Kourosh Ziabari: America's Power Game. Iranian People Victims!

of US Economic Sanctions. Iran's nuclear program seems to have reached a dead end. Iranian officials have politically invested a lot on the country's nuclear program, which was initially set in motion 6 decades ago, when President Dwight D Eisenhower decided to help his close friend Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi construct the first nuclear reactors in Iran, and it seems to be embarrassing for the Iranian government to announce out of the blue that they don't want to pursue nuclear technology anymore, which will give the West a pretext to launch a new psychological war against Tehran, and trumpet this victory that it has retreated from its position, and from the other hand, the obdurate United States and its European allies have not indicated that there mind and come to terms with a nuclear Iran. The reality is, that if the United States and its European allies had compelling evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, they would not hesitate for a moment to launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, and what troubles them is that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons. The only reason for the decade long controversy over Iran's nuclear program, is that the two sides of the conflict are engaged in a power game, and nobody likes to be the loser in this erosive confrontation. Acquiring nuclear technology will promote Iran to the level of a regional superpower and a serious rival for Israel, and this is something which the West cannot tolerate. However, it seems that the ordinary Iranian citizens are the only victims of this power game and charade of double standards. The US government, which shamefully protects Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal, and sides with Israel every time that the international community decides to demand Israel to legalize its nuclear activities, such as in the case of the recent UN General Assembly resolution, has pulled out all the stops to prevent Iran from nuclear technology, while even the intelligence agencies inside the United States have admitted that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons or intending to do so. The 2012 National Intelligence Estimates reports refuted the allegations that Iran's nuclear program has a military dimension. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency has never published any reports that Iran is moving towards developing nuclear weapons, except for the claims that Iran is not fully cooperating with the agency, but the United States and its allies are hell bent of punishing Iran for the crime it has not committed, and have targeted Iran with backbreaking economic sanctions, which are taking a heavy toll on the innocent Iranian people, and almost paralyzing the Iranian society and its economy.     

TheEconomist: Democracy in America. It takes a decadent village!b

Ross Douthat wrote a column last Sunday on the recent decline in US birthrates, that started out by observing that pro family policies in places like Sweden and France lead to more births, a point that earned numerous cross aisle plaudits from lefties. He then finished by arguing that lower birthrates are also in part a symptom of late modern exhaustion, a decadence that first arose in the West, but now haunts rich societies around the globe. That last point has earned him a week's worth of guff. Demographers explained that Mr Douthat's premise is misleading, and that total fertility rates may not have fallen. The decline in "birthrates" is in large part due to the fact that women in their late 20's are having fewer babies, while women in their late 30's are having more than ever before, and that there happens to be a demographic trough of women in their 30s right now, so we're seeing fewer births. Feminists argued that calling for women to have more children, over and against their expressed preferences for fewer children, means treating them not entirely as fully responsible agents, and at least in part as brood sows. More or less everyone has pointed out that lower birthrates are the inevitable and universal outcome in societies where women achieve education, prosperity and control over their own lives. As a grace note, Matthew Yglesias writes that based on recent indie rock lyrics, what hip young women seem to want isn't to live the life of a carefree, bohemian wastrel, It's to have a well paid and respected job, which doesn't seem very decadent. I subscribe to all of these critiques. Moreover, I'm not sure I understand what "decadence" is, which means that even though I've discharged my personal responsibility to achieve replacement level fertility, I'm probably one of those decadent people whom Mr Douthat makes fun of in his follow up post. It's in the nature of decadent societies to deny that the category decadent exists. And yet, I'm going to go out on a limb, and admit that while I mostly disagree with Mr Douthat, I sort of partially agree with him. 

Michel Chossudovsky: The Staging of a US NATO Sponsored Disaster?

The Western media suggests, in chorus and without evidence, that a frustrated and desperate president Bashar al Assad is planning to use deadly chemical weapons against his own people. Last week, US officials revealed to NBC News that "Syria's military has loaded nerve gas chemicals into bombs and are awaiting final orders from al Assad". Western governments are now accusing Syria of planning a diabolical scheme on the orders of the Syrian head of State. Meanwhile, the media hype has gone into full gear. Fake reports on Syria's WMD are funneled into the news chain, reminiscent of the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The evolving media consensus is that "the regime of Syrian leader Bashar al Assad appears to be entering its twilight" and that the "international community" has a responsibility to come to the rescue of the Syrian people to prevent the occurrence of a humanitarian disaster. "Fears are growing in the West, that Syria will unleash chemical weapons in a last ditch act of desperation". Recent reports that the embattled government of Syria has begun preparations for the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people. After two years of civil war, and more than 40,000 deaths, events in Syria may be heading to a bloody crescendo. The antiwar critics have largely underscored the similarities with the Iraq WMD ploy, which consisted in accusing the government of Saddam Hussein of possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction. The alleged WMD threat was then used as a justification to invade Iraq in March 2003. The WMD Iraq ploy was subsequently acknowledged in the wake of the invasion as an outright fabrication, with president George W Bush, and Prime Minister Tony Blair actually recognizing that it was a big mistake. In a recent statement, Nobel Peace Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for "lying" Blair and Bush to face trial in the Hague's International Criminal Court. The Syria WMD saga is in marked contrast to that of Iraq. The objective is not to justify an all out humanitarian war on Syria, using chemical weapons as a pretext. An examination of allied planning, as well as the nature of US NATO support to the opposition forces, suggests a different course of action to that adopted in relation to Iraq and Libya. The purpose is indeed to demonize Bashar Al Assad, but the objective at this stage is not the conduct of an all out "shock and awe" war on Syria, involving a full fledged air campaign. Such an action would, under present conditions, be a highly risky undertaking. Syria has advanced air defense capabilities, equipped with Russian Iskander missiles, as well as significant ground forces. A Western military operation could also lead to a response from Russia, which has a naval base at the port city of Tartus in Southern Syria. Moreover, Iranian forces from its revolutionary guards corps are present on the ground in Syria. Russian military advisers are involved in the training of the Syrian military!     

