The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) just released its most recent report (GOV/2012/37) on the state of Iran's nuclear program.

As usual this report is used to hype up the "nuclear Iran" scare. The London Times even headlines Iran is stockpiling weapons grade uranium, a new reported finds (sic) which is completely false as even its own report below that headline says:

The Israeli diplomat said that Iran was in the process of doubling its capacity at Fordow to about 1,500 centrifuges, increasing the amount of 20 per cent-enriched uranium it could produce. Uranium enriched to 20 per cent fuels Iran's main research reactor, but it is also just below the level usable in nuclear bombs.

Not only is any Uranium Iran has below weapons grade but, according to the new IAEA report, Iran has today less enriched Uranium that could quickly be converted into a nuclear weapon than it had in May 2012, the time of the IAEA's last report (GOV/2012/23) on the issue.

Critics of Iran's nuclear program are most concerned with the Uranium Iran enriches to a level of 20% U-235 isotope. This enriched Uranium, critics say, could be quickly enriched further to up to 95% and then be used to manufacture a nuclear explosion device.

But enriched Uranium can have several forms. For enrichment natural Uranium is converted into Uranium hexafluoride (UF6) and, slightly heated and under pressure, fed as a gas into centrifuges to separate out the U-238 isotopes. This increases the content of U-235 isotopes needed for nuclear reactions. The enrichment product with 20% U-235 is still in the form of UF6 which could be again fed into a centrifuge cascade for even higher enrichment levels.

But UF6 is not usable as nuclear reactor fuel. For reactor use the UF6 has to be converted into Triuranium oxtoxide (U3O8) and from there into Uranium dioxide UO2. These can be formed into fuel elements to be fed into a reactor. Once this is done there is no easy and quick process to convert these fuel elements back into UF6 for further enrichment. Enriched UF6 once converted into U3O8 and UO2 fuel plates is thereby not directly usable for producing bomb grade uranium and of little proliferation concern.

Iran needs fuel elements with 20% enrichment level for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) to produce nuclear isotopes for medical purposes.

According to the May 2012 IAEA report Iran had, at that time, enriched 110.1 kg 20% enriched UF6 at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) in Natanz and 35.5 kg 20% UF6 in the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) in Fordow, of which 25.1 kg had been withdrawn from the enrichment process (para18, para27). Of the total of 145.6 kg 20% UF6 Iran produced 1.6 kg was blended down to various lower enrichment levels for experimental purposes (para19). Of the 144 kg left 43 kg went into the fuel plate fabrication and converted into 14 kg of 20% enriched U3O8 and manufactured into fuel plates (para38). At the time the May 2012 IAEA report was written Iran had stockpiled 101 kg of 20% U-235 enriched UF6.

According to the new August 2012 IAEA report Iran has up to now enriched a total of 124.1 kg 20% enriched UF6 at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) in Natanz and 65.3 kg 20% UF6 Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) in Fordow (Fig2, p12). Of the total of 189.4 kg 20% enriched UF6 1.6 kg was downblended, 96.3 kg was fed into the conversion into fuel plates and in August 2012 only 91.4 kg is stored in Iran as UF6 (Fig4, p13).

Iran has now 10% less "dangerous stuff" in the form of further easily enrichable 20% UF6 than it had in May 2012. Further enriched this stockpile would not be enough by half to create even one nuclear device. The "imminent danger" of a "nuclear Iran" has thereby decreased.

We can reasonably assume that Iran is doing this decrease on purpose and will in future convert any newly produced UF6 into fuel plates. This will keep its stock of UF6 at a level below what is needed to make a quick run towards a nuclear device. 

But as the whole "nuclear Iran" scare has little to do with reality but a lot with U.S. and Israeli desire to subjugate Iran and thereby further their global and regional domination we can not expect to read about this reality in any of the western propaganda media.

Joseph Massad wrote an interesting column on The 'Arab Spring' and other American seasons.

Besides its relevance for the current U.S. revolutionary enterprise in the Middle East it includes an interesting historic view of distinguishing human rights from civil rights:

The Soviet/US struggle over defining human rights is now the stuff of Cold War history given the US victory in the Cold War, but a brief review is necessary. While the US insisted that having the right to work, to free or universally affordable healthcare, free education, daycare and housing (which the Soviet system granted in the USSR and across Eastern Europe as substantive and not merely as formal rights) are not human rights at all, the Soviets, in the tradition of socialism, insisted they were essential for human life and dignity and that the western enumerating of the rights to free speech, free association, free movement, freedom to form political parties, etc., were "political" and "civil" and not "human" rights, and that in reality in the West, they were at any rate only formal and not substantive rights except for the upper echelons of society and those who owned the media and could access it and who could fund election campaigns, etc.

Moreover the Soviets argued that it was essential for humans to have human rights in order to be able to access civil and political rights in a substantive manner and that granting formal civil and political rights while denying substantive human rights amounted to granting no rights at all.

