Iranian
paratroopers on parade for the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyyed
Ali
Khamenei, January 3, 2008, from a photo posted on Khamenei's Web
site. If war comes,
these are some of the men that will be on the front
lines of the conflict.
Tehran Times, Islamic Republic of Iran
U.S.-Iraq Security
Deal a Bush Scheme to 'Steal' the Election for McCain
What is Iran's take on the new long-term
security agreement being negotiated between Washington and Baghdad? Tehran's
leadership charges that beyond insuring that Iraq becomes a legal launching pad
for American attacks on neighboring countries, the deal is also all part of
President Bush's scheme to persuade a war-weary America that Iraqis want the
U.S. to stay, thereby allowing him to 'steal' another election - but this time
for John McCain. Referring to the White House push for the security deal, Ardeshir Ommani writes for Iran's
tightly-controlled, state-run Tehran Times:
"The intent of the Bush
Administration is to blur the differences between the Democratic and Republican
candidates on the question of an immediate troop withdrawal. Should the White
House impose such an enslaving order on the people of Iraq, the chances for
Senator McCain improve, while the lot of Senator Barack Obama plummets. It
seems tricky George still has a card up his sleeve for stealing another
election. ... If the current administration pulls this off, they intend to
proclaim to the American people that Iraqis have agreed to a continuation of
the occupation of their country and that they “want us to stay and protect
them."
By Ardeshir
Ommani
June 21, 2008
Islamic Republic
of Iran - The Tehran Times
- Original Article (English)
Earlier
this month, that part of humanity that respects its own freedom and dignity has
witnessed the impending conclusion of a unilateral [long-term]
"security" agreement between the Iraqi government and the sole author
of this forced concession, the United States.
The one-sided
accord is part and parcel of colonial rule and provides a pseudo-legal
foundation for the extension of America's violent occupation of that country.
By means of this so-called treaty, which provides for no time or space
limitations, George W. Bush’s Washington intends to disguise his ugly and
brutal treatment of the Iraqi people with a veneer of legality, so that the
presence of the U.S. military machine in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region won't
be construed as an indefinite continuation of the U.S. military occupation in
the eyes of the least-informed Americans and some European U.N. Security
Council members. Furthermore, the agreement would likely be exploited as a
basis for using Iraqi territory as a launching pad for additional wars against
countries in the region.
In talks with
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
in Tehran in early June, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed
Ali Khamenei made his rejection of this proposed
"security pact" clear by stating that “occupiers who interfere in
Iraqi affairs with their military and security might” are the chief cause of
Iraq’s problems and are the “… main obstacle in the way of Iraqi national
progress and prosperity.”
Iran
Air Force officers listen to a speech by Iran's Supreme Leader
Ayatollah
Seyyed Ali Khamenei, Feb.
7, 2008, from a photo posted
on Khamenei's personal Web site.
The Iranian
people must not tolerate the continued aggression of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Some years ago,
when an early draft of this pact was circulated, Iraqi nationalist forces and
religious leaders were led to believe that signing the deal would lead - sooner
or later - lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops and Iraqi independence. Today,
however, that presumption has been turned on its head. It has now become clear
to all that America's objective is to tighten the noose and permanently hold
the position as global executioner. Some Iraqi officials are even trying to
convince the Iraqi and Arab masses that the deal invalidates paragraph seven of
the U.N. resolution on Iraq, which makes the United States the guarantor of
Iraqi security 
.
By pushing this
hoax and depicting Iran as a threat to the Persian Gulf region, the United
States is making every effort to define the agreement between Washington and
Baghdad as a means of maintaining Iraqi security by acting as a shield against
Iranian interference. What hypocrisy: the invader of Iraq and Afghanistan
claims to be an agent of peace and security!