Eric Bailey, Noam Chomsky: America, Moral Degenerate!

Noam Chomsky and Eric Bailey of Torture Magazine discuss America's human rights record under President Obama, and the military intervention policies that have seen increased use during the Arab Spring. Eric Bailey: The last four years have seen significant changes in American federal policy in regards to human rights. One of the few examples of cooperation between the Democratic and Republican parties over the last four years has been the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. This bill has given the United States military the power to arrest American citizens indefinitely, without charge, trial, or any other form of due process of law, and the Obama administration has, and continues to fight a legal battle in federal court, to prevent that law from being declared unconstitutional. Obama authorized the assassination of three American citizens, including Anwar al Awlaki and his 16 year old son, admittedly all members of Al Qaeda, all without judicial review. Additionally, the Guantanamo Bay prison remains open, the Patriot Act has been extended and the TSA has expanded at breakneck speeds. What is your take on America's human rights record over the past four years, and can you contrast Obama's policies with those of his predecessor, George W Bush? Noam Chomsky: Obama's policies have been approximately the same as Bush's, though there have been some slight differences, but that's not a great surprise. The Democrats supported Bush's policies. There were some objections on mostly partisan grounds, but for the most part, they supported his policies, and it's not surprising that they have continued to do so. In some respects, Obama has gone even beyond Bush. The NDAA, which you mentioned, was not initiated by Obama. When it passed Congress, he said he didn't approve of it, and wouldn't implement it, but he nevertheless did sign it into law, and did not veto it. It was pushed through by hawks, including Joe Lieberman and others. In fact, there hasn't been that much of a change. The worst part of the NDAA is that it codified, or put into law, what had already been a regular practice. The practices hadn't been significantly different. The one part that received public attention is what you mentioned, the part that permits the indefinite detention of American citizens, but why permit the indefinite detention of anyone? It's a gross violation of fundamental human rights and civil law, going all the way back to the Magna Carta in the 13th century, so it's a very severe attack on elementary civil rights, both under Bush and under Obama. It's bipartisan! As for the killings, Obama has sharply increased the global assassination campaign. While it was initiated by Bush, it has expanded under Obama and it has included American citizens, again with bipartisan support, and very little criticism other than some minor criticism because it was an American. But then again, why should you have the right to assassinate anybody? For example, suppose Iran was assassinating members of Congress, who were calling for an attack on Iran. Would we think that's fine? That would be much more justified, but of course we'd see that as an act of war.       

Dean Henderson: The Federal Reserve Cartel. Continued!

Hamilton was only the first in a series of Eight Families cronies to hold the key position of Treasury Secretary. In recent times Kennedy Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon came from Dillon Read, now part of UBS Warburg. Nixon Treasury Secretaries David Kennedy and William Simon came from Continental Illinois Bank, now part of Bank of America, and Salomon Brothers, now part of Citigroup, respectively. Carter Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal came from Goldman Sachs, Reagan Treasury Secretary Donald Regan came from Merrill Lynch, now part of Bank of America, Bush Sr. Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady came from Dillon Read, UBS Warburg, and both Clinton Secretary Robert Rubin  

Jill Filipovic: Why God, Family and Tradition Do Not Equal Happiness!

Are we living in a post familial age? According to a new report, The Rise of Post Familialism: Humanity's Future? The answer is YES. The traditional family unit is slowly dying out, as more people choose to forgo children and even marriage. As a result, society is economically imperilled, lacking the necessary workforce to support older generations. We're also "values challenged", entering a brave new world of materialistic indulgence, selfishness and protracted adolescence. Sounds awful, doesn't it? Luckily, almost none of it is true. People around the world are indeed delaying childbearing and marriage, and larger numbers of people never marry or reproduce at all, but that is not synonymous with a moral decline, or selfish decadence. It represents an uptick in women's rights, a commitment to creating the family one wants, and wider choices for everyone. It's no shock that the drop in the number of children a woman has, came along with the advent of the birth control pill. The countries with the highest birth rates aren't just highly religious, they're poor, have abominable human rights records and lack access to reliable birth control. Contrary to New York Times columnist Ross Douthat's position, it is not in fact the country with the most babies that wins. If that were the case, Nigeria would be running the show. 

Lynn Stuart Parramore: Big Banks Can Finance Terrorists

and walk away Scot Free. The New York Times reports this week that mega-bank HSBC has escaped criminal prosecution for money laundering that probably funded terrorists and narcotics traffickers. Why? Because regulators and prosecutors were petrified that an indictment would undermine the entire financial system. The Times quotes anonymous government sources who confessed fears about bringing formal charges, because doing so would be a death sentence for the bank, so they let it off the hook. That's right, HSBC is officially above the law. Too big to fail has become too big to prosecute. A year long investigation found that the British banking giant had blown right past federal laws by laundering billions of dollars from Mexican drug trafficking and processing banned transactions on behalf of Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma. A Wednesday Times article serves up vivid passages about the shady goings on, including HSBC officials working closely with Saudi Arabian banks linked to terrorist organizations. According to the report, the four count criminal information filed in the court charged HSBC with failure to maintain an effective anti money laundering program, to conduct due diligence on its foreign correspondent affiliates, and for violating sanctions and the Trading With the Enemy Act." In a statement, the bank said it "will acknowledge that, in the past, we have sometimes failed to meet the standards that regulators and customers expect." HSBC apologized and promised never, ever to do it again, scout's honor.