Doc's Talk: Iranian statements that show apprehension regarding the ramifications of the sanctions against Iran

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Iranian statements that show apprehension regarding the ramifications of the sanctions against Iran

Jerusalem Today

Statements by conservative institutionalized bodies that publicly admit, although cautiously and with subtle criticism, that the sanctions are having an effect, however small. For example:

1. The Chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council and Chairman of the Council of Guardians, Rafsanjani, said that throughout the entire period of the revolution never have such severe sanctions been imposed on Iran. I call upon you and upon all official functionaries to treat this seriously and not with humor. Over the past 30 years we have had wars and military threats but we never predicted such a calculated, arrogant attack on us. (Mehrnews, Sept. 14) 2. Chairman of the Iranian Majlis, Larijani, said. “I’m not saying that the sanctions do not have any effect, but their effect is very small.” (Syrian al-Watan, July 2)

Khabar Online, a website associated with Larijani, reported (July 21) acknowledgement that Iran has gradually entered a state of international isolation.

3. The Iranian President’s Chief of Staff and personal associate, Rahim Mashaei, said that “when they say sanctions have no effect, it doesn’t mean that there’s no economic effect, but that it won’t have the effect of changing the Ahmadinejad government’s policy.” (Fars, Aug. 4)

4. The Chairman of the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency, Salehi, in an unusual statement, said, “It cannot be said that the sanctions imposed on Iran are without effect.” He added that the sanctions will probably cause a slowdown in Iran’s nuclear progress, but will not stop it. (Reuters, Isna, July 7)

5. The Iranian President’s First Vice President, Rahimi, said of the latest sanctions that the current situation is the most sensitive since the revolution, while stressing the need for cooperation and for taking care of all the organizations to prevent the sanctions from having an effect. He emphasized that the government will not allow the Iranian people to suffer from the pressure stemming from the sanctions, rejected the claim that the sanctions explain the recent price increases, and called upon the relevant bodies to supervise the situation in the economy to prevent what he described as “the psychological effect” deriving from the sanctions. (Mehr, Aug. 16)

6. Foreign Minister Mottaki announced the establishment of a headquarters to take special economic steps to deal with the sanctions imposed on Iran. (Irna, June 30)

7. Minister of Trade Ghadanfari and Economic Minister Hosseini claimed at a joint meeting that the sanctions have no significant effect on the Iranian economy although, according to them, it’s possible that Iran has paid a certain price. In another statement by the Minister of Trade, Ghadanfari, reflecting deep concern about the ramifications of the sanctions on the Iranian shipping fleet, he wondered what crime Iran had committed that caused sanctions to be imposed on its ships. He added that they needed to be protected and that Iran has a special defense plan in this regard. (Fararu quoting Dunya al-Iqtisad, June 14)

8. The head of the Iranian Chamber of Commerce, Nahavandian, remarked that the sanctions policy will not achieve any results, “even though the prices of imported products might rise.” In another statement Nahavandian said that Iran is facing what he described as “a new wave of threats” on its economy; the sanctions are like a military war, and they should be taken seriously. He added that the sanctions are preventing Iran from exercising its right to be present in the international arena, and they must not be “naïve” and disregard them because the sanctions will have their effect, eventually, on the Iranian people. Yet he claimed that the people reject the language of pressure. He concluded that it is imperative to work on every front to lift the sanctions, since they prevent the country from progressing and its next generation must be protected. Nahavandian further said that the sanctions will lead to higher prices of goods, which will affect the rate of unemployment and inflation in Iran, so the government has to act seriously and announce that it will compensate the economic sector for the losses. Special attention and breaks are necessary. (Fararu, June 14; Aftab News, July 29, Aug. 8; ISNA, Aug. 9)

9. The Governor of the Central Bank of Iran, Bahmani, said in reference to the sanctions imposed by the EU that Iran is in an all-out (economic) war on all levels. (Iran Press News, Aug. 28)

10. The leader’s representative in the Khorasan region, Ayatollah Tabasi, a senior religious institutional personality, said with regard to the effect of the sanctions on the economic situation that “we aren’t saying that adopting the Security Council resolution is not affecting Iran’s economic situation, and on the other hand I am certain that with a more suitable policy perhaps we wouldn’t have reached this situation” [of sanctions against Iran]. (Sabz, June 24; DayPress, June 24)

