Obama blames high gas prices on Iran

Obama blames high gas prices on Iran David Jackson USA TODAY March 24, 2012 For all the domestic political talk about high gas prices, President Obama says one major factor can be traced overseas: Iran.

"Right now the key thing that is driving higher gas prices is actually the world's oil markets and uncertainty about what's going on in Iran and the Middle East," Obama said in an interview with AAA. "And that's adding a $20 or $30 premium to oil prices, and that affects obviously gas prices."

Obama also cited Iran during his recent two-day western tour to discuss gas prices, and his "all-of-the-above" strategy that includes investment in new sources of energy.

"The main reason the gas prices are high right now is because people are worried about what's happening with Iran," Obama said in Oklahoma. "It doesn't have to do with domestic oil production. It has to do with the oil markets looking and saying, you know what, if something happens there could be trouble and so we're going to price oil higher just in case."

One major worry: the prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, slowing the oil supply and spiking up prices even further.

Obama and aides are working to dissuade Israel from a possible attack, asking it to give international sanctions more time to force Tehran into forgoing the means to make nuclear weapons.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, not weapons, and that Israel and the United States are fear-mongering.

AAA describes itself as "a non-partisan

organization providing unbiased reporting of gas prices through its popular weekly Fuel Gauge Report."

AAA reports a national average of $3.89 per gallon today -- up from $3.58 a month ago and $3.28 at the start of the year.

taking a toll on the president's

Republicans blame the price escalation on Obama's regulation policies, and there are signs that the attacks are political standing.

The president said: First of all, I understand what folks are going through, because it wasn't that long ago that I was having to fill up my gas tank and drive to work, shuttle the kids back and forth to school and their events, and it takes a big bite out of folks' paychecks.

The challenge is that we've been going through this kind of cycle of ups and downs in gas prices for decades now. We don't have the control over our own energy security the way we need to.

And so what we talked about today was an all-of-the-above strategy that involves higher oil production here in the United States but also involves making our cars more fuel-efficient, expanding biofuels, using all the resources we can to try to lessen our demand for foreign oil, which makes us less vulnerable to price spikes over the long term.

Worrisome Security Council Presidential Statement on Syria Stephen Lendman Infowars.com March 24, 2012 After months of internal wrangling, Security Council members unanimously endorsed efforts to end Syrian violence. Or did they?

More on that below.

Presidential statements are non-binding.

However, with vague language, they risk potential slippery slope trouble. More on that below as well.

Media reports called unanimity a setback for Assad. The statement’s also characterized as “Western.”

Hillary Clinton called it “a positive step. The council has now spoken with one voice.” She also said Washington is working with Syria’s opposition “to strengthen its preparation to participate in the Syrian-led transition process that the Council has endorsed.” By any other name, she means regime change.

That alone suggests softened Russian support for Syria, or perhaps something else went on privately to cut an imperfect deal unlikely to end conflict. A greater one may follow, but only the fullness of time will tell.

Russia’s UN envoy, Vitaly Churkin said: “We are very pleased. The Security Council has finally chosen to take a pragmatic look at the situation in Syria.”

Russia and China won concessions, but not enough. Interviewed on Kommersant FM radio, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s comments left unanswered questions. He said: “It is true that some people have taken up arms to defend their homes and families, but that’s not the whole story.”

He also described a plot to replace Assad with a Western/Saudi/Qatar-backed Sunni regime.

In addition, he criticized Assad, saying:

“We absolutely do not justify the Syrian leadership. We consider that (it) reacted incorrectly to the rise of nonviolent protest, that despite the promises that were made in response to our numerous appeals, they are making many mistakes, and those steps being made in the proper direction are happening late.”

He suggested a transition similar to how Yemen replaced Ali Abdullah Saleh with Abd Rabbuh Mansur al-Hadi but left the regime in power. It’s hard imagining why he believes changing names and faces suggests new policies differing from current ones.

He left Syria’s new Constitution unaddressed. It constitutes a roadmap for change. It lets Syrians, not other nations, decide. In previous comments, Lavrov strongly endorsed the process. He did again to avoid Western-style regime change.

