Tehran Condemns Washington’s “Maximum Pressure Campaign” as Economic Terrorism
Published on InfoRos on June 7th, 2019 written by Sarah Abed
In an attempt to twist Iran’s proverbial arm, Washington has ramped up it’s “maximum pressure campaign” which includes threats, intimidation, psychological warfare, economic terrorism in the form of increased sanctions, increased military presence in the Middle East, and a list of not one, or two but TWELVE nearly impossible demands.
The Trump administration’s tactics have proven futile in forcing Iran to negotiate a new nuclear deal, after United States President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew last year from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA nuclear deal which was created under the Obama administration.
France, Germany, and the U.K. all discouraged Trump from withdrawing from the deal, their efforts to convince him, however, were fruitless. The landmark deal was reached after 18 days of negotiations in Vienna between Iran and six world powers and was meant to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Right after Trump withdrew from the deal sanctions were re-imposed.
A U.N. watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency stated in a confidential quarterly report that even after Trump’s withdraw that Iran has stayed within the JCPOA nuclear deal’s limitations.
On June 2nd, 2019, while in Switzerland, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated “We’re prepared to engage in a conversation with no preconditions… We’re ready to sit down with them. But the American effort to fundamentally reverse the malign activity of this Islamic Republic, this revolutionary force, is going to continue.” Iran rejected the offer.
In an interview on the same day, with ABC News, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif was asked if Iran is willing to talk to Washington, and he responded that it’s not very likely because “talking is the continuation of pressure”, and that using pressure to bring Iran to the negotiating table will not work. Zarif said that the only thing that will work with Iran is respect.
Zarif said that they will take legal measures within the nuclear deal and stressed that they are a law-abiding country and are not in violation of the 2015 deal. He also said that Iran has provided a timetable of what they will do within 60 days, and what will happen beyond 60 days, and this is all for the sake of transparency. After 60 days the plan calls for higher enrichment, however they are prepared to regress on that front, if other parties implement their obligations under the deal.
Zarif stated “People think twice before talking to the United States because they know that what they agree today might not hold up tomorrow”. He used US deals with North Korea, Mexico, and China as examples.
Rather than continue to escalate tensions under their “maximum pressure campaign” and cause Iranian’s to suffer immensely, Washington should take note of Zarif’s message to the Trump Administration, “I’ve said it before, threats against Iran never work,”. “Never threaten an Iranian. Try respect, that may work.” It’s a harmless request, besides normalizing relations between the two super-powers would ultimately benefit humanity.
In his ABC News interview, Zarif mentioned the hardship that these sanctions are having on ordinary Iranian civilians even when it comes to non-sanctionable items such as food and medicine. “If the objective of President Trump is to impose pressure on normal Iranians, on ordinary Iranians, he is certainly achieving that.” “But he will not achieve his policy objectives through pressure on the Iranians.”
Zarif stressed that Iran will defend itself against Washington’s economic terrorism and increased military presence in its vicinity. As to what kind of response Iran would take against increased escalations, he didn’t reveal his cards but did state that their will be consequences if the United States continues adding more sanctions against Iranians.
“If the United States decides to cause so much pain on the Iranian people by imposing economic warfare, by engaging in economic terrorism against Iran, then there will be consequences,” Zarif stated. “We don’t differentiate between economic war and military war,” he stressed. “The U.S. is engaged in war against us, and a war is painful to our participants. We have a very clear notion that in a war, nobody wins. In war, everybody loses the loss of some will be greater than the loss of others.”
As for the U.S.’s accusations that Iran was involved in or responsible for sabotaging four oil tankers near the Persian Gulf, Zarif denies Iran’s involvement. Solid evidence hasn’t been presented to properly place blame on anyone.
As far as what Zarif would say to Iranian’s he said that the reason why they are under the pressure that they are currently in is because Trump left the nuclear deal. Zarif also said that it’s their obligation to alleviate some of the pressure against the Iranian people and they are doing the best that they can, but they cannot surrender their integrity.
