Failure to abide by these international commitments undermines the norms of coexistence among states and can have serious consequences for stability and security in the Middle East.

Cuba opposes the imposition of unilateral coercive economic measures on any country and recognizes the legitimate right of all states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. At the same time, we call on the United Nations Security Council to fulfill the responsibility with which it has been charged in the UN Charter to maintain international peace and security, demanding adherence to of its resolution 2231 (2015) on the Iranian nuclear question, approved unanimously by this body.

Havana, May 9, 2018

By Elson Concepción Pérez

On July 14, 2015, the news emerged from Vienna that following 18 months of negotiations, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, heading the so-called G5+1 group (the U.S., Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany), had reached a historic agreement which would limit Iran’s nuclear program, while Washington and European countries pledged to lift sanctions imposed on the country.

This agreement would hypothetically put an end to 35 years of confrontational policy backed by U.S. governments, following the triumph of the Islamic Revolution.

Then U.S. President Barack Obama congratulated himself on having “stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region,” while failing to mention Israel and its nuclear development, in defiance of the UN and the international community, as it refuses to allow its program to be monitored by the responsible international agency.

The mass media broadcast claims that the agreement meant Iran’s possibilities of creating an atomic bomb had been frustrated, without recognizing at any point that the country’s nuclear program always had peaceful purposes, in the service of human health and energy development for the progress of the Persian nation.

At the time, Iranian President Hasan Rohani noted that the deal demonstrated that “constructive engagement works. With this unnecessary crisis resolved, new horizons emerge with a focus on shared challenges.”

Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that Iran has fulfilled all requirements for the unfreezing of its financial assets worth between 45 and 90 billion euros, as well as the export of its oil.

Now, two years after the signing of this historic agreement on such a sensitive issue, a new U.S. administration seems determined to act with as much flippancy as it has with regard to other issues such as climate change, immigration, the building of walls between countries, and others.

The Trump administration is proposing to abolish what has been agreed regarding the Iranian nuclear program, and is already taking steps to this end.

In a disjointed speech, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently described the deal with Iran as a “failed approach.” Yet just a few weeks earlier, the same Tillerson acknowledged to Congress that Iran has fully complied with the nuclear agreement signed.

Of course, these latest accusations against Iran have a lot to do with President Trump’s previous positions, when he returned to the fray branding Iran “a state sponsor of terrorism.”

It is no accident that the Iranian question has returned to U.S. foreign policy center stage. One need only recall that during Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia – his first trip abroad – he insisted on justifying the sale of arms produced by the U.S. military-industrial complex to countries of the region based on the alleged Iranian threat to Gulf nations.

Inventing an enemy, once again in the form of Iran, has obvious hegemonic, economic, and military purposes for Washington.

The Islamic Republic produces large quantities of oil and gas, and its nuclear energy program aims to make the country self-sufficient in terms of electricity needs, without resorting to the use of oil.

Likewise, Iran occupies a prominent place in the defense of Syria’s sovereignty and independence, supporting the country in its fight against terrorist groups.

Palestine has always received the solidarity and support of Iran, which is why Israel, Washington’s greatest ally in the region, is pointing its nuclear devices at this nation.

Meanwhile, the United States is the largest supplier of weapons of all kinds to the Middle East region, helping to keep its economy afloat through the support of its military-industrial complex, which is where the real power lies in the U.S., no matter whether a Republican or a Democrat occupies the White House.

According to analysis by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), arms imports by Middle East nations have increased by 86% in the last four years, with the U.S. being the largest exporter.

In addition to the huge agreement with Saudi Arabia to provide 110 billion USD worth of arms, the United States has agreed to sell combat aircraft for 2.7 billion dollars to Bahrain, a small Gulf nation which, in addition to a lot of oil, also has the Fifth Fleet of the United States Navy sitting in its waters.

Qatar is also a major importer of U.S. military equipment, according to the SIPRI report, which notes a 245% increase in recent years.

A few weeks ago, U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis signed a $12 billion dollar deal for the sale of 36 F-15 fighter jets to Qatar, according to BBC Mundo.

While encouraging the rest of the Gulf monarchies to cut ties with Qatar, Washington continues to sell the country arms in astonishing amounts.

In this sense, it is worth remembering what was expressed in relation to this emirate by Democrat Congressman Ted Lieu during a congressional hearing: “It’s very confusing to world leaders and members of Congress when the Trump administration does two exactly opposite things.”

