[24 July 13] WHO recognizes July 28th as World Hepatitis Day - English
Hepatitis is a medical condition defined as inflammation of the liver. Before World Hepatitis Day, coming up on 28 July, Iran Hepatitis Network, the official network of Iranian Research Centers in...
Hepatitis is a medical condition defined as inflammation of the liver. Before World Hepatitis Day, coming up on 28 July, Iran Hepatitis Network, the official network of Iranian Research Centers in the field of Hepatology and Viral Hepatitis, are holding various conferences throughout the country to inform the public on Iran\'s advances in preventing Hepatitis.
More...
Description:
Hepatitis is a medical condition defined as inflammation of the liver. Before World Hepatitis Day, coming up on 28 July, Iran Hepatitis Network, the official network of Iranian Research Centers in the field of Hepatology and Viral Hepatitis, are holding various conferences throughout the country to inform the public on Iran\'s advances in preventing Hepatitis.
Recent Cyber Attacks On Irans Infrastructure - US & israel likely Suspects - 25 SEP 2010 - English
US, Israel behind cyber-attack on Iran?
Experts say a computer worm that has targeted Iran's industrial sites may be part of a cyber-attack by the US or Israel against the Islamic Republic....
US, Israel behind cyber-attack on Iran?
Experts say a computer worm that has targeted Iran's industrial sites may be part of a cyber-attack by the US or Israel against the Islamic Republic.
The Stuxnet, a computer worm that is viewed as potentially the most dangerous piece of computer malware discovered, has targeted industrial computers in Iran.
The complex worm recognizes a specific facility's control network and then destroys it.
Experts say the worm, which has a very sophisticated design, may have been created by a state-sponsored organization in the US or Israel to target specific control software being used in the Iranian industrial sector, including the Bushehr plant -- Iran's first nuclear power plant.
"All the details so far to me scream that this was created by a nation-state," Bloomberg quoted Frank Rieger, technology chief for a maker of encrypted mobile phones, as saying.
Iran's nuclear facilities may have been the targets, said both Rieger and Richard Falkenrath of the Chertoff Group, a Washington-based security advisory firm.
"It is theoretically possible that the US government did this," Falkenrath said during an interview with Bloomberg Television on Saturday. "But in my judgment, that's a very remote possibility. It's more likely that Israel did it."
Meanwhile, a top US cyber-security official claims that the US does not know who is behind the cyber-attack and is still analyzing the worm.
"We've conducted analysis on the software itself," Sean McGurk, director of the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, told reporters on Friday.
"It's very difficult to say 'This is what it was targeted to do,'" he said, adding the center was not looking for those behind the attack but it rather sought to prevent the spread.
The US and Israel accuse Iran of developing a nuclear weapons program. Iran rejects the allegation, saying its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, in its several reports, has confirmed that it continues to verify the country's non-diversion from its peaceful path.
Article Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/143868.html
More...
Description:
US, Israel behind cyber-attack on Iran?
Experts say a computer worm that has targeted Iran's industrial sites may be part of a cyber-attack by the US or Israel against the Islamic Republic.
The Stuxnet, a computer worm that is viewed as potentially the most dangerous piece of computer malware discovered, has targeted industrial computers in Iran.
The complex worm recognizes a specific facility's control network and then destroys it.
Experts say the worm, which has a very sophisticated design, may have been created by a state-sponsored organization in the US or Israel to target specific control software being used in the Iranian industrial sector, including the Bushehr plant -- Iran's first nuclear power plant.
"All the details so far to me scream that this was created by a nation-state," Bloomberg quoted Frank Rieger, technology chief for a maker of encrypted mobile phones, as saying.
Iran's nuclear facilities may have been the targets, said both Rieger and Richard Falkenrath of the Chertoff Group, a Washington-based security advisory firm.
"It is theoretically possible that the US government did this," Falkenrath said during an interview with Bloomberg Television on Saturday. "But in my judgment, that's a very remote possibility. It's more likely that Israel did it."
Meanwhile, a top US cyber-security official claims that the US does not know who is behind the cyber-attack and is still analyzing the worm.
"We've conducted analysis on the software itself," Sean McGurk, director of the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, told reporters on Friday.
"It's very difficult to say 'This is what it was targeted to do,'" he said, adding the center was not looking for those behind the attack but it rather sought to prevent the spread.
The US and Israel accuse Iran of developing a nuclear weapons program. Iran rejects the allegation, saying its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, in its several reports, has confirmed that it continues to verify the country's non-diversion from its peaceful path.
Article Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/143868.html
Did Obama Lie about FATWA?? - Nuke Free World By Rehbar - English & Persian
DID OBAMA LIE ?????
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the...
DID OBAMA LIE ?????
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms.
The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms.
The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran
Reading Obama’s Iran speech
President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013
President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:10PM GMT
2
Phyllis Bennis, The Nation
Related Interviews:
‘Rouhani’s remarks in US, conciliatory’
\\\\\\\'Rouhani speech, perfectly appropriate\\\\\\\'
Related Viewpoints:
Ziocons fume over Rouhani UN speech
All of a sudden we’re talking to Iran. Now, granted, that shouldn’t be such an astonishing bombshell. But given the reality of the last several decades, it pretty much is. And that’s all good. It’s been too long coming, it’s still too hesitant, there’s still too much hinting about military force behind it… but we’re talking. Foreign minister to foreign minister, Kerry to Zarif, it’s all a good sign.