What the Soviets, according to Massad, viewed as basic human rights was at a time also propagandized in the United States. In his 1941 message to congress U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke of the four freedoms:

The four freedoms he outlined were freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

Roosevelt's last two "freedoms" can be seen as those the Soviets considered as real "human rights" while Roosevelt's first two "freedoms" are political and thereby "civil rights".

Personally I agree with the Soviet nomenclature.

What is the meaning of the right to vote or to free speech when one is dying of hunger or for lack of medicine? The best is of course to have it all but if, in dire times, you would have to choose which two "freedoms" would you then prefer?

As Massad writes the U.S. is propagandizing its lacking version of "human rights", which only means some civil rights, to prevent people from demanding their real human rights, social justice and economic rights.

The rather genuine revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were largely carried by people in want of their basic economic human rights, their daily bread. The U.S. democracy propaganda is just a means to paper over those demands and to arrange for regimes that will continue to deny them. In Libya and Syrian, where the basic economic rights were widely, though uneven fulfilled, external instigation and military support was needed to bring those countries in line with U.S. demands: Give them civil rights, Roosevelt's first two "freedoms", but not those other rights that are counter to the neo-liberal ideology and infringe on our profits.

The Orwellian named United States Institute For Peace released the The Day After Project with plans for the time after the Syrian government falls.

Does anyone remember that other quite similar project? How did that turn out?

If the Syrian government falls the new plan, like that other one, will be overwhelmed by the carnage that is sure to follow and which would be bigger with even worse consequences in the region.

While on the road today I listened to the hourly news broadcast of the German public radio station DLF. The station is available countrywide and the program is usually of very high quality. It is seen as somewhat official.

But one of the news item in today's 6:00 pm broadcast was schizophrenic. Here is my translation of the Germany text:

Summit of non-aligned States opened in Teheran

The summit of the Non-Aligned Movement opened today in the Iranian capital Teheran. More than 40 head of states and head of governments are expected to attend, including the Egyptian president Morsi and Cuba's head of state Castro. The secretary general of the United Nations Ban Ki Moon has also agreed to participate which is seen as diplomatic success for the internationally isolated Iran. The five day long gathering is the biggest international meeting in Iran in more than a decade.

One wonders what the news writer at the DLF was thinking when she wrote that piece. Did it escape her that the country which now leads the NAM, the biggest international political association of states next to the UN, is by definition not isolated? That the attendance of more then 40 head of states plus the UN secretary general and lots of foreign ministers in Tehran proves indeed the opposite of international isolation?

The alleged "international isolation" of Iran is obviously nothing but a western propaganda item and the NAM meeting in Tehran proves this. Still western news media, DLF isn't far from alone in this, repeat this propaganda item even while reporting the facts reveal it as such. Do they really expect that their listeners will not detect such doublethink?

News & views …

Liz Sly writes for the Washington Post on Syria. Her newest piece is headlined Gruesome killings mark escalation of violence in Syrian capital.

It opening graph states:

ANTAKYA, Turkey — Scores of mutilated, bloodied bodies have been found dumped on the streets and on waste ground on the outskirts of Damascus in recent days, apparently the victims of a surge of extrajudicial killings by Syrian security forces seeking to drive rebel fighters out of the capital and its suburbs.

Apparently Antakya in Turkey is just the right place to report on what happens in Damascus, Syria and to conclude who "apperently" kills.

But here are the sources of Sly's reporting:

• Activists say …
• Videos posted online and accounts from residents …
• According to the Center for the Documentation of Violations in Syria …
• … activists say
• … a graphic video posted on YouTube
• … according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
• … Nadim Houry, a researcher at New York-based Human Rights Watch, speaking from Beirut
• … according to the opposition Local Coordination Committees
• … Activists say
• … Tariq Saleh, an activist with the Damascus Revolutionary Leadership Council.
• … according to rebel commanders
• … Abu Aasi, an activist there with the Local Coordination Committees
• … captured on another graphic video

None of Sly's sources is an eyewitness to the killings that apparently took place. None of them is neutral or on the government side.

Her conclusion at the top of her piece that the dead are "apparently the victims of a surge of extrajudicial killings by Syrian security forces" is derived from mixing together various hearsay from her sources and from watching gruel videos of dead people on Youtube.  this while all of Sly's sources have an apparent interest to make the Syrian government look bad

But as Sly herself writes, some of the dead were found "with the throats slit". Is it typical for the Syrian government forces to slit throats? Or is that a more typical way of killing for violent Jihadists of the Al Qaeda type who are known to be fighting on the insurgency's side?

Deep down into the piece Sly also writes:

The details of the killings are impossible to confirm, and activists and human rights groups say they are finding it difficult to verify the circumstances of the grisly deaths being recorded daily on videos posted online.

And:

Shelling and raids by government forces have hindered researchers’ access to the sites where bodies are being found
…
Houry also acknowledged that firsthand accounts of killings are rare.
…
Activists say the latest wave of killings has taken place in residential areas that earlier were under rebel control.
…
And as they withdraw, the killings occur.

