Author: Jared Fallon

Perhaps the most troubling series of advancements that have taken place between Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba are found within this last overview of policy developments. The area of military agreements and coordinated defense and suspected terrorist activity are off the charts when compared to the sheer lack of awareness that is found among the American public. Most of the quotes found throughout this last part of coverage are presented in a way to largely allow readers to draw their own conclusions and in the lieu of government transparency, and to being to understand the magnitude of developments that will begin to start shaping significant parts of US foreign policy over the next decade or so. If you have not been able to read the first parts of this series, the first on nuclear proliferation while the second on trade, please follow the previous links to help get a more complete picture.

The most drastic developments within the veiled trio began to take place in 2007, after years of policy-forming precedents had been sent by a more bilateral-oriented approach. In October of 2007, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was quoted responding to questions about Iranian-Venezuelan relations that “I think [there is] an emerging threat and challenge to the West, which is the export of ideology that we see among Islamist extremists in the Middle East from Iran, and the marriage of that with others who, perhaps for their own reasons, have strong anti-American views or who simply exploit anti-Americanism as a way of promoting their own ideological or power agendas…”  Chertoff’s comments were made around the time he began expressing sharp criticism directed at Iran for increasing western hemisphere activity. The gravity of the exportation of Iranian terrorists to Venezuela is impactful when realizing that Iran and Venezuela truly are military partners with firm establishments in place.

To date, “Venezuela has concluded nearly 200 bilateral agreements with Iran on military cooperation, the sharing of intelligence, expanding financial cooperation, and initiating cultural exchanges, among others.” Furthermore, “ In February 2008, a United States Federal law-enforcement official shared, We’ve known for some time that Islamic extremists groups were gaining momentum and exploiting the region … Iran is no exception now with Cuba and Venezuela, the door is open.” Both Iran and Venezuela work incredibly hard to ensure that the door that Cuba provides, only 100 miles from Key West, making it the most dangerously close enemy the United States has. Cuba understands the leverage it holds, and the geographic importance it plays within the veiled trio.

The quotes found in this post largely can be found cited from research presented in Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s bill to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity”. The bill outlines the urgency that the average US citizen has not realized yet, and calls for increased deterrents and communication to have the US become more involved within the trio’s affairs. One of the most troubling quotes sited as justification for her bill date back “In April 2008, (when) for the fourth year in a row, the Department of State’s Annual Country Report on Terrorism stated that the Government of Cuba provided safe haven to members of (several Latin American terrorist groups) and maintained close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran.”

This 3 part series of brief coverage on Iranian/Venezuelan/Cuban coordination is the only beginning of the breadth and depth of developments that have taken place in recent years that should be of utmost importance to US foreign policy. To begin to jump into this troubling part of US concern, follow these links to review H.R.7068, Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s plan that while not necessarily outlining the optimal solution, does point to some of the concerning developments that should be garnering much more attention in the United States in terms of foreign policy focus priorities.

Author: Jared Fallon

Despite the fact that the term “trade” sounds extremely vague when compared to “nuclear proliferation” the impacts of trade to the extent that Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba have been conducting show significant developments on the part of the veiled trio. The amount of trade agreements and overall activity between the three nations has stepped up considerably over the past few years, with strange coincidences (?) of coordinated activity with Russia (such as Russia deploying ships to Hugo’s coast with nuclear technologies possibly for change right before the US signed a NPT-violating treaty with India).

The newest trade alliances and bilateral trade agreements include the increasing relations and activity with the Iran-Cuba joint Economic, Scientific, and Technical Cooperation Commission. The last major economic agreement was signed between the 2 countries in 2006 and helped pave the way for the surge in recent trade activity. According to the Islamic Republic News Agency in 2007 Iran and Cuba set up a joint shipping company known as the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL). IRISL had the original goal of allowing Venezuela to access Iranian commodities such as construction and agriculture machinery and Cuba to purchase Iranian transport wagons. The IRISL was matched with a reportedly $200 million loan from Iran to Cuba. Again, we see unity between the trio.  In August of 2007 Iranian Deputy Commerce Minister Mehdi Ghazanfari reportedly signed two protocols of trade with Cuba and Venezuela, decreasing overall tariffs aiming, among other things, to increase the already $60 million in Iranian exports to Venezuela. The statistics on Cuba are a little bit harder to locate.

2007 would continue to be a busy year for major developments that should have made US headlines much easier than they did. Months later Chavez established standard civilian airline flights with Venezuela and “designated sponsors”, which include Syria and not surprisingly, Iran. In Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s bill to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity”, Iran is referenced a surprisingly 24 times within the 45 page bill that only references 2 middle eastern countries (the only other country was Syria, mentioned only once). The move was largely seen by US Defense officials as a more convenient, much more blatant way for Iran to utilize the potential use its close relationship with Venezuela to “…facilitate the smuggling of people, drugs, and weapons into the Western Hemisphere through terrorist proxy groups.”