Perhaps what Trump is really seeking with the situation created around Qatar and the other Gulf States, is precisely to exacerbate new divisions and create new conflicts that allow for the sales of more weapons by the U.S. military industry.

I coincide with other political analysts who ask whether Trump has a real strategy for the Middle East, beyond selling arms to the region?

(Granma)

During the cordial encounter the two dignitaries discussed the excellent state of bilateral relations and their mutual interest in expanding them. They also highlighted the positive results of the recently concluded 16th session of the Cuba-Iran Intergovernmental Commission for Economic and Scientific-Technical Cooperation.

The distinguished visitor was accompanied by the honorable Kambiz Sheikh Hassani, Iranian ambassador to Cuba.

Participating on the Cuban side were Ricardo Cabrisas Ruiz, a Council of Ministers vice president, and minister of Economy and Planning; as well as Rodrigo Malmierca Díaz, minister of Foreign Trade and Investment.

(Granma)

In a cordial atmosphere, the two leaders discussed the state of bilateral relations between Cuba and Iran, while also reaffirming their willingness to continue developing collaboration and exchanges between the two nations. The heads of state also addressed issues relating to regional and international events.

The distinguished visitor was accompanied by Foreign Minister, Mohamad Javad Zarif; Mohammad Nahavandiyan, vice president and chief of staff of the President of Iran; Mohamad Reza Nematzadeh, minister of Industry, Mining and Trade; Seyed Hasan Ghazizadeh Hashemi, minister of Health and Medical Education; Sorena Sattari Khavas, vice president for Science and Technology; as well as other senior delegation officials.

Participating on the Cuban side were compañeros Ricardo Cabrisas Ruiz, a Council of Ministers vice president and minister of Economy and Planning; Roberto Morales Ojeda, minister of Public Health; Salvador Pardo Cruz, minister of Industries; and Marcelino Medina González and Antonio Carricarte Corona, interim ministers of Foreign Relations, and Foreign Trade and Investment, respectively; as well as other Foreign Ministry officials.

Later, a Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperation between the Ministry of Health and Medical Education of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Ministry of Public Health of Cuba in the field of health, research, education, medications and technology, was signed by sector ministers Roberto Morales Ojeda of Cuba and Seyed Hasan Ghazizadeh Hashemi of Iran. The act was presided by the President of the Councils of State and Ministers, Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, together with his Iranian counterpart, Dr. Hassan Rouhani.

Also singed during the Iranian President’s visit were agreements relating to biomedicine, bio-agriculture, development, research and veterinary medicine; an inter-bank memorandum of understanding; and a Letter of Intent for the joint production of pentavalent vaccine.
Dr. Hassan Rouhani is currently visiting Cuba following his participation last week in the 17th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, held in Venezuela.

During the event, the Iranian President handed over the rotating presidency of the bloc to Venezuelan leader, Ni­colás Maduro, expressing his confidence in the South American nation and its authorities to successfully assume the position for the next three years.

(Granma)

Rouhani met with Masum immediately after the official welcoming ceremony in this capital, where the Iraqi president arrived on Tuesday night heading a large delegation for a three-day visit to ratify the good bilateral ties.

According to government sources, the two statesmen will hold another official meeting today and it is almost certain that the visiting president will be received by the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, among other authorities.

The two heads of State noted the will to explore the two countries’ vast potentialities, as they share a border of more than 1,000 kilometers, in addition to similar cultures, traditions and religions.

Although one country is Persian and the other one is Arab, Iran and Iraq are the main Muslim Shiite powers in the Middle East, particularly in the region of the Persian Gulf.

The two countries waged a war for eight years (1980-1988) that was encouraged by the United States shortly after the triumph of the Islamic Revolution, but bilateral relations show encouraging signs today.

(Prensa Latina)

Ahmadinejad had meetings with his counterparts in those countries, Yayi Boni, Benin; Mahamadou Issoufou, Niger; and John Dramani Mahama, Ghana, as part of the Iranian diplomatic strategy of strengthening ties with African countries.

In Niger, one of the worlds poorest nations despite its vast mining resources, chiefly uranium and oil, the Iranian president exchanged ideas with his Nigerian peer on bilateral relations, and African continent and international topics, reported IRNA news agency.

In his statements in Niger, Ahmadinejad said that his country has no need to buy Nigerian uranium to fuel its nuclear plants and proposed the worlds nuclear disarmament for averting the threat of a world war.