So there were Al Qaeda style killings in areas that were held by the rebels and the killings are said to have somehow taken place while the insurgents retreated.

How does this support the conclusion that "apparently the victims of a surge of extrajudicial killings by Syrian security forces"? And what does the Syrian government say about these killings. Apparently Liz Sly was unable to report on that.

To me it seems that these dead people are either the victims of Al Qaeda style killing by the sectarian insurgents or victims of legitimate fighting that occurred while the government forces drove the insurgents out.

Nowhere in the piece do I find any fact that supports the conclusion it is starting with. How is that supposed to be reporting?

While I interpreted Obama’s “red line” for attacking Syria -its use of its strategic weapons – as a free pass to the Syrian government to use all disposable means to fight the foreign supported insurgency, Russia and China seem to have a different, or additional, interpretation.

They both seem to allege that this “red line” on the use of chemical weapons is just a trick to justify an open military attack.

The Russian did so in a more diplomatic tone:

Lavrov said at the meeting with [China’s State Councillor Dai Bingguo] that Russia and China base their diplomatic cooperation on “the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law and the principles contained in the U.N. Charter and not to allow their violation”.

…
Russia has also expressed concern about Syria’s chemical arsenal, saying it had told Damascus that even the threat to use it was unacceptable.

But Lavrov said on Monday that the Security Council alone could authorize the use of external force against Syria, warning against imposing “democracy by bombs”.

The Chinese response came through an editorial of its official news agency Xinhua: The tone is quite direct:

Once again, Western powers are digging deep for excuses to intervene militarily in another conflict-torn Middle East country, as U.S. President Barack Obama warned Monday that the use of chemical weapons by Syria’s government would change his “calculus.”

With the hypocritical talks of eliminating weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and protecting civilians in Libya still ringing in the ears, such “red line” threats seem to have almost become a signal for the United States and some of its Western allies to sharpen their weapons before exercising interventionism.

The Xinhua writer goes on with a general description and critique of “western” foreign policy behavior:

Apart from being ineffective to bring real peace, military interventions by the United States and its Western partners are always interests-driven and highly selective.

It is not difficult to find that, under the disguise of humanitarianism, the United States has always tried to smash governments it considers as threats to its so-called national interests and relentlessly replace them with those that are Washington-friendly.

That easily explains why both Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, who once worked closely with the United States, were later depicted as brutal dictators with the people’s blood dipping through their fingers.

Right now, as conflicts between government troops and rebel forces still rage in Syria, nations around the world should continue to build on the progress that has been achieved by outgoing international envoy Kofi Annan and his team.

Any attempt to scrap the chances for a political settlement and to turn Syria into the next testing ground for Western weapons must be guarded against and ruled out.

It is not often that one hear such truths in official media of big world policy players.

It is obvious now that Russia and China have joined in a general fight to stop the international lawlessness that the “west” got used to after the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Let’s hope that they this aim and restore the principles of Westphalia and the UN Charter.

Yesterday I asked if the specter of an Islamist lead Syrian would stop wholehearted U.S. support for the insurgency.

The answer came just a bit later in an Obama press conference. To a question about Syria's alleged chemical or biological weapons, Obama answered:

“That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria. It concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us,” said Obama. “We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.”

He added: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

While the reporting in the U.S. interpret that as a threat of force against Syria the real meaning seems different to me.

Obama's answer is mainly a message to the Turks and to the Syrian government.

The Turkish foreign minister Davutoglu had earlier suggested that Turkey would start to support refugee camps in a safe zone within Syria should the number of refugees in Turkey exceed 100,000. Obama just let him know that the U.S. would not support such a move. His only red line are Syria's strategic weapons. And those only when "a whole bunch" of those are involved. An arbitrary number of refugees in Turkey is not a red line and Turkey would be very alone if it were to act on that:

With the reluctance of European countries and NATO to get the ball rolling, the United States has become the only power on which Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia agree to lead a potential multilateral military campaign.

At this point the unwillingness of Washington to militarily engage in Syria is the most important hurdle before the plans of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia can be realized.

The Syrian government had already pledged to not use its strategic weapons aginst the insurgency. From its view Obama's answer is a free pass to use all other powers it has against the insurgency. Even massive use of air power, a main military advantage the Syrian government has over the insurgents, is no longer a red line.

The insurgents understood that message:

Obama’s comments were greeted with derision by Syrian activists on the social-networking sites Facebook and Twitter. They accused him of threatening intervention only when Israel was at risk.

One Twitter user compared Obama to Russian President Vladimir Putin, one of the Syrian regime’s few foreign allies: “Both blabber about ‘red lines,’ have kept Assad afloat in blood-soaked power.” Another tweet, from a user called SyriaTime, said the president’s warning so late in the crisis is akin to saying, “Sure, genocide is fine.”

The U.S. is for now mostly out of the game and without the threat of U.S. military involvement Syria is now free to do whatever it takes to shut down the insurgency.

