Doc's Talk: Iran Scooping Up African Uranium

Sunday, October 09, 2011

Iran Scooping Up African Uranium

Anna Mahjar-Barducci

The blossoming of the Arab Spring was not a good news for Iran. Teheran finds itself confronting the possibility of losing important allies, such as Syria, and of losing the chance to become a hegemonic power in the region. Iran is therefore looking around the globe for new partners that could politically and economically support the regime. The Iranian government has made significant strides in Latin America, helping to embolden the anti-American bloc of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba and Nicaragua, while gaining sympathies in countries such as Brazil and Argentina.

Teheran, to secure support, is now trying to diversify its allies, and Africa represents the latest continent to be conquered. As the United States has been ignoring these developments, these Iranian activities pursued by Iranian officials in Africa -- including a coordinated diplomatic, economic, and military strategy in African countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe and Eritrea -- have been growing unchecked. While Iran has launched an impressive number of development projects in Africa, business is never separated from ideology. This is particularly clear in Sudan where, according to Sanam Vakil, an expert on Iran at the Johns Hopkins University, "Iran has been successful in strengthening ties with Sudan because the two countries have an ideological link. They are standing up against the West and imperialism."

If left unchecked, Iran's thrust into Africa might do at least as much damage as it is doing in Latin America. Iran is not exactly an altruistic power: its aid is always conditional, and its conditions always run against the West. At the very least, new allies in Africa can provide support in international forums for Iran;s nuclear weapons research program and in circumventing UN sanctions. In a darker scenario, Iran might use these new-found friends to launch terror attacks against Western interests.

If the US continues to ignore Iran's silent and patient growing global ambitions, particularly in Africa and Latin America, Teheran will, in the long run, have the upper hand. On one side, Iran will be able to threaten the US from Latin America, on the other side, Iran will have a strong foothold in Europe's backdoor: Africa.

Sudan

After participating in the 66th United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, went for a long official visit to Sudan to further strengthen relations there.. According to the Agence France Presse, Ahmadinejad said during the visit that Iran and Sudan were standing together as "defenders of Islam" in the face of pressure from the West: "Iran and Sudan will stand together as defenders of the Islamic world and the independence of the region," Ahmadinejad maintained, adding that "both countries are facing pressure from the colonialists, who want to impose things that affect our people negatively. They are trying to apply pressure on independent states because they do not want them to be strong."

Iran and Sudan are both facing international sanctions, Iran because of its nuclear program, and Sudan because of its crimes against humanity in Darfur. The media outlet Sudan Tribune reports that in a speech delivered before a crowd of youths in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, Ahmadinejad criticized the United States and Europe for taking the riches of the black continent: "They stole the riches of Africa," he said. "Despite this wealth, we see poverty and deprivation."

Fars News wrote that Ahmadinejad described the two countries' ties as "brotherly, deep and stable," and went on to note that, "[h]aving a deep and shared understanding of the current historical juncture and developments, the two countries are seeking to increase their cooperation at all levels and without any restrictions." The Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir, for his part, underlined the significance of the relations between Iran and Sudan, and stated that his "country, that owns rich natural resources, has opened all ways of cooperation to Iran so that the two countries can benefit from these resources in the interest of their nations and the entire Islamic Ummah [Nation of Islam] through partnership and joint cooperation."The Sudanese president also stated that, "Sudan will defend the Iranian nation's nuclear rights in all circles."

Zimbabwe

In February 2011, the Associated Press noted that according to an intelligence report, Iran is expanding its covert global search "for the uranium it needs for its nuclear activities, and a key focus is Zimbabwe." A month later, during a visit to Teheran, Zimbabwe's Foreign Minister, Simbarashe Mumbengegwi, said his country is willing to cooperate with Iran on uranium mining. "Zimbabwe has rich uranium reserves," he said, "but is faced with a shortage of funds and does not possess the technical knowledge and equipment needed for extracting rich uranium ore […] If we can work together on uranium mining, it will improve the economic situation of both countries."

In April, the Sunday Telegraph reported that Iran had struck a "secret deal with Zimbabwe to mine its untapped uranium reserves in a move to secure raw material for its steadily expanding nuclear program." The British paper explained that "in return for supplying oil, which Zimbabwe desperately needs to keep its faltering economy moving, Iran has been promised access to potentially huge deposits of uranium ore – which can be converted into the basic fuel for nuclear power or enriched to make a nuclear bomb."

Mauritania

Before leaving for the UN meeting in New York. Ahmadinejad stopped in Mauritania, where he discussed the latest developments in the Middle East and North Africa, and emphasized the "necessity of establishing an international system based on justice and respect for the rights of all nations." He also stated that although Mauritania is rich in natural resources, Western countries "have exploited their national assets and imposed poverty." Mauritania's president announced his country's support, according to Iran's Press TV, for Tehran's nuclear program.

Eritrea

As Eritrean President Isayas Afewerki's dictatorship has transformed the country into a center of tyranny and despair, the Eritrean opposition media, Asmarino, noted that Iranian forces are stationed in the Red Sea Port of Assab, where they could be of serious danger to Israel. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) had also reported, as early as 2008, that "Eritrea has granted Iran total control of the Red Sea port of Assab," adding that Iranian submarines "deployed troops, weapons and long-range missiles... under the pretext of defending the local oil refinery." Other media outlets have also stated that Eritrea was hosting military bases for the Iranian Revolutionary guards. Radio France Internationale (RFI) remarked that "Iran has not chosen the port of Assab randomly. In case of a conflict with the West over the nuclear question, Tehran would be in a position to carry out a 'maritime jihad'."

Future visits

Iranian First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi announced that in mid-November he will visit Kenya and Tanzania. Rahimi recently visited Cuba and Ecuador in the framework of Iran's policy of strengthening relations with Latin America. Now, it is Africa's turn.

Iran is already an observing member of the African Union (AU); as reported by Fars News, Teheran is considered one of the AU's strategic partners and is believed to have as a priority the promotion of its economic and political ties with African states.

Kenya's government stated that is urging Iranian investments.Iran's interest in Kenya, however, goes in other directions. The Ahlul Bayt News Agency wrote that the Kenyan Shia cleric, Morteza Morteza, said that "the number of Shia Muslims has sharply increased, and a lot of Kenyans became familiar with this honorable school of thought."

In the meantime, in Teheran, the Iranian Speaker of the Palriament, Ali Larijani, met with former Tanzanian former president, Ali Hassan Mwinyi, and with the Speaker of the Tanzanian House of Representative, Pandu Ameir Kificho. The two Tanzanian politicians had gone to Iran to attend the Fifth International Conference on the Palestinian Intifada. On that occasion, Larijani maintained that the development of relations with Africa was one of Iran's priorities.

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