“The only way to solve the dispute on the nuclear development program is through the Western powers’ collaboration,” said the Iranian president.

Ahmadinejad gave an improvised press conference shortly before a session of the Cabinet about the talks with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), scheduled for this Wednesday in Tehran.

Questioned about the insistence of the IAEA delegation to visit Parchin military base, near this capital, the Iranian president said that his country has laws, regulations, and treaties with that entity, and the rights of the Iranian people must be taken into consideration.

Ahmadinejad’s statements came as the IAEA deputy director, Herman Nackaerts, arrived in Tehran on Wednesday to attend the rounds of talks on the Iranian nuclear program, to begin today.

According to official sources, the iranian party to talks is headed by ambassador to the IAEA Ali Asqar Soltaniyeh.

es seriously consider the reestablishment of peace and calm in Syria, and rejected any foreign military intervention in that Arab country.

Salehi made his demand at the International Conference Center of the Iranian Television Corporation (IRIB) and at bilateral meetings with visiting foreign ministers.

Speaking with his Lebanese counterpart, Adnan Mansour, who is attending the meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement, Salehi called for political will to achieve peace, stop the bloodshed and promote reconciliation.

The Iranian foreign minister also spoke before 70 peers from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, and met with the Syrian minister for National Reconciliation, Ali Haydar.

Salehi and Mansour agreed that the NAM must prioritize the restoration of peace and stability in Syria in its ministerial agenda and among the heads of State and Government, as well as reject foreign interventions and provide humanitarian aid to all.

Salehi expressed similar viewpoints at a meeting with Indian Foreign Minister Somanahalli Mallaiah Krishna, who expressed confidence in the Syrian people to restore normality in the country.

Speaking at the opening session of the ministerial meeting, Salehi thanked Egypt for its efforts during its NAM presidency over the past three years, and Syrian Minister Haydar urged Cairo to define its stance regarding Damascus.

Egyptian Deputy Foreign Minister said here that all 118 members of the Third World forum must pave the way to solve the crisis in weak countries through joint talks; however, he omitted references to Syria and spoke directly about Palestine.

By virtue of the START and SORT treaties on the reduction of offensive weapons signed by the two great nuclear powers, the number of these was reduced to several thousand.

In 2010, a new treaty of this kind was signed by the two powers.

Since then the greatest efforts have been dedicated to improving direction, scope and precision and to the deception of adversary defence.  Huge amounts of money have been invested in the military sphere.

Very few persons in the world, other than a handful of thinkers and scientists, notice and warn about the fact that the explosion of 100 nuclear strategic weapons would suffice to put an end to human life on the planet.  The great majority would have an end that would be as inexorable as it would be horrible, resulting from the Nuclear Winter that would be generated.

The number of countries possessing nuclear weapons at this time has gone up to eight; five of them are members of the Security Council: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China. India and Pakistan acquired the nature of countries possessing nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 respectively. The seven aforementioned countries acknowledge this nature.

By contrast, Israel has never acknowledged its nature as a nuclear country. Nevertheless, it is calculated that it possesses between 200 and 500 weapons of this type, without taking the hint when the world becomes concerned by the extremely serious problems that the outbreak of a war in the region producing a large part of the energy moving industry and agriculture on the planet would bring.

Thanks to possessing weapons of mass destruction, Israel has been able to play its role as the instrument of imperialism and colonialism in that Middle Eastern region.

We are not dealing with the legitimate right of the Israeli people to live and work in peace and freedom; we are dealing precisely with the rights for freedom and peace of the other peoples in the region.

While Israel was speedily creating a nuclear arsenal, in 1981 it attacked and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. It did exactly the same thing to the Syrian reactor at Dayr az-Zawr in 2007, an occurrence of which world opinion was oddly not informed. The UN and the IAEA were perfectly well aware of that event. Such actions had the support of the United States and the Atlantic Alliance.

There is nothing odd about the fact that the most senior Israeli authorities are now proclaiming their intention of doing the same thing with Iran. That country, immensely wealthy in oil and gas, had been the victim of the conspiracies of Great Britain and the United States, whose oil companies were pillaging their resources. Their armed forces were equipped with the most modern weaponry of the US war industry.