M K Bhadrakumar in ATOL: Egypt thumbs the nose at US

The gloom in Washington must be deepening. Egypt is careering away from the alliance with the United States – and the bitter truth cannot be hidden or obfuscated anymore.
…
In sum, Morsi's decision to open a line to Beijing and Tehran needs to be weighed against a big backdrop. The Brothers apprehend a US-Israeli plan to destabilize Morsi's government if it doesn't fall in line with Washington's diktat. Therefore, they are looking for ways and means to whittle down the current level of Egypt's over-dependence on the US and its Persian-Gulf allies by diversifying the country's external relationships and adding countervailing partnerships that would help enhance the country's strategic autonomy.

Strategic autonomy in Egypt is something the Israelis fear. Witness the threat against the Brotherhood that Israel's lawyer Dennis Ross issued in today's Washington Post.

If this behavior continues, U.S. support, which will be essential for gaining international economic aid and fostering investment, will not be forthcoming.

Ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood Egypt will not keep in line with policies preferred by the U.S. (and Israel). It is also the Muslim Brotherhood, of the more brutal Syrian variant, that would likely come out at the top should the Assad government in Syria fall.

It is the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been exiled from Syria since the 1980s, which provides the majority of the funding, assistance and weapons, activists and rebels say.

Their goal, it seems, is to monopolize aid in a bid to carve out the lion's share of power, when and if Assad goes.

Just like Egypt ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood a Syria under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood would unlikely be the willing protectorate the U.S. would like to see there. A weakend, non aggressive Baath government might indeed be preferable to any other outcome.

This now seems to dawn even to the slower minds of the neo-Wilsonian interventionists at Foggy Bottom.

Could this insight then be enough to stop the U.S. assault on Syria?

Russian court imprisons Pussy Riot band members on hooliganism charges

Three members of Russian female punk rock band Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years in prison Friday after they were found guilty of hooliganism for performing a song critical of President Vladimir Putin in a church.

France condemns 'disproportionate' Pussy Riot sentence

France condemned the two-year prison sentences meted out to three members of Russian punk band Pussy Riot Friday and said the legal process was not over yet.

"The verdict handed down today appears particularly disproportionate, considering the minor acts they are accused of," said French foreign ministry spokesman Vincent Floreani.

Pro-Pussy Riot demonstrators arrested in Marseille

Demonstrators protesting at Russia’s jailing of punk band Pussy Riot were arrested by police in the southern French city of Marseille for breaking France’s controversial law against face-covering garments.
…
France’s foreign ministry described Pussy Riot’s balaclava-clad performance in a Moscow church as “minor acts” and, like the US, Germany, the UK and several other countries, condemned the verdict as an attack on the freedom of expression.

But protesters in Marseille who donned balaclavas in solidarity with the three young women – Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina and Yekaterina Samutsevich – were rounded up after just 10 minutes outside the Russian consulate in the city, the local paper La Provence reports.

The hypocrisy displayed by western officialdom in the Pussy Riot case stinks to high heaven. All of those governments who condemned the sentence would themselves argue for harsh sentences if a similar act would happen in one of their countries. They are also not, as one can see above, staunch supporters of free speech when that free speech is against their ruling interests.

As for my opinion on the Pussy Riot case. Basic rights include free speech and freedom of religion. Sometimes basic rights collide with each other and a judgement has to be made about the borders between those rights. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to have a religion and the freedom to have places for undisturbed worship.

Here is the unedited version of the Pussy Riot "performance" in the Christ the Saviour's Church in Moscow. Here is the version edited and dubbed by Pussy Riot, the only version western media will show you. Watch and let me know if you find such behavior acceptable.

Abusing places of worship for a "free speech act", especially when that act is subjectively blasphemous to the religion, is an infringement of the right of freedom of religion. In my view such an infringement, as in this case, can not be justified by the right of free speech. There are many other places where the free speech can be made. I therefore find the sentence against Pussy Riot quite obviously justified. The two years, of which five month have already been served, may be a bit harsh. But how many years would some punks get who made a free speech point by (symbolically) shitting on the altar of the National Cathedral in Washington DC?

News & views …

Back in November we discussed an implausible story about an allegedly lost drone and explosions in south Lebanon some secret Israeli "impeccable source" had fed to Richard Silverstein who published it at his blog Tikun Olam.

We concluded:

Israel's secret services are known for launching, often false, stories in foreign media. Such "foreign" stories then can be quoted by the Israeli media. These are usually stories that are somewhat military relevant and would otherwise not pass the military censors who sit in every Israeli news room. Despite being launched in foreign media such stories are made up and put out for the domestic Israeli public for self serving and/or political reasons.

It seems to me that Richard was in this case (ab-)used by someone for such a purpose.

On August 15 Richard published another rather implausible story under the headline Bibi’s Secret War Plan:

In the past few days, I received an Israeli briefing document outlining Israel’s war plans against Iran. The document was passed to me by a high-level Israeli source who received it from an IDF officer.

