran and in this interview he truly makes a very good job of saying the unvarnished truth about the US policies in Iraq and Iran. His take on the NIE and its real meaning is also very interesting.

THE main overwhelming danger now for the Middle-East and the rest of the world is a carefully engineered "Persian Gulf of Tonkin" kind of false flag operation by the Neocons in the White House. All we can hope for is that the Anglos in the Administration, the US armed forces and and intelligence community will succeed in preventing such an operation from being executed. Likewise, we can hope that the same Anglos will also succeed in preventing Israel from executing such an operation with its own assets. We can hope for this, but I should not expect it and my huntch is that such a false flag operating is being worked on as I write these words.

Saker interview with Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

I have recently posted an interesting piece by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich entitled "Iran Intelligence Report: Another Psychological Warfare?". This was not the first time I had read Soraya's very interesting and insightful articles about Iran and this latest piece prompted me to contact Soraya and ask her for an interview. Soraya kindly agreed to my request and it is my real pleasure today to resume my "Saker interviews" series with a (virtual) conversation with her.

-------

Q: First, could you please introduce yourself in a couple of words. I know that you have an interesting bio and that you lived in several countries, including Iran. Could you please give us some details about yourself?

A. I am an Iranian-American with a degree from International Relations from U.S. As an independent researcher, I have focused on U.S. foreign policy towards Iran and Iran’s nuclear program and the role of lobby groups in foreign policy decisions. I think of myself as a peace activist and have become a ‘political essayist’ because I think that building awareness is important and people can make a change. I am also a public speaker and radio commentator.

Q: Also, just to set the record straight, do you consider yourself a supporter or an opponent of the current government of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

A. I support a secular democracy. Having said that, I must emphasize that there is a clear distinction between Iran as a country, as a nation with over 10,000 years of history, and the current government policies. While I disagree with the internal policies of the Islamic Regime of Iran regarding human rights and democracy, I strongly support Iran's right for independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Q: In your article you mention the Mojahedeen-e Khalgh (MEK) group. In the western corporate media it is very rarely mentioned. This group is listed on the State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations but a number of observers have also alleged that this group is supported by the USA and especially the CIA. What can you tell us about this group, its activities in Iran and its relationship with the USA?

A. Mojahedeen-e Khalgh/National Council of Resistance (also known by their acronyms MEK/MKO/NCRI) is a terrorist group in every sense. U.S. and EU also consider them as a terrorist group, and yet they are supported by the United States. In act, it is such an irony that Mr. Bush declares a war on terror, depletes our treasury, American soldiers die in order to keep us safe from ‘terrorists’, yet our tax dollars are being spent not on keeping terrorists in comfort. Upon invading Iraq, 3800 MEK terrorists were given ‘special persons status’ by the orders of this administration. When this order was issued, there was considerable surprise even at the State Department briefing (source: US State Department Daily Briefing).

The so-called political arms of the group solicits funds in Washington. They have major backers such as Daniel Pipes and Patrick Clawson who in May 2003, Daniel Pipes and Patrick Clawson recommended that “when the secretary of state next decides whether or not to re-certify the MEK as a terrorist organization,” that official “should come to the sensible conclusion that it poses no threat to the security of the United States or its citizens.” Pipes and Clawson went on to praise the MEK as a potential U.S. ally.

These sentiments are echoed in Europe where their leader roams around the European parliament. Hardly the treatment a terrorist should receive.

As for their relation with Iran - The MEK is deeply hated by the majority of Iranians because of their [alliance] with Saddam Hossein during the Iran-Iraq war. The MEK are responsible for killing Iranians and the American government now thinks they can install them as a substitute to the Iranian regime.

The MEK claims to have exposed Iran’s nuclear plant under construction – however, Sy Hersh exposed their Israeli connections. And the essay I wrote, further exposed the role the US/Israel has in mind for them.