There were lots of problem areas in the speech-President Obama was right when he said that US policy in the Middle East would lead to charges of “hypocrisy and inconsistency.” US policy-its protection of Israeli violations of international law, its privileging of petro-monarchies over human rights, its coddling of military dictators-remains rank with hypocrisy and inconsistency. And Obama’s speech reflected much of it.
But President Obama’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly reflected some of the extraordinary shifts in global-especially Middle East and most especially Syria-related-politics that have taken shape in the last six or eight weeks. And on Iran, that was good news. Yes the president trotted out his familiar litany that “we are determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” But this time, there was no “all options on the table” threat. He added explicitly that “we are not seeking regime change and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy.” The reference to Iran’s right to nuclear energy represented a major shift away from the longstanding claim among many US hawks and the Israeli government that Iran must give up all nuclear enrichment.
Respecting Iran’s right to “access” nuclear energy is still a bit of a dodge, of course-Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognizes not just access but “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Iran is a longstanding signatory to the NPT, and is entitled to all those rights. Obama referred only that “we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities” under the NPT, while saying nothing about Iran’s rights under the treaty. But the high visibility US recognition of any Iranian right to nuclear power-in the context of a new willingness to open talks-is still enormously important.
It was also important that President Obama spoke of Iran with respect, acknowledging Iranian interests and opinions as legitimate and parallel to Washington’s. He recognized that Iranian mistrust of the United States has “deep roots,” referencing (however carefully) the “history of US interference in their affairs and of America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War.” In fact, his identification of the 1953 US-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh as a product of the Cold War may have been part of an effort to distance himself and his administration from those actions. (It’s a bit disingenuous, of course. The primary rationale for the coup was far more a response to Mossadegh’s nationalization of Iran’s oil than to his ties to the Soviet Union.)
Obama also paid new attention to longstanding Iranian positions. He noted that “the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.” Now anyone following the Iran nuclear issue knows that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, stated at least as far back as 2003 that nuclear weapons are a violation of Islamic law and Iran would never build or use one, and the fatwa, or legal opinion, was issued at least as far back as 2005. This isn’t new. But for President Obama to mention those judgments in the context of “the basis for a meaningful agreement” is indeed new.
Mainstream US press and officials have long derided those statements, claiming that fatwas are not binding, that 700-year-old religious laws can’t have a position on nuclear weapons, etc. But in so doing they ignore the real significance-that President Rouhani, the Supreme Leader and the rest of Iran’s government have to answer to their own population too. After years of repeating that nuclear weapons would be un-Islamic, would violate a fatwa, etc., it would not be so easy for Iran’s leaders to win popular support for a decision to embrace the bomb.
There is a long way to go in challenging aspects of President Obama’s speech at the United Nations-his embrace of American exceptionalism and his recommitment to a failed approach to Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, his view that war and violence can only be answered by military force or nothing, and more. He didn’t explicitly state a willingness to accept Iran’s participation in international talks on Syria. There is a serious danger that any move towards rapprochement with Iran would be matched with moves to pacify Israeli demands-almost certainly at the expense of Palestinian rights.
But in the broader scenario of US-Iran relations, this is a moment to move forward, to welcome the new approach in Washington now answering the new approach of Tehran.
More flexibility will be required than the United States is usually known for. The usual opponents-in Congress, in Israel and the pro-Israel lobbies-are already on the move, challenging the new opening. But these last weeks showed how a quickly organized demonstration of widespread public opinion, demanding negotiations instead of war, can win. We were able to build a movement fast, agile and powerful enough to reverse an imminent military attack on Syria and instead force a move towards diplomatic solutions to end the war. This time around, the demand to deepen, consolidate and not abandon diplomatic possibilities is on our agenda-and perhaps once again we can
More...
Description:
DID OBAMA LIE ?????
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms.
The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms.
The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran
Reading Obama’s Iran speech
President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013
President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:10PM GMT
2
Phyllis Bennis, The Nation
Related Interviews:
‘Rouhani’s remarks in US, conciliatory’
\\\\\\\'Rouhani speech, perfectly appropriate\\\\\\\'
Related Viewpoints:
Ziocons fume over Rouhani UN speech
All of a sudden we’re talking to Iran. Now, granted, that shouldn’t be such an astonishing bombshell. But given the reality of the last several decades, it pretty much is. And that’s all good. It’s been too long coming, it’s still too hesitant, there’s still too much hinting about military force behind it… but we’re talking. Foreign minister to foreign minister, Kerry to Zarif, it’s all a good sign.
There were lots of problem areas in the speech-President Obama was right when he said that US policy in the Middle East would lead to charges of “hypocrisy and inconsistency.” US policy-its protection of Israeli violations of international law, its privileging of petro-monarchies over human rights, its coddling of military dictators-remains rank with hypocrisy and inconsistency. And Obama’s speech reflected much of it.