Richard translated parts of the "war plan" fed to him:

A barrage of tens of ballistic missiles would be launched from Israel toward Iran. 300km ballistic missiles would be launched from Israeli submarines in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf. The missiles would not be armed with unconventional warheads [WMD], but rather with high-explosive ordnance equipped with reinforced tips designed specially to penetrate hardened targets.

The missiles will strike their targets—some exploding above ground like those striking the nuclear reactor at Arak–which is intended to produce plutonium and tritium—and the nearby heavy water production facility; the nuclear fuel production facilities at Isfahan and facilities for enriching uranium-hexaflouride.

A barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles will pound [Iranian] command and control systems, research and development facilities, and the residences of senior personnel in the nuclear and missile development apparatus. Intelligence gathered over years will be utilized to completely decapitate Iran’s professional and command ranks in these fields.

To anyone with a bit of military knowledge the scenario is totally implausible. Israel simply does not have the capacity to fire "a barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles". Despite that implausibility the BBC picked up on these plans to commit war crimes that Richard Silverstein published:

Richard Silverstein, an American journalist and blogger on Israeli affairs, says he has been given a leaked document which outlines a plan for an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

He describes the document as a briefing memo that is being used by Prime Minister Netanyahu to show ministers that an attack on Iran would go "smoothly" and wipe out key infrastructure with a minimum of Israeli casualties.

But it turns out that Richard isn't the first to publish the "briefing memo that is being used by Prime Minister Netanyahu".

That "briefing memo" was published in Hebrew on August 11, four day's before Richard's post, at the Israel bulletin board Fresh as a thread in the military and security forum of that bulletin board. It was posted by  "Nettle", the moderator of that forum and is headlined (google translation) Iran attack – "What if …?" The optimistic scenario": It starts with this remark:

The document presented here is written by an old friend of the forum who prefers to remain anonymous and identity. All information presented is based on the open foreign sources only.

Further down it continues with what seems to be the same content that Richard's "impeccable source" gave him (google translation):

Barrage of dozens of ballistic missiles from Israel to Iran shot. Missiles are equipped with non-conventional warhead – but charged warheads and explosives specially ruggedized bow, designed to penetrate hardened targets deep in particular.
…
Missiles hitting their target – some above ground, such as Arak nuclear reactor designed to produce plutonium and tritium, production facility next to the heavy water, the production facilities of nuclear fuel conversion facilities Baisfahn gas and uranium Hksaflurid.
…
The hundreds of cruise missiles adequate command and control systems, facilities development and research institutes, and even in residential buildings and villas surrounded by lush greenery of senior officials in the nuclear and missile development of Iran. For years, collected intelligence manifested almost complete decapitation of professional ranks and command of Iran in these areas.

So it turns out that "Bibi's secret war plan" for committing war crimes that Richard published is very similar to the "optimistic scenario" published on the Israeli bulletin board four days earlier.

It seems obvious to me that Richard has been had again by his "impeccable source". Said differently his source is (ab-)using him for the continuing Netanyahoo campaign in which Israel, because it can not do this on its own, is pressing the U.S. to bombing Iran's civilian nuclear program. This by threatening to otherwise do what it can not do on its own: bombing Iran's civilian nuclear program.

But like in November when we scrutinized the implausible story Richard was fed about explosions in south Lebanon Richard can not admit that he was fed bullshit. In a new post he tries to rationalize what happened:

About a week ago, I received the document from a known and trusted source who is, as I’ve often said here, a former Israeli government minister. It was in turn leaked to him by an IDF officer.

Unbeknowst to my source, the original IDF leaker also gave the document to a member of the Fresh forum, an Israeli gossip and politics forum. That Fresh member wrote a largely fictional account that included very limited portions of the actual document which I published in full.

Ahh – no. Indeed the post at the Fresh forum is pretty much completely the same text that Richard translated and published at his blog. Check the links above and see for yourself.

Some military propaganda buff wrote up a fictional (and very unrealistic) "optimistic scenario" of an Israeli attack on Iran and published it for amateur discussion purpose on a Hebrew mil forum. That was picked  up, edited slightly and fed to Richard Silverstein as part of the Netanyahoo blackmail campaign. Richard then translated it into English and published it as a "briefing memo that is being used by Prime Minister Netanyahu". This then got picked up by the BBC and the Israeli Ynetnews (google translation). It thereby fulfills exactly the purpose I described last November:

Israel's secret services are known for launching, often false, stories in foreign media. Such "foreign" stories then can be quoted by the Israeli media. … Despite being launched in foreign media such stories are made up and put out for the domestic Israeli public for self serving and/or political reasons.

Everyone is of course free to believe Richard's version of the story, that the text is indeed something relevant and original coming from the IDF or from Netanyahoo's office and that whoever leaked the text to him didn't pick it up from the Fresh forum but from a more reputable source. Everyone is of course free to believe that this leak to Richard has some different purpose than to spread Netanyahoo's propaganda message.

Everyone is of course also free to believe that the world is flat.