Shah Reza Pahlevi also hoped to be supplied with nuclear weapons. Nobody was attacking his research centers. The Israeli war was waged against the Arab Muslims. Not against those in Iran, because they had become a NATO bastion that was aiming at the heart of the USSR.

The masses in that nation, deeply religious, under the leadership of the Ayatollah Khomeini, challenging the power of those weapons, ousted the Shah from his throne and disarmed one of the best equipped armies in the world without a shot being fired.

Due to their capacity for struggle, the number of inhabitants and the size of the country, an aggression against Iran bears no similarity with the war adventures of Israel in Iraq and Syria. A bloody war would inevitably break out.  We can have no doubts about that.

Israel has a large number of nuclear weapons and the capacity of having them reach any point in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania. I am wondering: does the IAEA have the moral right to sanction and smother a country if it intends to do what Israel has done in the heart of the Middle East, for its own defence?

I really think that no country in the world should possess nuclear weapons and that energy should be put at the service of the human species. Without that spirit of cooperation, humankind marches inexorably towards its own destruction. Among the citizens of Israel themselves, a hard-working and intelligent people without a doubt, many do not agree with that absurd, irrational policy that is also taking them down the road to total destruction.

What is being said these days in the world on the economic situation?

International news agencies inform that President Barack Obama of the United States and his Chinese peer Hu Jintao presented differing trade agendas, underlining the growing tensions between the two major world economies.

Reuters states that Obama used his speech to threaten China with economic sanctions unless it starts to play according to the rules. Undoubtedly, such rules are US interests.

The news agency states that Obama is embarked on the re-election battle for next year and his Republican opposition is accusing him of not being severe enough with China.

News printed on Thursday and Friday shows the realities we are living much better.

The best informed US agency AP reports that the supreme Iranian leader warned the United States and Israel that Iran’s answer would be energetic if its arch-enemies were to launch a military attack on Iran.

The German news agency informed that China had stated that, as always, it believed dialogue and cooperation were the only way of active rapprochement to solve the problem.

Russia was also opposed to punitive measures against Iran.

Germany rejected the military option but revealed itself to be for strong sanctions against Iran.

The United Kingdom and France advocate strong and energetic sanctions.

The Russian Federation assured that it would do everything possible to avoid a military operation against Iran and it criticized the IAEA report.

Konstantin Kosachov, head of the Duma Foreign Affairs Committee, stated that a military operation against Iran could bring very serious consequences and Russia would have to put all its weight into smoothing feelings over.  According to EFE, he criticized statements by the US, France and Israel about the possible use of force and that the launching of a military operation against Iran is getting closer day by day.

Edward Spannaus, editor of the US magazine EIR, stated that the attack against Iran would end up as World War III.

The US Defence Secretary himself, after a trip to Israel a few days ago, acknowledged that he was not able to get any commitment from the Israeli government on prior consultation with the US on an attack against Iran. Those are the extremes we have reached.

The US under-secretary for political and military affairs harshly revealed the empire’s sinister aims.

On Saturday, Andrew Shapiro, Under-Secretary for Political and Military Affairs of the United States stated that Israel and the United States shall embark on more important joint manoeuvres that are of greater transcendence in the history of the allies.

At the Washington Institute for Middle Eastern Policy, Shapiro announced that more than 5,000 US and Israeli armed forces troops will take part in the manoeuvres simulating the defence of Israel’s ballistic missiles.

He added that Israeli technology was becoming essential to improve US national security and to protect US troops.

Shapiro emphasized the support of the Obama government for Israel, in spite of comments on Friday by a senior US official who expressed his concern about Israel not warning the US before starting military action against Iranian nuclear installations.

He said that US relations with Israeli security are broader, more profound and more intense than ever before.

According to him, the US supports Israel because it is in US national interest to do so. It is the solid Israeli military force that is deterring possible aggressors and helps to promote peace and stability.

Today, on November 13, Susan Rice, US ambassador to the UN, told the BBC that the possibility of military intervention in Iran was not only still on the table but that it was a real option that is growing because of Iranian conduct.

She insisted that the US administration is reaching the conclusion that it will be necessary to end the current regime in Iran in order to prevent it from creating a nuclear arsenal. Rice acknowledged that she was convinced that the change in regime is going to be the US’ only option there.

We do not need to add a single word.

Fidel Castro Ruz

November 13, 2011

8:17 p.m.