Q: Even before the publication of the 2007 NIE it was quite obvious that all this nonsense about an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program being developed right under the noses of the IAEA inspectors was just a pretext for "regime change" in Iran. But what about the accusation that Iran is training, funding, arming and even possibly directly supporting various Shia factions in Iraq, including the Badr Corps and the Mehdi Army? What do you make of the US accusation that the Pasdaran's Quds Force is operating in Iraq against US occupation forces?

A. I have not seen any credible evidence to support these accusations. But, the Iraqi government at the highest level such as Prime Minister Nouri Maleki, Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari, all have repeatedly appreciated Iranian cooperation for Iraq's stability and security. However, I just find it odd that the U.S. is always losing military equipment. Not only was the war planning poor, but it seems that the arms are coming from the US, and not from Iran. In the latest scandal it has been discovered that $1 billion in military equipment is missing in Iraq.

Laura Strickler, CBS News, said, "Tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, crates of machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades are just a sampling of more than $1 billion in unaccounted-for military equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces, according to a new report issued today by the Pentagon Inspector General and obtained exclusively by the CBS News investigative unit."

Q: In his testimony to Congress General Petraeus said: In the past six months we have also targeted Shia militia extremists, capturing a number of senior leaders and fighters, as well as the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800, the organization created to support the training, arming, funding, and, in some cases, direction of the militia extremists by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps' Qods Force. A Hezbollah "department 2800" directed by the Quds Force, that sounds very specific. What do you make of that accusation?

A. This is curious indeed. World Public Opinion came out with a poll taken in 4 Moslem countries, Egypt, Morocco, Indonesia, and Pakistan. With a vast margin, they all thought that the US is seeking to undermine Islam. Every time there is news of an incident, it is reported as ‘Islamist radicals, Islamist terrorist, racial Islam’ and so forth. Not a single terrorist is identified by his or her nationality, they are always identified by their religion, I presume because we lack the intelligence to identify the perpetrator’s nationality – unless we want to make a point about Islam being a terrorist religion. – which could explain why the Moslem world is so apprehensive about America. So I am dumbfounded how in Iraq, General Petraeus who I dare say is the Green Zone, managed to know exactly who is training a specific group in such minute detail. One must also understand that Hezbollah has fought hard to become a legitimate group in Lebanon – it is one thing to fight against Israel as a force, another to be ‘terrorists’ in Iraq. Moreover, if Iran wants to do something in Iraq, regretfully, it has its own people.

Q: The Neocons have succeeded in getting Congress to pass a resolution declaring that the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (Pasdaran) is a 'terrorist' organization. Since the latter are under the direct command of Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, does that not amount to declaring him and the entire Iranian government as 'terrorist'?

A. Since Ayatollah Khamenei is the chief commander of Iranian Army and Revolutionary Guards as well, then one might assume that Ayatollah himself is accused indirectly. I forget how many years it has been since they have said Iran is a state sponsor of terrorists. But, I don't think those who passed this resolution, really meant the Ayatollah. I think the main purpose of this resolution is to create a dispute between the two main branches of Iranian military organization--the regular Army and the Revolutionary Guards on one hand and also to justify economic pressure on the Revolutionary Guards, such as blocking its assets outside Iran.

However, Mr. Rafsanjani (the former president and the current Chairman of the Assembly of Experts) responded to this law that it is against the entire Iranian nation. And even the moderates such a former president Khatami expressed almost the same opinion, but in a different way. Moreover, it seems that there is not much enthusiasm to enforce this resolution.

Q: Speaking of Ali Khamenei, he is a very interesting figure. According to Wikipedia, he is not Persian but Azeri and even though he is at the helm of a majority Persian country he is also the spiritual leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah (even though most Lebanese Shia are followers of Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, a Lebanese Arab). What is your take on this little know personality (at least in the West), on his role in today's Iran, and on his relationship with President Ahmadinejad?