The more you look into the affairs the easier it is to find American-based justification for bills such as Ros-Lehtinen’s when considering how much control the US has positioned itself to have in many parts of the world after World War II. These include many agreements shielded largely under military agreements such as NATO and the economic agreements the US found itself in eastern Asia with countries that eventually became some of the countries’ largest trade partners, including South Korea and Japan. In a more current foreign policy spotlight, as President Bush continues to preach democracy and capitalism as vehicles for freedom and unrestricted markets around the world (even to the point of imposing force), the US has not been successful in decreasing the narcotics and illicit drug trade that is often paired with terrorist lingo on the news.

“A 2007 Drug Enforcement Administration report linked nearly half of foreign terrorist organizations around the world today to narcotics trade, underscoring the fact that the fight against terrorism must also include a corresponding fight against illicit drugs.” Similar reports point towards coordination in the arms trade between the 3 nations, sighting that in May 2008, the Department of State, for the third year in a row, that Venezuela has violated the Arms Export Control Act and thereby criticized for not cooperating with the United State’s antiterrorism efforts.

When reviewing the other most significant developments that have taken place as of 2008 it is clear that the true concern with the agreements between the three nations lie in the topic of coordinated terrorism advancements. Most have had seemingly unusual coincidences(?) with trade, such as the 07 establishment of civilian airline flights, but will be covered in detail in part 3 of the Veiled Trio series. Regardless of your own opinions, there is one thing cannot be ignored: the sheer amount of developments and agreements that have been taking place between the three nations over the past three years. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Three of the most troubling not-so allies the United States continually does not significantly manage to increase positive relations with are banning together – and are gaining momentum (coincidentally?) as Russia is reemerging as a major player within the various regions. Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba have been stepping up negotiations both bilaterally and multilaterally a great deal over the past few years, and according to US government officials they are not anticipated to slow down any time soon. There are 3 primary issues of concern between the trio that are of utmost concern: nuclear proliferation, trade, and military agreements/terrorist group activity.

This 3 part series will review the situation at hand following closely a pending piece of US legislation proposed by Illena Ros-Lehtinen. Her bill, H.R.7068 seeks to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity” in regards to a host of troubling developments that the American public is all too naive about. The facts found below were outlined in Ros-Lehtinen’s bill, which can be found in pdf format here.

Nuclear proliferation

The United States recently has aggravated the world with the passage of H.R.7081, the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.” Or, in a more realistic light, “The US agreement that allowing US companies to get $80 billion + in contracts from India’s new nuclear plant construction plans”. This has dulled the US’ arsenal of criticism directed at Russia for its new generous gifts and joint military exercises with Venezuela accompanied with nuclear-bearing Russian ships relocating to Chavez’s coasts. American citizens are so tired of hearing the word “nuclear” that’s all too often paired with terms such as “chemical and biological weapons” that we often miss the gravity of the situation at hand. Here are the facts:

The Chavez brothers and their minions have publicly supported Iran’s uranium enrichment program, often while smiling directly at United States’ diplomats and leaving the room when US diplomats begin to speak for years.  

In May 2005, Chavez expressed interest in establishing a nuclear program and made public his request to the Iranian government for assistance. Three years is a long time, and unfortunately the American public has not been privy to a lot of the developments that have occurred since. What we do know is that on February 4, 2006, Venezuela joined only 2 countries in voting against the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) resolution to report Iran for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty violations. Eleven days later Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel, the Speaker of the Iranian parliament, stated his and the Iranian government’s readiness to provide technical assistance to a Venezuelan nuclear program.

More recently, on a visit to Iran in February 2008, a member of Venezuela’s parliament said that Iran would be willing to “practically give away” its civilian nuclear technology and that “if relations with Iran lead to sharing nuclear technology with us, we would then give it away to our brothers (Cuba) in Latin America once we are successful.” This is extremely concerning considering that the US government has suspected Hugo to have large deposits of uranium ore in the Guiana Shield Region of Venezuela. Perhaps even more startling was Chavez’s announcement on September 29, 2008 stating he would like Russia to help his country develop a nuclear program, quoting Putin as saying Russia “is ready to help Venezuela develop nuclear energy.” Of course according to both governments all nuclear developments would only be used for “peaceful purposes” as the countries’ mutual “profound friendship” would ensure for Americans.

These developments are only the beginning as nuclear advancements between the countries have escaladed quicker than many analysts feared. I would go as far as to argue that Russia has not only emerged with a strong presence within the region and the covert trio, but has found itself at a near supremacy-level when comparing the US’ developments with Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba over the past few years. The situations that are developing will only become more of a priority over the next coming years, regardless if McCain or Obama is directing our policies. The US will need to take a hard examination as to whether or not we have any sway remaining after violating the major international formal agreement for nuclear-proliferation, while criticizing countries for taking actions that mirror the United States.

Author: Jared Fallon

For a presidential candidate running on the one-word campaign of “change”, Senator Obama has made some very disappointing choices, among which was choosing the 6^th longest running Senator in US history as his running mate. His disappointments most certainly extend to his clearly inexperienced and depth-lacking approach to foreign policy, as if the Democratic Party is immune to international conflict due to the past Republican President’s publicly unpopular war efforts. The serious of flip-flopping stances on Iran that Obama has taken certainly warrant a closer look into his stance on Iran and the questions that are raised in comparing his shifting opinions.