Updated below

The Washington Post has a continuously falling circulation and advertising revenue:

Newspaper revenue was down 7 percent, while print advertising revenue at the Post fell 15 percent. Revenue from the company's online operations, including Washingtonpost.com and Slate, rose 8 percent.
…
Through the first six months of the year, the Post's Sunday circulation is down 6.1 percent. Daily circulation is down 9.3 percent.

One major reason for this decline, next to its warmongering neoconned opinion pages, is a lackluster quality of the Washington Post's reporting. Take for example the opening graph of this piece today in which Karin Brulliard and Joby Warrick and their editors at the Washington Post show their lack of high school level geographical knowledge:

MAFRAQ, Jordan — Hundreds of Syrian refugees slip across the border near here each night with little more than harrowing tales and occasionally grave wounds. For this landlocked and resource-poor kingdom, the newcomers are fueling new economic burdens and worries that the war next door might spread beyond its own frontiers.

Even while (expansively) traveling and writing from a foreign country these reporters are unable to get that country's geography right. They obviously never learned of the Port of Aqaba:

The Port of Aqaba is at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba off the Red Sea in southeast Jordan.
…
Due to its location at the crossroads of trade routes between Europe, Asia, and Africa, the area of Port of Aqaba has been inhabited since at least 4000 BC.
…
In 2008, the Port of Aqaba welcomed over three thousand vessel calls. Of these, 1.8 thousand ships carried passengers, including 103 cruise ships. The remaining 1336 cargo vessels included 362 container vessels and vessels carrying dry bulk (347), liquid bulk (202), roll-on/roll-off cargoes (195), general cargo (93), and miscellaneous cargoes (34). The Port of Aqaba served 1.2 million passengers in 2008. It handled 17 million tons of cargo, including 9.2 million tons of imports and 7.8 million tons of exports.

It is not really astonishing that the Post gets basic geographical and economic facts wrong. Employing journalists like Joby Warrick, who is a basically a stenographer, best known for his know-nothing anti-Iran propaganda and who only probably might one day become a journalist, is a deathtrap for any newspaper.

UDPATE (12:30pm): The Washington Post has now corrected the piece and cut out the "landlocked". But the editors did not have the greatness of leaving a correction remark at the end of it. The piece now says:

MAFRAQ, Jordan — Hundreds of Syrian refugees slip across the border near here each night with little more than harrowing tales and occasionally grave wounds. For this resource-poor kingdom, the newcomers are fueling new economic burdens and worries that the war next door might spread beyond its own frontiers.

In the comments to that piece at the WaPo side at least two readers also called out that "landlocked" mistake. Those commands have not (yet) been deleted. For the record a cut from the screenshot I made of the original piece:

bigger

The full screenshot is available on request.

The U.S. and the UK's plan for Syria has been revealed:

Part of the "preferred plan" reads: "In order to facilitate the action of liberative forces, reduce the capabilities of the Syrian regime to organise and direct its military actions, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time."

Just like in that plan a deliberate killing campaign against persons of values for the Syrian state is ongoing. Besides the high profile bombing of the security center in Damascus there is a campaign to kill doctors, professors, media people and high ranking administrators. These assassinations are usually not reported in the "western" media.

The "preferred plan"adds: "Once a political decision is reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and MI6 will attempt, to mount minor sabotage and coup de main incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals.

"The two services should consult, as appropriate, to avoid any overlapping or interference with each other's activities… Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus; the operation should not be overdone; and to the extent possible care should be taken to avoid causing key leaders of the Syrian regime to take additional personal protection measures."
…
The plan called for funding of a "Free Syria Committee", and the arming of "political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities" within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.

That "preferred plan for Syria" was from 1957 and was not enacted at that time. But we see that the methods mentioned in it are just the same than the ones used today.

But there are two important difference from the old plan to the recent one. The first one is the extensive use of foreign mercenary fighters. Reports of their existence were downplayed by the media. At least a year after their first occurrence in Syria Reuters only now has an "exclusive" about Libyan fighters in Syria.

Those foreigner fighters are mostly responsible for those gruesome killing of "suspicious" Syrians by beheading them or throwing them off buildings.

These fighters can not win their war against the Syrian government but that is not important as it isn't their real purpose. Therein lies the second and more important difference between the plans of 1957 and the plans of today. The aim in 1957 was to replace the Syrian government with a new "friendly" one. While that would still be a convenient outcome today it is no longer a necessity.  