A. Yes, that's true Ali Khamenei as a religious leader and as an Ayatollah has many followers and not just in Lebanon. In Shia, there is no Pope-like figure that everyone follows. All Shia Grand Ayatollahs, whether Arab or Iranian, while they have common and extremely close perception of Shiism even as they hold different view in many details. For example, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Najaf, who was born in the Iranian city of Mashhad is the most influential man in Iraq, who can send shockwaves through Iraq with a Fatwa. All Iraqi Shias listen to him and follow his command in despite of Iraqis being Arabs.

So, the same holds for Lebanon; many Shias despite being Arabs follow Ayatollah Khamenei as their spiritual leader while others follow Grand Ayatollah Fadl-Allah - These two are close friends. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah is a political leader and not a spiritual leader, though he is a medium rank Shia cleric. Nasrallah came out as a hero for defending Lebanon against Israel during the 33-day war – Ahamadinejad is a hero to many for resisting the U.S. intimidation and defending Iran’s sovereign right.

Q: There have been a number of changes at the head of the Pasdaran recently with Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jaafari replacing Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi who was appointed to the position of Senior Advisor to the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for Military Affairs. Similarly, Saeed Jalili has replaced Ali Larijani as Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and chief nuclear negotiator. What do you make of these changes? Are they are reflection of infighting among various groups inside the Iranian government?

A. It is hard to say, it could be because of many reasons. As you may know, it is a policy in any country that no one should occupy a key position, specially in the military and security for a long period. That is what happens and even in the U.S. high-ranking generals, in spite of their loyalty and service are replaced all the time. I think, this could be the main reason for the recent changes in Sepah (the IRGC or Pasdaran. VS), though, I do not exclude other possibilities.

Q: What kind of political opposition is there in Iran today? What has been going on between the 'Conservative' and 'Reformist' parties in Iran? What about the so-called 'ultra-conservatives' lead by Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi? It is often said that President Ahmadinejad has disappointed his supporters? Is that true and, if yes, who do you believe might succeed him?

A. "Ahmadinejad: rock star in rural Iran" (see CS monitor article)

Q: According to Wikipedia, Iran is only 51% Persian. The US has often used the ethnic diversity of the countries who dared to refuse its supremacy to break them apart into smaller, subservient, parts fully dependent on Washington's goodwill. One only needs to see how the US financed and supported the various nationalist movements in the former Soviet Union or former Yugoslavia to impose its rule by the old 'divide and conquer' tactic. Is there are risk that the USA might repeat this with Iran?

A. Wikipedia is not a very reliable source. As you know, very often some people might change and edit the posted material. Furthermore, nobody knows exactly the precise percentage of ethnic diversity of Iran. Even the Iranian government can’t give the exact figure, what is at hand is based on guestimations. For centuries, Iranians have intermingled from different parts of Iran, greater Persian Empire and even different parts of the Middle East. So, it is really foolish to map out Iran based on ethnicity.

But, the second part of your question about the possibility of creating ethnic problem for Iran, I say yes, there might be small groups of western-supported separatists, like PJAK [Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan] who commit terrorism. Please see the article Movers and Shakers of U.S. foreign Policy

But the analogy of the former Soviet Union or even former Yugoslavia is not appropriate here. The former Soviet Union was made of different Nations occupied by Russia. The former Yugoslavia came to existence only after World War I. On the other hand, Iran has been a nation for more than 2500 years. The sense of national pride and long history is very strong amongst the vast majority of Iranians.

Israel considering strike on Iran despite US intelligence report

Rory McCarthy for the Guardian Unlimited

Senior Israeli officials warned today they were still considering the option of a military strike against Iran, despite a fresh US intelligence report that concluded Tehran was no longer developing nuclear weapons.

Although Israel argues that it wants to see strong diplomatic pressure put on Iran, it is reluctant to rule out the threat of a unilateral military attack. Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy defence minister, told Army Radio today: "No option needs to be off the table."