This conflict actually started over 40 years ago when Iran nationalized its oil industry. This action blocked US oil companies from accessing Iran's oil market. The US wants access to Iran's resources and control over its foreign policies, but Iran is not playing ball. Its an obstacle to US hegemonic ambitions. Since then, the US has been working to overthrow Iran's regime, and obviously it's still at it. Iran's leaders refer to America as "The Great Satan," but it's for good reason. The US propaganda machine (MSM) spins the narrative in its favor, painting Iran as a rogue state, spreading terrorism and chaos throughout the world. This is a standard ploy to misdirect attention away from the fact that the US is actually committing these crimes, not the other guy (Iran). Look at the recent US-backed coups in Venezuela, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Ukraine, and Afghanistan. Like Iran, these countries also owned resources the US coveted and also refused to play ball. The US orchestrated a regime change, although the attempt apparently has failed in Venezuela and Syria. Make no mistake. America's regime change wars have cost the lives of millions, yes millions, of innocents throughout the world. Well, I for one say, "STOP THIS MURDER!"
You Sir are awesome! Are we friends on Facebook? I would love to share your comments there and credit you of course but I don't know your name. Mine is Sarah Abed.
Hi Sarah,
My name is Brian Tanimoto. I have been following your channel for a while, and have found your posts very interesting. I do have a facebook account, but hardly know how to use it. I'm just not into social media very much, I guess. But go ahead and send a friend request. I would be happy for you to use any of my comments any way you would like. I'm just trying to make people aware of America's imperialistic agenda, and counter the massive propaganda operations it uses to "manufacture consent" from the American public. If you don't mind, I'm saving some of my comments here on your post, so I can use them in other YouTube videos. It's nice how Steemit saves the comments. Well, I'll be watching for more of your great articles.
It's great to meet you Brian! I'll send you a friend request on Facebook and try to tag you in the comments section of a post where I shared your thought provoking comments!
I def agree that you should use them on other posts, YouTube etc, you never know in whose mind you'll plant a seed!
Downvoted for bias, but intentionally not downvoted enough to censor its visibility. We respect your right to free speech.
If I may suggest, if you were to put "Opinion Piece" at the top before your article that would make it more appropriate.
Bias? Where have you been? These are cold . . . hard . . . facts, not opinions. For decades, America has been wielding its economic and military power to circumvent international law and force regime change in those countries that do not support US interests. As a result, it has inflicted death and suffering on countless innocent men, women, and children in Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan . . . the list goes on. Make no mistake, these are abominable crimes against humanity.
Hello @hulabugger
Believe me, I am a Bitcoin fan for its ability to help nations be free of the US government having unfair control over them by weaponizing the US dollar. And I share the opinion that the US government should respect other nations right to self-manage themselves and not be trying to enforce their own rules on other nations.
However, journalism is a precious form of communication. It needs to remain pure so that people can trust that it is factual. In order for that, reporters have a tradition of not being allowed an opinion while doing the task of reporting. Any "newsy" information that permits the author to express opinion needs to stipulate at the head of the document that it is an "opinion piece".
For example, do we call two nations having conflicts an act of "terrorism"? No, no we would not do that. Nations may enter into combat, but terrorism is a different topic. Humans do sometimes use words incorrectly, such as when Madoff became referred to as a "financial terrorist" which is a ridiculous use of the word. It is not appropriate to label any action a form of terrorism.
True journalism does not take sides. It explains what event is happening. Now, the author does have in her blog the word "commentator" which is helpful, but each article wherein she plans to take sides she should label it "opinion". This is common practice in blogging and journalism work.
The author writes beautifully, and we would love to support her independent journalism. The important thing for us is either that bias not exist in the piece or that it be labeled opinion at the top.
