Iran & Syria protest outside US Embassy 28 January

Today outside the US Embassy there was a rally against military intervention in Iran and Syria, here are a selection of photos from the protest.

The police threatened to arrest this man (below) for the offensive remarks he was holding. One of them stated: “9/11 Jewish Satan bomb”.

He repeated: “Jewish, Satan bomb in Westminster.”

Tony Benn, former MP, said: “America, France, Britain, Israel are looking to attack Iran for their nuclear energy when there is no proof that it will lead, or is intending to lead, to nuclear weapons. Everyone country in the west is now making massive public cuts in expenditure and every bomb is coming out of cuts.” He further said that we don’t need another “imperialist” war under the folly to “safeguard the interests of the west”.

John Rees, a political activist and from the Stop the War Coalition, said: Everybody must be concerned about the military preparations. We have seen how disastrous this action is in Iraq and we don’t want a repeat in Iran.”

Roger Lloyd Pack, former actor, said: ” It’s as if the war in Iraq never happened, as if  we’ve forgotten the lies we were told. I’m appalled.”

“Don’t Attack Iran!”

This guy (below) wearing a moustache caused a lot of trouble, as you can see as he squares up with another individual. He interrupted Abbas Edalat, founder of the campaign against sanctions and military intervention in Iran, and was shouting “Down with [Ayatullah] Khamenei”, “Down with Hezbollah”. Some claimed he was “paid” to be there and cause trouble.

The guy below was pulled away by police after he pushed moustache man to the ground.

Here is moustache man, again.

And again.

And again.

Yep, and again.

And for a final time.

I lied, this is the final time. 

Here are his “boys”. 

And the rest of his crew. 

The Guy Fawkes mask which has become a symbol of protest in the past 12 months.

This lady was getting a tad excited, too.

“Has anything really changed?”

Well, erm…

About these ads

Will We See World War III In 2012?

For the past decade, the public has heard vociferous rhetoric from the White House and the Israeli government about Iran and their nuclear capabilities. In November 2002, the then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon said “the day after” the Iraq war ends, full attention should be given to Iran.

The Iraq invasion officially ended this month, so we must now ask: what now? According to Gerald Celente, who has accurately forecasted major political events for 30 years and is the founder of The Trends Research Institute, not only are we going to see “economic martial law” in 2012, because we cannot “salvage” the “collapsing financial system” but we could see “World War III”. Celente believes with the “Israeli issue heating up”, the problems in Syria continuing (Syria, of course, being best friends with Iran) and the West wanting the fall of both of these regimes, we are seeing it “all come together”.

The Guardian asserted in November: “Britain’s armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran.” And, with the US presidential elections nearing, President Barack Obama’s main hope will be to reverse the state of his country’s economy. If he fails to do this, he will look for ways to divert people’s attention and thus bolster his chances for re-election. According to political analyst Edward Spannaus, the Obama Administration’s strategy for re-election is to start wars, but if the US were to “attack Iran,” it would “end up in a World War III.”

The investigative journalist John Pilger said in this New Statesman article: “The Pentagon has no plans to occupy all of Iran, it has in its sights a strip of land that runs along the border with Iraq. This is Khuzestan, home to 90 percent of Iran’s oil.” Celente, however, believes the reason for a potential attack on Iran would be because of economic reasons. He said: “The entire financial system is collapsing…and when all else fails, they take you to war. And they [the west] are going to do it again.”

According to this Al Jazeera article by M.J. Rosenberg, Robert Baer — a former CIA officer who was primarily assigned to the Middle East – forecasted in 2011 that Israel would attack Iran and drag the US into another major war.  Baer, however, predicted that Israel would attack Iran before September 2011 and turned out to be wrong – but, according to Rosenberg, Baer has named Israeli security figures that have said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are hell-bent on going to war. If this is the case, perhaps it is only a matter of time before Israel initiates an attack.

Former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, said earlier this year that a strike on Iran’s nuclear instillations would be “stupid” and could lead to “a war”. He added: “It is the kind of thing where we know how it starts, but not how it will end.”

What would happen if Iran was attacked? ”We would make them regret such a mistake and would severely punish them [Israel and the US],” said Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces.

Bruce Reidel, formerly special assistant to Obama and former CIA analyst, said: “The Iranians have the capacity to retaliate against America not only in the Middle East and the Persian gulf – but in Afghanistan where we have 90,000 troops and where the Iranians have well-established links to the Taliban.”

Afghanistan and Pakistan have both suffered since 9/11 and the relationship between the US and Pakistan has deteriorated so much that, according to Mirza Aslam Baig, former Pakistani Chief of Army Staff, the two countries could go to war in the near future.

Pakistan is the only Islamic country in the world to possess nuclear weapons and with its weakening infrastructure, increasing instability and swelling relations with the US – Iran is not the only country the Obama administration could face problems with – Pakistan is too.

2011 has been one of the most historic and turbulent years in living memory. From the Japan earthquake; to the Arab revolutions, leading to demise of vicious dictators; and the killing of Osama Bin Laden – we have seen a paradigm shift across the world. The ramifications of the shift in geo-politics are still unclear and what 2012 will produce is anyone’s guess. What is blindingly obvious though, is 2012 will be inexorably determined by the action or inaction, of the Obama administration. Whenever the US interfere around the world, it normally ends in disaster. Let’s hope if they do again, it doesn’t end in the biggest disaster of all.