Avigdor Lieberman, the hard-right deputy prime minister, said Israel should be ready to act if sanctions did not work. "If they don't, we will sit and decide whatever we have to decide," he told the Jerusalem Post in an interview today.

Several of Israel's Iran experts say the American rethink on the threat posed by Iran had ruled out a US military strike and probably an Israeli strike too, at least for now. However, Israel's political hawks continue to keep the threat of action alive.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the popular rightwing opposition leader, was asked whether Israel should launch its own military operation. "We always prefer international action, led by the United States, but we have to ensure that we can protect our country with all means," he told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz today.

The repercussions of the new US intelligence assessment are consuming Israeli politicians, analysts and the press. Although Israeli leaders had been briefed in advance, the national intelligence estimate (NIE) which was declassified and published on Monday, brought surprise and frustration in Israel's defence establishment.

In a marked shift from earlier assessments, the NIE said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in autumn 2003 and had not restarted it. America's intelligence agencies said they now did not know whether Iran intended to build nuclear weapons.

Israeli officials quickly offered a direct challenge. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, said although Iran's nuclear programme was halted in 2003 "as far as we know it has probably since revived it".

It is, however, far from clear whether Israel has its own unique intelligence on Iran strong enough to contradict the American findings. Ha'aretz noted in an analysis today: "It wasn't in the intelligence arena that Israel suffered a blow this week, but rather in the public opinion arena."

Some have suggested that with Israel feeling isolated by its hardline stance on Iran, it might be more inclined to launch a unilateral military strike and a comparison is frequently drawn to Israel's 1981 bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector, said this week if Israel felt its "red line" had been crossed it might strike. "They may force a military confrontation," he told the Associated Press agency.

However, it is widely assumed Israel would need at least American approval if not cooperation for any bombing mission. In particular, Israel's air force would need the US flight codes that would allow its planes to cross safely into Iran. When Israel requested those codes in 1991, to attack Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the first Gulf War, the United States refused and there was no Israeli strike.

Yet Israel, the only nuclear power in the region, is not shy of acting alone and has been heartened by the lack of international censure over its bombing raid in northern Syria in September, which may or may not have targeted a Syrian nuclear installation.

Israel's Iran experts argue that the US intelligence assessment did not wholly exonerate Tehran - they point to evidence of a continued enriched uranium programme which has only limited civilian use - but they admit that for now an Israeli military operation is unlikely.

"I think it is quite unrealistic to think Israel will go it alone against Iran in a military way," said Ephraim Asculai, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. He said it appeared Iran would respond to a tougher sanctions regime that demonstrated to Tehran that the cost of its nuclear ambitions outweighed their benefits.

Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born analyst based in Tel Aviv, said there was also a chance Israel might pursue a peace agreement with Syria, in an effort to divide Damascus from Tehran and further isolate the Iranian regime. "The quickest route to isolate Iran is through Damascus," he said.

Iran completely dumps the dollar

Press TV reports: Iran abandons dollar in oil deals

Iran has completely stopped carrying out its oil deals in dollar following the OPEC proposal to trade crude in non-dollar currencies.

"The dollar is no longer a reliable currency, considering its devaluation and the loss suffered by oil exporters," said Iranian Oil Minister Gholam-Hossein Nozari.

"Iran proposed in the last OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) summit that member states use a reliable currency in their oil transactions to prevent further losses," he said, adding that the organization will come to a decision on the issue in the Vienna meeting on February 2.

Meanwhile, the organization decided to keep oil output unchanged at the Abu Dhabi summit on December 5, arguing that there was enough oil in the market to meet winter fuel demand.

AFP reports:

Major crude producer Iran has completely stopped carrying out its oil transactions in dollars, Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari said on Saturday, labelling the greenback an "unreliable" currency.

"At the moment, selling oil in dollars has been completely halted, in line with the policy of selling crude in non-dollar currencies," Nozari was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.

"The dollar is an unreliable currency, considering its devaluation and the oil exporters' losses," he added.