This article contains direct quotes from Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif including, “If the United States decides to cause so much pain on the Iranian people by imposing economic warfare, by engaging in economic terrorism against Iran, then there will be consequences.” That's not the author's opinion - it's a fact.
@hulabugger Hello again,
I absolutely do not wish to argue with you, and I do care about the economic concerns of the citizens of Iran.
I'm sure he did say what you quoted there. However, economic "terrorism" is an inappropriate term for the actions that the US has taken. Although the Irianian leader might have used the term loosely, in her article she mentioned it in non-quoted areas. This is the issue.
Economic sanctions are not something I necessarily agree with but calling economic sanctions "terrorism" is quite a stretch from reality. That would be like calling someone that downvotes another person an economic terrorist...
I consider perpetual demonetization to be a form of financial censorship. However, not "economic terrorism" in any way. That is excessive terminology.
Economic sanctions are primarily embargoes and tariffs. They can be problematic for nations that are highly dependent on outsourced products/services. Personally, I dislike the idea, but I won't go around calling a nation's government a terrorist organization for such an act. It is very different from exploding a random shopping mall full of civilians.
Okay, the author should have used quotation marks. I agree that Zarif probably should not have called sanctions "terrorism." I think he actually had it right the first time when he called sanctions "economic warfare."
I fully agree with your statement.
If Trump truly wanted diplomacy, he could have simply contacted the leaders of Iran and the other JCPOA member countries and requested they renegotiate the deal. But of course, the US is not interested in any agreement. It only wants regime change, but it first needs to manufacture public consent in order to justify its war on Iran. Same script as Venezuela, Syria, Libya, Iraq . . . etc.
No self-respecting government, like Iran or North Korea, will negotiate while the US is imposing sanctions on them, ie while the US is waging economic war on them. And of course, the US knows this and that's why it won't lift the sanctions. The US was never interested in diplomacy, only in regime change. It has wanted this for 40 years, since the overthrow of the pro-western Shah of Iran in 1979. Its goal is to force regime change and install a puppet government in Iran that will kowtow to US interests. The US is hoping that sanctions will destabilize Iran's economy to the point where the citizenry revolts and forces regime change. I doubt this will happen - the Iranians are tough - but I think all out war is even less likely. The US always tries to make the other side look like the bad guy, in order to manufacture public consent for it's actions. It doesn't want to look like the cowardly schoolyard bully who beats up and steals the lunch money from smaller kids, although that's a pretty good analogy. Iran's leaders refer to the US as 'The Great Satan" for good reason.
And so, while the Trump show entertains and distracts the public, others forces are covertly engaged in a regime change operation against Iran, which is in the early stages of a predictable pattern. First, destabilize Iran's economy and government through sanctions and covert CIA operations to create civil unrest. Second, send in rebel forces (ISIS) and try to instigate rebellion in the Iranian military. Third, when Iran's government fights back against the rebels, demonize the government as evil dictators, monsters, terrorists who are building a nuke, etc, who are starving, bombing, gassing, etc, their own people and/or the people of neighboring countries. As an added touch, the US may orchestrate false flag attacks against Iranian civilians or US assets, which it will blame on the government. Fourth, send in limited US and allied military forces to complete the regime change under the guise of liberating the Iranian people from their oppressive government. The US used this 'template' in Syria and Venezuela, but Russia stopped both coup attempts, which is partly why the US demonizes Russia so much.
The US has been quietly rebuilding its proxy army, ISIS, in Afghanistan and Iraq where 'coincidentally' it has maintained bases since its regime-changing invasion of these countries. Afghanistan is on Iran's eastern border, and Iraq is on its western border. I'm pretty sure the US is using the bases to provide ISIS with training and logistics support and it may turn ISIS loose in Iran as it did in Syria. I don't think Russia has strong ties with Iran like it did with Syria and Venezuela, so it's questionable if it will intervene. As Trump likes to say, "We'll see what happens."