I feel the duty to convey to those taking the trouble to read these Reflections the opinion that all of us, with no exception, are obliged to create awareness about the risks that humankind are running in an inexorable manner, towards a final and total catastrophe as the consequence of irresponsible decisions made by politicians who fate, rather than talent or merit, has placed the destiny of humankind in their hands.

Whether they are citizens of their country or not, whether they are followers of some religious belief or unbelievers, no human being in their right mind would agree that their children or closest kin should perish precipitously or as victims of atrocious and torturous misery.

On the heels of the repugnant crimes that are being increasingly committed by NATO under the aegis of the United States and the wealthiest countries in Europe, the gaze of the world focused on the G-20 meeting where the profound economic crisis affecting every nation today should have been analyzed. International opinion, especially in Europe, was awaiting an answer for the profound economic crisis that, with its serious social and even climatic implications, is threatening every inhabitant on the planet. At that meeting, it was being decided whether the Euro would be able to be kept as the common currency for most of Europe and even whether some of the countries would be able to remain in the community.

There was no answer or solution of any kind for the most serious problems of the world economy despite the efforts of China, Russia, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and other emerging economies, anxious to cooperate with the rest of the world in the search for solutions for the serious economic problems affecting them.

What was unusual was that just when NATO concluded the Libyan operation – after the air attack that injured the constitutional head of that country, destroyed the vehicle carrying him and leaving him at the mercy of the empire’s mercenaries who murdered him and exhibited his body as a war trophy, violating Muslim customs and traditions – the IAEA, a UN body and an institution that ought to stand for world peace, released the political, money-driven and sectarian report putting the world on the brink of war with the use of nuclear weapons that the Yankee empire, in alliance with Great Britain and Israel, has been meticulously preparing against Iran.

After the veni, vidi, vici of the famous Roman emperor more than two thousand years ago, translated to “I came, I saw and he died” broadcast for public opinion by an important television network as soon as the death of Gaddafi had been learned of, there are more than enough words to describe US policy.

Now what is important is the need to create clear awareness in the peoples about the abyss towards which humankind is being led. Twice our Revolution lived through dramatic dangers: in October of 1962, the most critical of all where humankind was on the brink of nuclear holocaust; and in mid-1987 when our forces were facing racist South African troops armed with nuclear weapons that the Israelis had helped them create.

The Shah of Iran also collaborated, along with Israel, with the racist and fascist South African regime.

What is the UN? An organization driven by the United States before the end of World War II. That nation, whose territory was considerably far away from the theatre of war, had incredibly increased its wealth; it accumulated 80% of the world’s gold and under the leadership of Roosevelt, a sincere anti-fascist, it promoted the development of the nuclear weapon that Truman, his successor, a mediocre oligarch, did not hesitate in using against the defenceless cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

The world’s gold monopoly in United States’ power and the prestige of Roosevelt handed the US the Bretton Woods agreement, assigning it the role of issuing the dollar as the only currency to be used for decades in world trade, with no limiting factor other that it’s being backed by the gold metal.

At the end of that war, the US was also the only country possessing the nuclear weapon, a privilege it did not hesitate in transmitting to its allies and members in the Security Council: Great Britain and France, the two most important colonial powers in the world at that time.

Truman had not even informed the USSR one single word about the atomic weapon before using it. China, at that time governed by Nationalist General Chiang Kai-shek, a pro-Yankee oligarch, could not be excluded from that Security Council.

The USSR, seriously stricken by the war, destruction and the loss of more than 20 million of its sons and daughters in the Nazi invasion, dedicated considerable economic, scientific and human resources to bring its nuclear capacity up to par with that of the United States. Four years later, in 1949, it tested its first nuclear weapon: the H-bomb in 1953; and in 1955 its first megaton bomb. France had its first nuclear weapon in 1960.

There were only three countries that had the nuclear bomb in 1957 when the UN, under the aegis of the Yankees, created the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA). Does anybody think that US instrument did anything to warn the world about the terrible dangers to which it would expose human society when Israel, unconditional US and NATO ally, located in the very heartland of the world’s most important oil and gas reserves, would become a dangerous and aggressive nuclear power?

Its forces, cooperating with colonial British and French troops, attacked Port Said when Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, French property; this forced the Soviet premier to send an ultimatum demanding the ceasing of that aggression that the European allies of the US had no alternative other than to attack.

To be continued tomorrow.

Fidel Castro Ruz

November 12, 2011

8:15 p.m.