Seeing how Barack has only served in the Senate since 2004 the 5^th black US Senator has not had to truly take interest in US-Iran affairs until recently. His first stance paints a very different picture contrary to the “all diplomacy and no fight” approach he pairs with his charismatic smiles with on a daily basis. In an interview on October 1, 2004, as the highly anticipated 13^th District Illinois Senatorial race was coming to a close, the Chicago Tribune came across startling findings. The soon to be Senator was quoted declaring he would support the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it didn’t follow Washington’s demands for the abandonment of its nuclear program. “The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?”

The interview’s overall discoveries point to a less aggressive tone that Obama sticks so closely today, beginning with his personal investment pressure bill he introduced in May 17, 2007. S.1430, the bill he references in most interviews and debates covering Iran, aims to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to publish a roster of people that have made an investment totaling over $20 million in the energy sector within the country. The bill is 1of 71 that Obama has sponsored throughout the duration of his Senatorial career. The second most popular stance for Obama to take on Iran is that of economic sanctions – an option that hoards of UN failures and soured Cuban/Russian/US relations can be traced back to. But the real flip-flop that Senator Obama made was over a series of comments at a speech in Pendleton, Oregon on March 19, 2008.

“They (Iran) don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. (Naive are those people who believed that nuclear weapons have the potential to level the playing field in conflicts) If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.” After comparing this to Obama’s previous support of missile use towards Iran, one should question whether or not the missile tactic approach was just for fun or if for some reason Iran poses a far less serious threat than it did four years later, despite the President’s determination to have Israel “wiped off the map” and its proud leveraging influence it has used on the international stage with its nuclear capabilities.

Lastly, if one were to follow Obama’s most recent rhetoric on Bush/Cheney’s lack of “principled democracy” and diplomatic negotiations, why would economic sanctions truly help? This sort of hard-line policy does a great job in providing a president’s people with renewed fire against an external force, leaving the population only with more reasons for wanting less talk (that Obama is overwhelmingly in favor of) and more action on the part for change that translates into economic policies that the people decide, not the external force that exerted the rough economic times in the first place. Whether or not one believes Iran’s nuclear program is far less threatening than the former Soviet’s, one cannot support the notion of enraging the people of a nation with a nuclear arsenal, expecting engagement to purely provide a solution. Iran has teeth, and whether or not Obama believes it would be good to fight back with tongue or not, he needs to choose a more definitive policy on Iran, especially considering its increasing nuclear might.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

Recently, the issue over Iran’s goal of pursuing uranium enrichment technology within the nation’s borders has stirred a commotion. The Head of the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated that Iran has no foundation to engage in such uranium enrichment programs because there is a surplus abroad that is available to them. However, Iran insists on nuclear self-sufficiency. They do not want to be reliant on foreign supplies due to United States trade restrictions. In his last speech to the UN, President Bush accused Syria and Iran of supporting terrorism. He also advised the UN General Assembly to implement sanctions on Iran and North Korea over their Nuclear Programs. There is a fear within the governments of the United States and Europe that Iran may put their nuclear capabilities to sinister use, such as creating weapons. Iran insists that the only reason it wants to refine uranium is for electricity.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency they cannot determine if Iran is holding back on some of their nuclear activities. Iran has been delaying the investigative probe from the IAEA in the name of protecting itself. According to the Iranian government, the query could expose non-nuke military secrets (excuses, excuses). Some believe that the United States is using the UN agency for its own purpose of a confrontation with Tehran. The agency has been hijacked by Washington to carry out an anti-Iran campaign, according to Ali Ashgar Soltanieh. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for some) the uranium enrichment process has gained momentum in Iran. According to David Albright, former UN Nuclear inspector and physicist, it takes a minimum of 1500 pounds of enriched uranium to produce the 45-60 pounds it takes for a simple nuclear bomb.  Iran has produced nearly 1,000 of those pounds of low-enriched uranium.

The U.S has slapped sanctions on Iran time and time again. Bills S. 3227, S. 3445, and H.R.3390 all impose sanctions on the country. S. 3227 amends Iran Sanctions of 1996 and subjects Iran to various economic sanctions. H.R. 3390 imposes sanctions on Iran and other nations for assisting Iran in the development of a nuclear program. In addition, the U.S inflicted sanctions on IRISL and 18 affiliates for supposedly bestowing support for Iran’s Weapons and Nuclear Program as well as fabricating documents. These sanctions prohibit U.S citizens from carrying out any transactions with them. However, Iranian’s president claims that there is wide-spread support in the international community for Iran’s nuclear position except the United States and some of its European pals. He also warns that if anyone is to target his nuclear facilities, then do not expect for him to sit idly by.  He blames the U.S for global financial problems, stating that its military interference in other nation’s affairs is the cause.

What is Iran’s real intention? Perhaps they really are just building up their nuke program for electricity, getting on the “green” band wagon. Politics is never simple. McCarthy cried “communist” during the tensions of the Cold War. Many believed him even though his accusations were unfounded. Maybe we too are crying “wolf” where we want to see one although he is not there.

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/quest-nuclear-independence-iran/feed 0