The world's fourth largest oil exporter, Iran has massively reduced its dependence on the dollar over the past year in the face of US pressures on its financial system and the fall in the dollar.

Nozari did not specify in which currencies Iran was now being paid. In the past, officials have said most oil income was in euros, with a significant percentage in yen.

Japan, which purchases 20 percent of Iran's crude oil, has recently agreed to pay for the crude oil in yen, officials have said. The UAE dirham has also been mooted as a possible payment currency.

Iran has in the past months been whittling down the proportion of dollars in its oil revenue income. Officials in October said that dollars accounted for only 15 percent of payments and predicted the amount would fall to zero.

However, the oil income is still being booked in dollars.

The United States has in recent months successfully encouraged major European and Asian banks to cut their dealings with Iran in a bid to make the Islamic republic give way on its controversial nuclear programme.

Washington has also blacklisted major Iranian banks for alleged support of terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons, charges denied by Tehran.

Iran has also reduced its dollar assets held in foreign banks and urged OPEC to take collective action to price oil in other currencies such as the euro, instead of the US currency which is used across the world at present.

The fall of the dollar, which has weakened considerably against the euro and other currencies in the past 12 months, has affected the revenues of OPEC members because most of them price and sell their oil exports in the US currency.

Russia dismisses U.S. claims Iran sought nuke prior to 2003

(RIA Novosti) - Russia has no information on Iranian attempts to develop nuclear weapons before 2003, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday.

His statement came following a Monday publication by the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stating that Tehran had halted weapons production in 2003, although it was continuing to enrich uranium.

"We have no data that such work was conducted before 2003, although our American colleagues have claimed that this was the case," Lavrov told a news conference.

"During our continuous contacts over the last two or three years we exchanged assessments based on intelligence data obtained before 2003, and the information our U.S. colleagues possess does not support the statements that Iran ever had a military nuclear program," Lavrov said.

The Russian minister said the issue still needs to be clarified, a goal set by the UN nuclear watchdog.

The UN Security Council introduced two rounds of sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, and Washington has insisted on new sanctions. Lavrov said the sensible restrictions will remain in place until all enrichment issues have been clarified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"We will consider the proposal on a new UN Security Council resolution taking into account all these factors, including the public confirmation that the U.S. has no data that would corroborate that Iran had a military nuclear program," the minister said.

The U.S. report, contradicting a previous U.S. intelligence assessment in 2005 which said that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear bomb, has pleased Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said: "That report symbolizes a victory for the Iranian nation against international forces on the issue of nuclear weapons."

But Lavrov said the U.S. position on Iran has not toned down since the publication. "I would not describe the U.S. position as softer in any way," he said.

U.S. President George W. Bush remained hawkish, despite the report, saying on Tuesday that, "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the know how to make a nuclear weapon."

When asked if military action remained an option, the president answered, "The best diplomacy - effective diplomacy - is one in which all options are on the table."

"What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?" the president told a news conference at the White House.
-------
(Note: is there any reason *not* to believe Lavrov? I really think that there is none. Sure, the Russians have major economic and political interests in Iran, but they are already well-served by the theory that Iran stopped all its alleged nuclear weapons research in 2003. Simply put, there is no reasons for the Russians to lie here. The question then is how good the Russian intelligence on Iran is likely to be. I would argue that is is most likely the best on the planet. Russia has plenty of Farsi speaking intelligence analysts and it has a large number of expats in Iran, many working inside the civilian nuclear program. Unlike the USA or Israel, Russia most likely has, over many years, most likely developed a solid human intelligence capability in Iran. Lastly, Lavrov's statement is in full agreement with what has been said by pretty much ever expert in this field. The 'secret program stopped in 2003' nonsense is evidently the result of horse trading between the Neocons and the US intelligence community who probably had to agree to this concession - based on the 'smoking laptop' with documents written in English on it - in order to finally get this crucial NIE out)