Europeans unite and circumvent the US sanctions on Iran. The US did not "pull out" of the deal. It violated the deal when it unilaterally imposed sanctions even though Iran was in complete compliance. The US is pulling another regime change attempt like it did in Venezuela, Syria, Libya, etc. When do we say enough is enough!
Bolton says, "we will continue to increase the pressure on the Iranian regime until it abandons its nuclear weapons program and ends its violent activities across the Middle East, including conducting and supporting terrorism around the world." Look at these words carefully. This is a standard US ploy where it accuses its adversary of the same crimes the US is committing. The idea is to misdirect attention away from itself to its adversary. It always tries to make the other side look like the bad guy. It also plays word games, like the US "pulled out of the deal" instead of violated the deal, and the US "manufactures consent" instead of propagandizes.
So, in addition to boxing in Iran with US military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, Bahrain, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, we need to complete the encirclement with warships in the Persian Gulf. Who is threatening who? Make no mistake. We are in the early stages of yet another US-backed coup attempt in Iran.
The US knows Iran will not agree to anything until the US lifts the sanctions, and that's why it won't lift them. And that's why it abruptly violated the JCPOA when it immediately imposed the sanctions even though Iran was in full compliance. The US wants to prevent any agreement. It's only goal is to force regime change and install a puppet government in Iran that will kowtow to US interests. The sanctions are collapsing Iran's economy and indirectly causing much death and suffering among innocent Iranian men, women, and children. That's an act of war in my book.
When you hear Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, or some other yahoo say, "If Iran's leaders would join the rest of the world, the US would not . . ." what that really means is, "If Iran's leaders would kowtow to US interests, the US would not try to overthrow Iran's regime, or stir up civil unrest, or threaten them with obliteration, or surround Iran with military bases and warships, or wage economic warfare on them (sanctions, embargoes), or collapse its economy and currency, or sabotage Iran's infrastructure (computer networks, electrical grids, water reservoirs, etc), or orchestrate terrorist attacks on Iran's populace, or seize Iran's assets (gold, currency) held within western banks, and so on.
Think about what you have heard the US government say. For example, "if Iran's leaders would join the world." Isn't that a bit meaningless? Here's some info from Wikipedia: "Iran is considered as one of the cradles of civilization." "Iran has heavily influenced cultures and peoples as far away as Italy, Macedonia, and Greece to the West, Russia and Eastern Europe to the North, the Arabian Peninsula to the South, and the Indian subcontinent and East Asia to the East." Also, like most countries, Iran was trading throughout the world, that is, until the US slapped embargoes and sanctions on them. And though it's true that historically, Iran's and Israel's leaders have been at odds, Iran hosts the largest Jewish settlement in the world outside of Israel. Another example you gave, "the Iranian people are not the terrorists the mullahs are." I think I heard Trump, Bolton, or Pompeo say that. Those three spew propaganda. They are actively trying to turn the Iranian people and military against their government. This is a standard ploy the US incorporates into its regime change operations, which follow predictable stages: 1) destabilize the economy and government by imposing sanctions, embargoes, disinformation campaigns, and covert CIA operations to stir up civil unrest (happening now) 2) insert rebel groups (ISIS) and special forces to attack infrastructure and cities. The US is currently rebuilding ISIS. 3) When government forces fight the rebels and civilian casualties inevitably increase, start disinformation operation that demonizes the government leaders as evil dictators, terrorists, monsters, etc who are starving, bombing, gassing, etc its own people 4) If or when the government forces become sufficiently weakened, send in US and allied military forces to finish the regime change operation under the guise of liberating the people from an oppressive government. The massive US regime change operation in Syria followed these stages, and was close to succeeding. But, it eventually failed after Syria asked Russia for help and it send in its military, which proceeded to decimate ISIS. I don't think it will work in Iran either because its government and military, and most of all, its people, are just too strong. But, that's not going to stop the US from trying, given the incompetent people who are running its foreign policies.