Russia’s got good reason to worry. Besides strategically important Syrian interests, Washington’s Ukraine and Georgia color revolutions put pro-Western regimes on its borders. Putin especially fears Moscow may be next. His concerns are well justified.

Washington wants unchallenged global dominance. Achieving it requires client states replacing independent ones. Russia and China are ultimate targets. Moscow is Washington’s main military rival. Between them, they control about 97% of the world’s nuclear arsenal with sophisticated delivery systems able to target strategic global sites.

China’s an economic powerhouse. It also has significant military strength, including hundreds of nuclear warheads, sophisticated delivery systems, and other strategic weapons. Beijing and Moscow both are justifiably wary of America’s belligerence, its quest for global dominance, and schemes to control or eliminate potential rivals – by any means, including war.

It’s perhaps why Lavrov told Kommersant radio: “Neither the UN, nor any other body or group of countries have the right to decide who should and who should not govern a sovereign state. The eventually inevitable departure of Mr. Assad should not look like a regime change.”

On the one hand, Lavrov sees Assad’s departure as certain. On the other, it’s for Syrians to decide either way and who replaces him if he leaves. Under

international law, it’s their right.

Perhaps they’ll get it under new constitutional provisions. They provide a framework for change, but the fullness of time alone will determine how and what follows.

On March 21, Russian president-elect Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, endorsed Assad as Syria’s legitimate leader. He also stressed Russia’s commitment to end violence, as well as restore and preserve security and order. In addition, he deplored opposition violence without calling it Westernbacked.

Moscow also got a Security Council press statement. It condemned last weekend’s Damascus and Aleppo bombings “in the strongest terms.” Calling them “terrorism,” it stopped short of blaming responsible Western-backed killer gangs.

Russia and China yielded. Both know Assad’s more victim than villain. Yet they gave more than they got. At issue is why?

Flawed Security Council Presidential Statement It’s both flawed and worrisome. Though non-binding, it potentially facilitates what Russia and China fear. Washington’s longstanding policy wants pro-Western leadership replacing Assad. All means will be employed to achieve it, including war.

The statement doesn’t explicitly endorse Assad stepping down. However, it tacitly backs a process for achieving it, saying: “The Security Council expresses its full support for the efforts of the Envoy (Annan) to bring an immediate end to all violence and human rights violations, secure humanitarian access, and facilitate a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system….”

It supports Kofi Annan’s six-point plan. Like current UN SecretaryGeneral Ban Ki-moon, he’s a longstanding imperial tool

appointed at the behest of Washington to advance a pro-Western agenda smoothed with diplomatic language appearing even-handed.

Assad’s right saying “no political dialogue or political activity can succeed while there are armed terrorist groups operating and spreading chaos and instability.” Yet Russia and China agreed with SC language calling on Syria to: “immediately cease troop movements towards, and end the use of heavy weapons in, population centres, and begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres.”

Assad “should work with (Annan) to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism.”

“Similar commitments” are also sought from opposition elements, but only after Syria first initiates them. In other words, killer gangs may continue in the interim committing what Human Rights Watch (HRW) condemned.

In a March 19 open letter, HRW explicitly explained opposition terrorism, including targeted killings, summary executions, kidnappings for ransom, torture, hostage taking, and other violent crimes.

Assad confronted them. It’s his job. Ceasing may facilitate what he, Russia and China deplore – greater conflict producing Western-engineered regime change. It’s planned. The March 21 SC statement doesn’t deter it.

It wants “the Syrian Government and opposition to work in good faith to implement ‘fully and immediately’ (Annan’s) six-point proposal (and to) commence a political dialogue” to do so.

With Western backing, the foreign-based Syrian National Council (SNC) involved in violence refuses. The nonviolent internally-based National Coordination Body for Democratic Change (NCB) is willing.

The SC statement also calls for “ensur(ing) timely provision of humanitarian assistance to all areas affected by the fighting….”

At issue is how. On March 22, The National

headlined, “Turkey readies Syrian buffer zone plan,” saying: Ankara “discretely” began “preparations for a buffer zone on the Syrian side of the border between the two countries amid fears that hundreds of thousands could flee the fighting….”

An unnamed official said “about 500 specialized soldiers” began inspecting border areas. Military options are considered. Turkey’s media reported similar plans.

According to Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies analyst Veysel Ayhan, preparations show Turkey wants to be ready for an emergency refugee flood. He believes international efforts will be involved.

On March 19, Turkey’s Today’s Zaman headlined, “No decision yet on buffer zone in Syria, says Turkey.” It quoted Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan saying: “There are….considerations about creating a buffer zone and a safe zone. We are evaluating alternatives,” but no decisions have been made.

Buffer (safe) zones replicate no-fly ones. They require humanitarian corridors, easier access for foreign-supplied weapons, and military protection. It includes air support targeting Syrian defenses, as well as command and control sites.

Doing so means NATO’s involvement in war. It’s precisely what Russia and China oppose. Yet endorsing the SC statement may precipitate it.

It’s more likely given the statement’s final comment, saying: “The Security Council requests (Annan) to update the Council regularly and in a timely manner on the progress of his mission. In light of these reports, the Security Council will consider further steps as appropriate.”

Emphasis is on undefined “further steps.” It suggests wiggle room enough to wage war. Expect it because: (a) Washington wants regime change by any means; (b) the road to Tehran runs through Damascus; (c) weapons will keep flowing to Western-backed killer gangs; who’ll stop them?

(d) violence will continue; (e) Assad must confront it; it’s his job; failure is dereliction of duty; all governments are required to protect their people; (f) for doing so, he’ll be blamed for disobeying the SC. “Further steps” will follow. It’s easy imagining which ones. Blame Russia and China for allowing what they oppose. If Assad falls, Iran’s next and may be targeted at the same time.

Washington plans clean sweep regional regime change. Syria, Iran, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and perhaps Hamas are targeted. Imagine what’s ahead to achieve it.

A decade of war perhaps was prelude for potential armageddon. Nuclear weapons may target Iran’s underground facilities. Retaliation will follow. Expect Russia and China to intervene.

What cooler heads fear now threatens. America’s war lobby spurns peace. What potentially follows is chilling. TS Eliot’s poem “The Hollow Men” ends, saying: “This is the way the world ends This is the way the world ends This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper.”

He likely got it wrong, and it’s the other way around.

This post first appeared on the Information Clearing House website.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

EndGame Blue Print to Global Enslavement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho&ob=av3e

There Are More Americans In Jail Than There Were In Stalin’s Gulag Archipelago Henry Blodget businessinsider.com March 24, 2012 There are now more Americans in jail -- 6 million -- than there were in Stalin's Gulag, reports Fareed Zakaria, in a column called "Incarceration Nation."

And it's not just a relative population thing.

The U.S. has 760 prisoners per 100,000 citizens.

How does that compare to other countries?

It's 7X-10X as high: Japan has 63 per 100,000, Germany has 90 per 100,000 France has 96 per 100,000 South Korea has 97 per 100,000 -Britain has 153 per 100,000 And it's also a relatively new phenomenon: In 1980, the U.S. only had 150 prisoners per 100,000 citizens.

What's to blame?

The "War on Drugs."

More than half of America's 6 million prisoners are in jail for drug convictions, with 80% of those in jail for "possession." By the way, has the "war on drugs" worked?

Um, no.

There are still drugs everywhere.

So, maybe it's time we stopped throwing people in the slammer for possessing them.

Global oil price may hit $240 if Iran closes Hormuz Press TV March 24, 2012 A leading US-based energy consulting firm says oil price may hit $240 a barrel and economic growth may fall by over 25 percent if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz in reaction to the Western sanctions.

Analysts at IHS Global Insight also told reporters that Iran can easily close the strategic strait and disrupt global oil supplies for up to three months by laying mines that the US and its allies would have to find and remove, USA Today reported.

“If Iran actually moves to close the Strait of Hormuz, crude oil prices may soar to $240 a barrel for some time,” said Sara Johnson, senior research director for Global Economics at IHS. She added that oil prices may stay as high as $160 in the second quarter of the year before reverting to somewhere around $120. Such an oil shock, Johnson stated, can bring back gas lines in much of the world, and shave next year’s global economic growth to 2.6 percent from a current forecast of 3.6 percent. “If it [oil price] did hit $240 [a barrel], you’re looking at about a doubling of where gas prices are now; and the US [gas price] is at $4 [a gallon],” said Jim Burkhard, managing director of the global oil group at IHS CERA, the firm’s energy-research arm. The expert stated that the impact would be so large as the global oil supplies are so tight.

“The world has only between 1.8 million and 2.5 million barrels per day of unused production capacity, down from 6.2 million in 2009. Tight inventories magnify the impact of any interruption in crude from nations around the Strait [of Hormuz],” Burkhard added.

The US and the European Union (EU) have imposed tough sanctions against Iran, since the beginning of 2012, to block the country’s oil exports and penalize other states for importing the Iranian crude. They claim that Iran’s nuclear energy program includes a military component, ignoring the fact that International Atomic Energy Agency has never been able to prove a military diversion in Iran’s nuclear energy program despite meticulous inspections.

Tehran has threatened that if Iran’s oil exports are cut, the country may take retaliatory steps, including the closure the strategic Strait of Hormuz through which a daily total of 15-17 million barrels of oil pass.

Israel Committed to Attacking Iran in June Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com March 24, 2012 In an exclusive report, Jerusalem-based DEBKAfile reports that both Israel and the United States are on the same page in regard to launching an attack on Iran.

“American and Israeli intelligence evaluations of the state of Iran’s program are in accord – contrary to the impression gained from Obama administration officials,” DEBKA-NetWeekly reported on March 22. “Both are of one mind on the imperative to paralyze that program even by force if Iran refuses to give up its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.” On Friday, it was reported that the United States, European allies and Israel agree that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. “Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead,” the National Post reported. Despite this evidence, the Israeli government has decided to attack Iran.

According to DEBKAfile, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a radio interview on Thursday that if Israel is resolved to attack Iran, it will have to do so within three months. In February, it was reported that Israel would carry out an attack in June and would use Saudi Arabia as its base.

DEBKAfile claims Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has convinced a majority of his Security and Diplomatic Cabinet of the urgency of an attack. “He is now backed by the two deputy prime ministers, the defense, foreign affairs, interior and finance ministers, while Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor and Minister without Portfolio Benny Begin are unconvinced.

Netanyahu can therefore go ahead and safely put

the military option to the vote in the cabinet for the first time,” DEBKAfile reports.

With this consensus, Barak sent IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz to Washington to meet Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin E. Dempsey. Gantz told Dempsey Israel would “be happy if the US halts Iran’s nuclear program in its tracks, no matter whether this is done by economic sanctions, an oil embargo, negotiations between Tehran and the world powers, or secret US-Iranian diplomacy.” The effort, however, would need to fit within the three month timeline.

Israeli officials then met “discretely” with leading members of Congress and told them about the three month timeline.

DEBKAfile states, however, that Israel “may have to part ways with the United States on the Iranian issue the first time in its short history” and attack Iran “before it is too late.”

Israel is now committed to an attack on Iran that will occur during thepresidential height of campaigning the 2012 U.S. election. Thefor Republican national convention will be held on August 27-30 in Tampa, Florida, and the Democrat convention will be held on September 3-6 in Charlotte, North Carolina. If Israel attacks Iran in June, it will undoubtedly be the dominant issue during the convention and the election in November.

Republican candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have all expressed their support of an Israeli attack on Iran. Ron Paul is the only candidate who opposes an attack. A poll conducted earlier this month revealed that a majority of Republicans believe the U.S. will attack Iran this year.

Obama said on March 5 that the U.S. would always “have Israel’s back” but said there was still time for diplomacy.

http://www.infowars.com/