11. The Chairman of the Iran-China Joint Chamber of Commerce and a senior conservative figure, Askar Awladi, said that the sanctions are causing increased expenses in Iran’s trade, but Iran is capable of circumventing them. (Sabz, July 1, Poolnews)

12. A member of the German Bundestag on behalf of the FDP (liberals), Rainer Stinner, said after returning from a meeting in Teheran (Aug. 9) that representatives of the regime and members of the Majlis whom he met expressed concern that the sanctions might have a significant effect on Iran’s exports and imports (AP, Aug. 9).

Reformist elements headed by the opposition movement leader, Musawi, are pointing an accusatory finger at the government as being responsible for the situation, and are declaring that the sanctions, which resulted from the regime’s unsuccessful policy, are having a real impact on Iran’s economy.

1. Musawi directed criticism at the regime after the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1929, saying that “the resolution was imposed on the Iranian people because of the unsuccessful management and irrational policy.” Later, referring directly to Ahmadinejad’s statements, he said that “determining that this resolution is like a used Kleenex will not ease the distress stemming from the demagogic policy; it’s clear to me that the resolution will affect Iran’s economy and security.” He elaborated by saying that “this cruel resolution will lower the Gross Domestic Product, increase unemployment, cause distress to the people and increase the gap between them and other developing nations, especially neighboring countries.” He ended by imploring the government to inform the Iranian people of these ramifications.

2. Former Iranian president Khatami criticized the government policy that, according to him, bolsters and strengthens Iran’s enemies. At a meeting he held with Musawi, they declared that adopting “an ill-considered and foolhardy policy” that is viewed as an excuse to harm Iran’s interests and a blow to its national security, is unacceptable. (Sabz, July 6; AFP, June 16, July 7)

Other independent political figures also criticize the regime’s policy, which they claim led to the adoption of the Security Council resolution. Some of them even warned, before the resolution was passed, of the negative ramifications another decision by the Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran would have:

1. Dr. Salman Safavi, who is living in London (and his brother Rahim Safavi, former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and currently the leader’s senior advisor), said that the West’s diplomatic victory in imposing sanctions against Iran is due to “basic weaknesses in the Iranian government’s present diplomatic system, which is not capable of protecting the Iranian people’s rights in a just and wise manner in the international arena.”

Later, in criticism directed against senior regime officials who made light of the sanctions’ effect on the Iranian economy, he emphasized that the sanctions are having “a serious effect” and are weakening Iran. “This is undoubtedly a great disaster that will afflict Iran’s oil, gas and petrochemical industries.” (Ilna, June 22; Fararu, June 30)

2. Sadegh Zibakalam, a senior lecturer at the University of Teheran and one of the most prominent intellectuals in Iran, expressed unusual criticism of the regime’s nuclear policy. He said, “I am sure that there is no need for an academic degree in economics to understand the destructive effect of the sanctions on Iran’s economy…Is the price that Iran is paying for enriching uranium worthwhile? What economic justification is there to produce nuclear fuel if it can be purchased at a cheaper price abroad? If we wanted to purchase (not manufacture) nuclear fuel, we surely would not be under sanctions…Maybe it’s about time to ask ourselves whether the very high price for the nuclear program was inevitable?” (Fararu, June 24)

3. Following the sanctions resolution, commentaries in the Iranian media are mushrooming, calling for different conduct. Thus, former Deputy Foreign Minister Sadeq Kharrazi claims in two articles published on the “Iran Diplomacy” website (Aug. 2) that a dialogue between Iran and the West is the only way to solve the conflict between them. Diplomacy is one of the basic challenges for Iran. On one hand is the illusory rhetoric being spun by some Iranian diplomats that has not achieved anything except a strategic failure, and on the other hand is the international community that is behaving unfairly in its dealings with Iran.

Comment: Imagine if Bush and then Obama went "all in" as they say in Vegas where we might be now? Imagine if the West had rallied together for a period of time, set aside the business as usual, set aside their avarice and put the secuirty of the countryat center stage.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk