Propaganda offensive played role in increasing sanctions on Iranian regime

Israel and the United States may successfully harm Teheran through the overt propaganda operation. It was launched last week by Israeli daily Yediot Ahoronot. And it was carried by Israeli politicians for few days. It appears to be coordinated effort of Israel and the Western states.

All parties want to avoid another costly and unnecessary military conflict in the Middle East. Therefore they may have decided to block and isolate Iran completely.

The propaganda offensive started with revealing the Iranian secret site for its centrifuges. It also made real possibility of military intervention of Israel. The United States highest politicians confirmed that Iran is growing threat. Last week during Congressional hearings Pentagon representatives were encouraging to attack Iran. Finally the least expected signal came from president of France Nicholas Sarkozy, who stated that his country will not be passive if Israel is threatened.

This propaganda offensive was intensified days before the publication of new International Atomic Agency's report about the Iranian nuclear programme. And days after House committee voted to introduce much more severe sanctions on the Iranian regime.

Congressmen decided that the Iranian-Libya Sanctions Act (1995), Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act (2006) the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (2010) are not sufficient to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. That is the sanctions on foreign investment in Iranian petroleum to hinder its ability to attract material, capital and technical support. The bill includes:

Any such action against Iran’s central bank – which serves as a clearinghouse for nearly all oil and gas payments in Iran – could make it more difficult for Iran to sell crude oil, its chief source of cash, by blocking companies doing business with it from also working with US financial institutions. Some Iranian officials have likened such a step to an act of war.Among many other things, the bill would also forbid American diplomats any contact with Iranian officials without advance congressional approval, and raise the bar further for exports of any US-made item – which would include civilian aircraft parts, an especially sore point for Iranians and their crash-prone domestic fleet of aging planes.

However some experts argue that military intervention cannot be excluded.


Poland supports Israel during current crisis

Poland will not participate in a shameful vote over so-called Palestinian state at the United Nations on Thursday, September 22nd.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk clearly stated that Polish government will not send its representative to that meeting.

“If the content of the resolution can be negotiated so that it moves the Palestinian matter forward and not pose a threat to Israel, and it appears there is a shadow of a chance for compromise, we will be prepared to vote for this,” Mr Tusk was quoted as saying by the Polish Press Agency.

“Poland will certainly not vote on a resolution that will directly affect the security of Israel,” Mr Tusk said.

Here is intelligent explanation why such decision should be made by other countries:

“As current president of the European Union, Poland’s decision to opt out of this lamentable gathering is particularly significant,” said American Jewish Congress Executive Director David Harris, reacting to a Polish Foreign Ministry statement announcing Poland’s decision.


Arab Spring unlike Solidarity Summer

Solidarity leader Lech Walesa leads shipyard workers in prayer
Big Peace published my article on the Christian origins of transformation in Poland. I tried to point at the difference between the Solidarity movement and the Arab revolutions. Here is an excerpt. 

the Solidarity movement was not aimed against anybody. Its first goal was to unite and reconcile people fragmented and isolated by the operations of Communist secret police and Communist propaganda. During the strikes, workers publicly forgave their oppressors. Secondly, workers demanded rights to freely organize themselves (free unions), inform (free speech) and to express their faith (freedom of conscience).

Anna Walentynowicz acknowledged the key role of John Paul II in the formation of Solidarity. She said: “I cannot imagine it without our pope”. Likewise Polish historian, Marek Lasota, who specializes in the history of 1980’s, concurred with the Solidarity leader: “The movement was born in the hearts of Poles during the first pilgrimage of John Paul II to his Fatherland in June 1978”. This pilgrimage had critical significance for the formation of Solidarity. Polish workers were inspired seeing themselves in mass public prayer meetings for the first time on a such a grand scale. Other Solidarity leader Krzysztof Wyszkowski explains: “we understood that there is more of us than them.” Polish workers rejected fear from their hearts. In this moment the Communist regime lost its power of influence because fear is a fundamental element of a totalitarian system.

Solidarity workers emphasized in their speeches and documents that they acted for the common good of man. The movement was not a political organization but a moral force for the renewal of society. Its ethics may be difficult to understand today.


Gorbachev praises Obama and admits that he did his best to save Soviet Union

An amazing interview with the top communist apparatchik Mikhail Gorbachev. He repeats, although this time quite clearly, that in fact he was fighting to keep the Soviet Union alive. He did his best to defend the Soviet Union. Gorbachev explains that perestroika succeeded but it was disrupted. Soviet Union "could have existed longer today as the community of the sovereign states".