The US, Israel and the Gulf countries who pay, train and command the foreign fighters today have a different objective. They want the current war in Syria, which they see as just an aspect of their war on Iran, to continue as long as possible:

The much more unpleasant strategic reality is that, whether foreign forces intervene or not, the U.S. receives little reward from hastening Assad’s downfall. An embattled Assad imposes just the same limitations on Syrian and Iranian threats to U.S. interests. Resources will have to be diverted from the proxies Iran supports through Syria to Syria itself as Iran tries to maintain its host’s viability. The loss of Assad’s regime would mean a rapid retrenchment in Iranian support, for sure, but this would likely be replaced by a proxy campaign against Syria’s new government and its foreign backers, or a redeployment of IRGC/QF assets to other theaters, probably against the U.S (if not both). Given that rapidly overthrowing Assad without major overt military action from a broad coalition of forces is a pipe dream anyway, the United States should consider contingency plans in which it works through, rather than against, the specter of protracted civil war. To be able to bleed Iran in Syria would, relative to the risks involved, be a far more significant strategic opportunity against Iranian power relative to the investment and risk than would be a major overt campaign to overthrow Assad outright. The more blood and treasure Iran loses in Syria – even if Assad stays in power longer – the weaker Iran will be.

Only with that strategy in mind can one understand why the CIA is blocking weapons from reaching the insurgents:

"Not one bullet enters Syria without US approval,” one official claimed in Istanbul. “The Americans want the [rebellion] to continue, but they are not allowing enough supplies in to make the Damascus regime fall.
…
Over the past 10 months, a Syrian opposition official told The Sunday Times, the CIA has blocked shipments of heavy anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, which rebel units of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) have long described as vital to their efforts to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Even the sanctions against Syria seem designed to hinder the opposition.

While keeping Syria in chaos and thereby weaken it is the preference for the U.S. and Israel, a prolonged fight in their neighbor country is a danger for Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. It is there where the strategy of a prolonged fight in Syria might fail due to internal unrest and other spill over effects.

The Turkish government, knowing well that a prolonged conflict will bring more PKK attacks and more refugees and wounded fighters, has been urging for more outright intervention and is again holding drills next to the Syrian border.

Erdogan and his sidekick Davutoğlu need the war to end before it erodes their political positions. But when Hillery Clinton visited Turkey last week, she did not offer the backing for an intervention but only agreed to a working group for planning further action against Syria. That is code for "let's sit down and do nothing". Today Defense Secretary Panetta said that a no-fly zone is not on the front burner.

While the U.S. does not risk anything by keeping the war on Syria boiling its allies in the region do feel the heat of the cooking fire.  Their internal problems are the weak points of the current "preferred plan".  It is there where any strategy against the plan must push for effect.

Playing Calvinball the players make up the rules while the game is ongoing. The Egyptian revolution confirms again that it is olayed under such rules.

Egyptian President Mursi just send Defense Minister Tantawi and the Chief-of-Staff Sami Annan into retirement. He also canceled the June 17 addendum to the constitution which gave the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces special powers while it limited his own powers as president.

Mursi appointed General Abdellatif Sisi, a former head of military intelligence, to command the military and the former judge Mekky as vice-president. Mursi had once promised to have a Christian and a woman as vice-presidents. Mahmoud Mekky is neither.

The move comes after some incidents in the Sinai where some shady groups of alleged radicals launched attacks on the armed forces. While big successful counterattacks were reported in the Egyptian state media, local reporting did not confirm those at all. No wounded were found in the hospitals and no fresh graves in the cemeteries. This media manipulation may be one of the reasons for Mursi's surprising move today.

One wonders what the Egyptian military is going to do about this. Will it really give up the powers it held over the last 50 or so years? Doing so would endanger its wide economic interests that guarantees its officer class' standard of living. That is one reason to expect a reaction by some officer group.

But there also might be a backdoor deal between the new head of the military and Mursi. Not everyone in the army was happy with Tantawi at the head of the SCAF. A deal might give both sides some guarantees and incentives to not allow any counter-move.

Egypt just received a $2 billion loan from Qatar. This after a request for further loans from Saudi Arabia was rejected. The loan again shows the preference of the Qatari ruler for the Muslim Brotherhood of which Mursi was a leading member. The money may have been instrumental to allow for today's steps.

During the last year the Muslim Brotherhood had already taken several steps in different directions than promised. These were seen by large parts of the populations as power grab and overreach. Many saw the Supreme Command and its special powers as the only balance against the Islamist power play. If Mursi does not have the backing of the public at large for the steps to dictatorial power he took today, which I find likely, we can expect a renewed crisis in Egypt and another military coup.

The republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney rallied his supporters today: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan."

Oh well. So this rich white guy with an empathy deficit wants to get additional votes by naming a rich white guy with an empathy deficit as his vice-president candidate.

That is not going to work well. Ryan looks like a nice guy but has a libertarian vision that makes no sense. His budget would eliminate the federal government except for military spending. He is proposing deregulation as a solution for all the problems deregulation created. His plans for medicare and social security will drive older folks into the Obama camp. (Obama has quite similar plans but at least he doesn't run on them.) That Ryan is a congress member certainly doesn't help. The congress has an approval rating as low as 18%. There is now only one protestant on the either party's ticket. Who then will those southern hardcore evangelicals vote for?

Is this a conspiracy? Do they really want Obama to have another four year term? I mean why pick a vice president candidate that moves that party's ticket even further away from the center? That has never brought more votes.

Hillary Clinton is currently in Istanbul. The Turkish journalist Mahir Zeynalov tweeted her press conference with the Turkish foreign minister Davutoglov. He thought that one of her statements was rather funny:

lol. Clinton: You don't have freedom of press in Syria as you have here in Turkey.

That lol is certainly deserved. Reporters without borders lists Turkey as number 148 in its press freedom index. That is worse than Russia which the various U.S. editorial writers like to bash for alleged lack of press freedom. Over the last year at least 90 Turkish journalist sat in jail for rather murky reasons. There is also a system of informal censorship through government pressure on editors and media owners.

Clinton is just covering up what every observer can easily see. The U.S. is not at all concerned about human rights or freedom of the press. It is an empire gone mad:

Afghanistan in the 1980s and 90s … Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s … Libya 2011 … Syria 2012 … In military conflicts in each of these countries the United States and al Qaeda (or one of its associates) have been on the same side.

What does this tell us about the United States’ “War On Terrorism”?
…
[I]f you want to understand this thing called United States foreign policy … forget about the War on Terrorism, forget about September 11, forget about democracy, forget about freedom, forget about human rights, forget about religion, forget about the people of Libya and Syria … keep your eyes on the prize … Whatever advances American global domination. Whatever suits their goals at the moment. There is no moral factor built into the DNA of US foreign policy.

Well said.

The U.S. led ISAF forces in Afghanistan have trained the media to accept its ridiculous reporting. Whenever an Afghan policeman or soldier attacks or kills ISAF forces the press weasels just copy the ISAF headlines like this one:

3 American troops shot dead by man wearing Afghan uniform, US command says

A man in an Afghan uniform shot and killed three American troops Friday morning in southern Afghanistan, the U.S. military command said, in the third attack on coalition forces by their Afghan counterparts in a week. The Taliban claimed the shooter joined the insurgency after the attack.

When it is clear that this was "by their Afghan counterparts" why doesn't the headline say "3 American troops shot dead by Afghan soldier"? CNN is especially pathetic:

Official: Man in Afghan security uniform kills 3 U.S. troops

A man in an Afghan military uniform killed three U.S. troops Friday in southern Afghanistan, the latest in a series of assaults against NATO soldiers by Afghans clad in security force garb.

There have been 24 such green on blue incidents in the last 12 month. In every case those were real Afghan soldiers or real Afghan policemen who attacked. To write as if those were people who just picked up a uniform at the bazaar is in no way justified.

The stupidity of these formulations clearly come into view when one changes the roles in these formulations:

Afghan soldier kills 3 in American security uniforms

An Afghan soldier killed three in American military uniforms Friday in southern Afghanistan, the latest in a series of assaults against men in NATO military uniforms by Afghan security forces.

No one would write such bullshit even though it reflects the facts just as well as the ISAF manipulated version copied by western media. This again shows how neutral reporting was buried by the "embedded with the military" mindset that came with the the twenty-first century.

The fight over Aleppo is waging on with advantages on the Syrian government side. The Syrian army launched its ground offense in Aleppo and killed the leader of the insurgency there. The insurgents are in tactical retreat from their Aleppo stronghold of Salaheddin. It will take some time to mop them up.

When politics failed to give Washington what it wanted it decided to increase the violence in Syria by promoting Al Qaeda to fill the void the Annan mission left:

The US’s estimation is that the agenda of ‘regime change’ in Syria is getting stuck in mud. The Syrian regime is intact.

Therefore, what is needed is a military push. The name of the game is to achieve a ’soft landing’ in Damascus without spilling American blood – as WaPo says. Now that the US and its allies have got rid of the nuisance of Kofi Annan, the path ahead is clear.

The only way forward for both sides of the proxy war in Syria is the military option:

Until either Assad or his armed opponents achieve a major military victory that translates into immediate political gains, thus forcing the external players to negotiate, there will be no alternative to continued military operations and further fighting.

The armed opposition – with all its diverse factions comprising Syrian, Arab and foreign fighters and Salafi and other ideologies – has become better organized and equipped to wage a long war. It is receiving larger amounts and more sophisticated military equipment by the day. The regime, too, has adjusted for a protracted battle, in which no holds are barred, and in which it feels justified in unleashing all the firepower at its disposal.

Both sides are equally convinced that to achieve a big military triumph, such as controlling Aleppo, maximum force must be used, in order to push the crisis toward a resolution – though not necessarily to a political settlement anytime soon.

The U.S. and its allies are sending more weapons and radicals into Syria. But the public mood in the west about this conflict is changing. Even the German public TV, which is full of anti-Assad propaganda, is now warning about the Salafi insurgents. There is also some trouble between the Syrian fanatics and their foreign jihadi guests:

Cont. reading: Could The War On Syria Create Regime Change in Ankara?

Who would have expected this from the prestigious Council of Foreign Relations?

The Palestinian resistance would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Hamas battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, resistance forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Netanyahu regime's superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, Hamas needs al-Qaeda now.

/snark