What The Reconciliation Deal Between Fatah & Hamas Could Mean For Israel

Fatah have reached an agreement with their rivals Hamas on forming an interim government and fixing a date for the general elections- much to the disdain of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli Likud party. Netanyahu came out after the news of the reconciliation between the two Palestinian factions, and gave Mahmood Abbas, the Palestinian PM one option, and one option only. It’s either me, or Hamas, take your pick.

Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2006, but the elections were not recognized by the western countries and their victory was therefore nullified. It seems unlikely they will win the next elections outright with a clear majority. What is likely, however, is some sort of coalition with Fatah-who have support in the West Bank- with Hamas having a good number of MPs in the government. This will, therefore, give Hamas a say in the affairs of Palestine and their relationship with Israel.

Fatah know that they have failed in their ‘peace talks’ with Israel, as they have received nothing apart from Netanyahu’s middle finger. Prime Minister Abbas is losing the confidence of his people, as the Palestinians continue to suffer from the Israeli’s military occupation and constant colonization of their land. Hamas have remained firm and have continued to their fight against their enemy next door, and till this day, refuse to recognize the state of Israel.

The agreement between the two Palestinian factions is a step in the right direction. It represents a unification of principles, and the endeavour for ultimate justice. The Obama administration failed miserably in their attempts at providing peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. The issue, ultimately, will only be resolved by the two sides who are entrenched in it.

The hope for all-apart from Zionists perhaps- is a two state solution, with lasting peace, with an end on the siege on Gaza and freedom for the Israeli and Palestinian people…albeit a difficult thing to imagine. I would love to say the future is bright and only a Middle Eastern utopia will ensue. But I can’t. What I can say though is the Arabic phrase InshAllah which means God willing.

by Omar Shahid

Why Egypt’s Revolution Could Change The World

I was in the gym when I received a text saying ‘The khanzeer has gone’ (khanzeer is an Arabic word meaning pig)- I knew exactly what it meant. Hosni Mubarak had gone. Having followed what was transpiring in Egypt over the past two and a half weeks-somewhat devoutly-I couldn’t help but rejoice, I hadn’t felt so happy for a long time. It was the end of a dictator who had caused misery upon his people for 30 years. But also the start of something amazing.

Among the Arab League’s 22 countries, only three can call themselves democracies, all three, however, are flawed. Iraq, with a democracy enforced by America, is troubled with suicide bombings, extremism as well as sectarianism and is in an utter mess. The Palestinian territories, lacks sovereignty and is under military occupation. And, Lebanon, a country marred with sectarian conflict. The other Arab countries, vary between the most extreme dictatorships-Algeria, Libya & Syria (a country where the government is unlikely to be toppled), to the more kind and caring autocracies like Qatar, and then there’s the more oligarchic ones which are in between- like Morocco- which is run by a monarchy.

What makes the revolution in Egypt so important, is the wider, rippling effect it can cause throughout the Arab world- which is plagued with despotism. It was the Egyptian revolution in 1952 which saw the military become an extremely powerful force which backed the authoritarian Gamal Abdel Nasser, and was, of course, the same military Hosni Mubarak emerged from. This, in turn, inspired similar army backed regimes to ensue, from Algeria, to Iraq to Yemen. Egypt, being arguably one of the most powerful Arab countries, could be a catalyst in the toppling of the other regimes. Algeria’s people have too begun to protest despite the brutality of the police force, and there have been protests in Yemen, Jordan, Libya and Sudan. Reverberations of the toppling of Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egypt’s Mubarak have already begun to be felt as- Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh has promised not to seek re-election, and Jordan’s king Abdullah has sacked his government.

The most intriguing prospect of the whole situation, is that the effects of the potential collapse of despotism into democracy in the Arab world could-or will-affect the rest of the world. If Egypt becomes a democratic country, run by a coalition of party’s including the Muslim Brotherhood, this could change the dynamic of the Middle East. Israel, who have enjoyed the support of Egypt for over 30 years- even from former Egyptian President Anwar Saddat- who signed the peace treaty with them in 1979, would become vulnerable to being attacked by the Arab countries which surround them. This, of course, would be America’s worst nightmare. And this is why America also have it in their interest to help facilitate-not democratic elections-but elections which will, ultimately, end up with a leader similar to Hosni Mubarak. Indeed, with Syria and Iran being ever hostile to Israel, the last thing America would want is Israel’s strongest ally (Egypt) also becoming an enemy-and maybe, even, becoming an ally to Palestine’s resistance party Hamas instead.

However, although the army in Egypt have promised free and democratic elections in the near future, the army generals who now run the country, are part of the same clan which supported Mubarak throughout his dictatorship. If the army were to assume power permanently, there would be no change in Egypt, and maybe, who knows-Mubarak would be still be able to run things from behind the scenes. The future of Egypt, although seemingly bright, is not yet perfect-and wont be until free elections are held.

In the 1970s, the authoritarian regimes in southern Europe collapsed, this was followed later by Latin America where juntas fell rapidly, and it now seems the Arab countries are to follow in a similar manner. You might think I may be getting a bit ahead of myself- but hope is necessary for human society. It was this hope, though, which caused an end of the Pharaoism of Hosni Mubarak.

Omar Shahid