 As a good communist he quotes Lenin's ("Lenin whom I respect" - he says) understanding of a chaos. Gorbachev says after Lenin: "Do not be afraid chaos". According to comrade Gorbachev "chaos produces new life".

Gorby adds that Obama is doing still a good job. 

It is difficult to say "enjoy" here. So rather watch carefully this interview


Walesa rejected Obama because US President favors Russia over Central Europe

Legendary Polish Solidarity leader and co-founder Lech Walesa did not agree to meet the President of the United States, Barack Obama on Saturday afternoon. Walesa said: "It does not suit me" answering a journalist why he was not going to talk to Barack Obama. Lech Walesa in the interview for a national newspaper added that he does not have time. According to the source, who spoke under the condition of being unnamed to the Polish Press Agency (PAP), Walesa was invited on short notice, a day before the meeting with the American president. Later the US Ambassador Lee Feinstein telephoned the former Solidarity leader asking him to change his decision. Walesa denied his request.

What was the reason?

President Barack Obama's administration changed their policies towards Central Europe. For instance it doesn't seem to understand the importance of Ukraine's freedom and independence for the stability of Europe.

In 2009 Walesa signed an appeal to the United States President Obama to not take Russia's side in the conflict over the missile defense system. In the open letter with twenty other former leaders of the antisoviet opposition he asked the United States to strengthen Euro-Atlantic relations.

We understand the heavy demands on your Administration and on U.S. foreign policy. It is not our intent to add to the list of problems you face. Rather, we want to help by being strong Atlanticist allies in a U.S.-European partnership that is a powerful force for good around the world. But we are not certain where our region will be in five or ten years time given the domestic and foreign policy uncertainties we face. We need to take the right steps now to ensure the strong relationship between the United States and Central and Eastern Europe over the past twenty years will endure.
As the countries living closest to Russia, obviously nobody has a greater interest in the development of the democracy in Russia and better relations between Moscow and the West than we do. But there is also nervousness in our capitals. We want to ensure that too narrow an understanding of Western interests does not lead to the wrong concessions to Russia. Today the concern is, for example, that the United States and the major European powers might embrace the Medvedev plan for a "Concert of Powers" to replace the continent's existing, value-based security structure. The danger is that Russia's creeping intimidation and influence-peddling in the region could over time lead to a de facto neutralization of the region. There are differing views within the region when it comes to Moscow's new policies. But there is a shared view that the full engagement of the United States is needed.
Many in the region are looking with hope to the Obama Administration to restore the Atlantic relationship as a moral compass for their domestic as well as foreign policies. A strong commitment to common liberal democratic values is essential to our countries

Unfortunately President Barack Obama's administration radically redefined US strategic alliances.
His withdrawal from the missile defense agreement was announced on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. Two months later to emphasize their superiority over the Central Europe, maybe even over Western Europe, Russians targeted Poland with nuclear missiles during their military exercises.

The Central European leaders asked the Obama adminsitration for the engagement. But the State Department and the White House did not react.

Unlike Obama, President Bush understood that there is a need for the ground military installations that would secure peace in that region. It would be a guarantee that Russians would never again invade Central Europe. Their political and business interests (since they are closely connected to their military or civil intelligence) would have to be reduced. Thus their sphere of influence would be clearly marked. With such an installation the political climate in Europe would have changed. Walesa and other signatories of this letter understood it.

A missile defense system remains a strategic issue for Russia.

"A European missile defense system can become truly effective and sustainable only in the case of equal participation of Russia," the Kremlin press service said in a statement Saturday, citing a letter by Medvedev to members of the NATO-Russia Council." 


I would not think that Walesa ignored Obama because he is not Ronald Reagan. That seems to be quite a shallow reasoning.

But above all, I imagine that Lech Walesa is not meeting with President Obama because he knows the current occupant of the White House is no Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a true friend of the Poles, who fought hard for their liberation in the face of Soviet tyranny. The Gipper believed in strong US leadership, in standing up to America’s enemies, and in the importance of standing shoulder to shoulder with America’s allies. President Obama’s “leading from behind” approach is the antithesis of Reagan’s foreign policy, and one which has frequently undercut US alliances rather than strengthened them.

One can say that George W. Bush was not Reagan too. However, Walesa met him despite criticising him for prolonging the occupation of Iraq. President Obama does not represent values that led Poles to victory. He seems to run policies that appease Poland's enemies. He favors Russia over the Central Europe.

Ronald Reagan Quotes