This agreement
will impose capitulation on Iraq for decades to come. It's revealing that the
details of the "agreement" haven't been made public nor grasped by the people of Iraq, who will have very little
say on the matter. This is why the package is being pushed so furiously through
the Iraqi Parliament before its terms can be thoroughly revealed. This so-called
"security agreement" should more correctly be called "The
Legitimization of America’s Occupation of Iraq." According to reliable
Iraqi sources, the agreement doesn't assure Iraq's independence, national
integrity or national sovereignty as an inalienable right.
The Supreme Leader reviews his troops in Yazd Province, January.
The Empire also has
to deal with its own war-weary public, which is demanding an end to the
occupation. The intent of the Bush Administration is to blur the differences
between the Democratic and Republican candidates on the question of an
immediate troop withdrawal. Should the White House impose such an enslaving
order on the people of Iraq, the chances for Senator McCain improve, while the
lot of Senator Barack Obama plummets. It seems tricky George still has a card
up his sleeve for stealing another election.
Once again, the
sorcerer in the White House is orchestrating a fabrication. If the current
administration pulls this off, they intend to proclaim to the American people
that Iraqis have agreed to a continuation of the occupation of their country
and that they, “want us to stay and protect them.”
On the other side
of this long, cruel occupation stands a fighting force led by Moqtada al-Sadr who have called for widespread demonstrations against this
disreputable and colonial infliction. Responding to the call on June 1,
hundreds of thousands of indignant and offended Iraqis poured into the streets
in every major city. Their response was a clear rejection of George W. Bush’s
plot: they burned American flags by the hundreds.
To say the least,
should this document between invader and invaded succeed,
it will be a clear violation of Iraqi national sovereignty. Meanwhile, the U.S.
will continue to plunder Iraq’s natural resources and subject its labor force
to the most de-humanizing exploitation and degradation.
Iraq's patriotic
forces, first and foremost the people’s movement led by Moqtada
al-Sadr and other nationalist groups, have expressed
their outrage over this agreement, which would be to give up their nation's
independence to an occupying power. Nevertheless, some Iraqi officials speak in
favor of the agreement. A draft of deal emerged for the first time in 2006. At
the time, it was meant to legitimize the crimes committed by individual U.S.
servicemen and mercenaries (Blackwater comes to mind)
against innocent Iraqi citizens. The document deprives the Iraqi state of the
right to arrest or prosecute any American involved in the occupation, even when
he or she commits crimes unrelated to the U.S. war effort. In the last quarter
of 2007, the Bush Administration once again brought the issue of the
"security agreement" forward for discussion in the Iraqi
Parliament.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
It's clear that
the U.S. has been unable to convince other nations to follow the path to peace,
democracy and lasting prosperity that it dictates, despite the way it's showcased
by its army of advertisers promoting the cliché of American exceptionalism.
In the minds of
the overwhelming majority of humanity - including the nations of Western Europe
that the U.S. has for almost a century taken for granted - the U.S. socioeconomic
system is increasingly becoming a symbol of violence and fraud. The history of
the last half century in particular shows that the U.S. is synonymous with war,
killing, palace coups, threats of annihilation, strangulating sanctions and
false allegations about many nations. Iraq and Afghanistan are only the latest
examples.
ALSO FROM IRAQ
ON THE U.S. SECURITY DEAL:
Azzaman, Iraq
Why for Iraqis, America
Has an Edge Over Iran ...
http://worldmeets.us/azzaman000177.shtml
Sotal Iraq, Iraq
Long-Term Security
Treaty Between Iraq
and U.S. 'Rejected'
http://worldmeets.us/sotaliraq000008.shtml
Kitabat, Iraq
Security Deal With
America is Iraq's
'Chance of a Lifetime'
http://worldmeets.us/kitabat000019.shtml
ALSO FROM IRAN ON OBAMA:
Iran News Daily, Islamic Republic of Iran
EDITORIAL: Obama's
Victory a 'Watershed'
in American History
http://www.worldmeets.us/irannewsdaily000010.shtml
[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US June
21, 3:35pm]