But President Obama’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly reflected some of the extraordinary shifts in global-especially Middle East and most especially Syria-related-politics that have taken shape in the last six or eight weeks. And on Iran, that was good news. Yes the president trotted out his familiar litany that “we are determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” But this time, there was no “all options on the table” threat. He added explicitly that “we are not seeking regime change and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy.” The reference to Iran’s right to nuclear energy represented a major shift away from the longstanding claim among many US hawks and the Israeli government that Iran must give up all nuclear enrichment.
Respecting Iran’s right to “access” nuclear energy is still a bit of a dodge, of course-Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognizes not just access but “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Iran is a longstanding signatory to the NPT, and is entitled to all those rights. Obama referred only that “we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities” under the NPT, while saying nothing about Iran’s rights under the treaty. But the high visibility US recognition of any Iranian right to nuclear power-in the context of a new willingness to open talks-is still enormously important.
It was also important that President Obama spoke of Iran with respect, acknowledging Iranian interests and opinions as legitimate and parallel to Washington’s. He recognized that Iranian mistrust of the United States has “deep roots,” referencing (however carefully) the “history of US interference in their affairs and of America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War.” In fact, his identification of the 1953 US-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh as a product of the Cold War may have been part of an effort to distance himself and his administration from those actions. (It’s a bit disingenuous, of course. The primary rationale for the coup was far more a response to Mossadegh’s nationalization of Iran’s oil than to his ties to the Soviet Union.)
Obama also paid new attention to longstanding Iranian positions. He noted that “the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.” Now anyone following the Iran nuclear issue knows that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, stated at least as far back as 2003 that nuclear weapons are a violation of Islamic law and Iran would never build or use one, and the fatwa, or legal opinion, was issued at least as far back as 2005. This isn’t new. But for President Obama to mention those judgments in the context of “the basis for a meaningful agreement” is indeed new.
Mainstream US press and officials have long derided those statements, claiming that fatwas are not binding, that 700-year-old religious laws can’t have a position on nuclear weapons, etc. But in so doing they ignore the real significance-that President Rouhani, the Supreme Leader and the rest of Iran’s government have to answer to their own population too. After years of repeating that nuclear weapons would be un-Islamic, would violate a fatwa, etc., it would not be so easy for Iran’s leaders to win popular support for a decision to embrace the bomb.
There is a long way to go in challenging aspects of President Obama’s speech at the United Nations-his embrace of American exceptionalism and his recommitment to a failed approach to Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, his view that war and violence can only be answered by military force or nothing, and more. He didn’t explicitly state a willingness to accept Iran’s participation in international talks on Syria. There is a serious danger that any move towards rapprochement with Iran would be matched with moves to pacify Israeli demands-almost certainly at the expense of Palestinian rights.
But in the broader scenario of US-Iran relations, this is a moment to move forward, to welcome the new approach in Washington now answering the new approach of Tehran.
More flexibility will be required than the United States is usually known for. The usual opponents-in Congress, in Israel and the pro-Israel lobbies-are already on the move, challenging the new opening. But these last weeks showed how a quickly organized demonstration of widespread public opinion, demanding negotiations instead of war, can win. We were able to build a movement fast, agile and powerful enough to reverse an imminent military attack on Syria and instead force a move towards diplomatic solutions to end the war. This time around, the demand to deepen, consolidate and not abandon diplomatic possibilities is on our agenda-and perhaps once again we can
[11 Dec 2013] Rouhani says Tehran wants to enrich uranium within the framework of the nuclear deal - English
Iran\'s President Hassan Rouhani says Tehran wants to enrich uranium on its soil within the framework of the recent nuclear deal with the P-five-plus-one countries. He says Iran is committed to its...
Iran\'s President Hassan Rouhani says Tehran wants to enrich uranium on its soil within the framework of the recent nuclear deal with the P-five-plus-one countries. He says Iran is committed to its peaceful nuclear program.
During a meeting with visiting Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, President Rouhani also said the Geneva agreement recognizes all Iran\'s rights including the right to enrich uranium. He added efforts by some countries to interpret the agreeement in other ways would damage efforts aimed at building mutual trust. The Iranian president also discussed Tehran\'s cooperation with Moscow on a range of issues, mainly regional peace and security, fight against terrorism, and the Syrian crisis. Lavrov, in turn, said that under international law all countries should have access to a peaceful nuclear program including uranium enrichment. He said Iran and Russia have a similar take on the nuclear deal struch in Geneva. Earlier, the top Russian diplomat held separate talks with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif over the conflict in Syria and Iran\'s nuclear program.
More...
Description:
Iran\'s President Hassan Rouhani says Tehran wants to enrich uranium on its soil within the framework of the recent nuclear deal with the P-five-plus-one countries. He says Iran is committed to its peaceful nuclear program.
During a meeting with visiting Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, President Rouhani also said the Geneva agreement recognizes all Iran\'s rights including the right to enrich uranium. He added efforts by some countries to interpret the agreeement in other ways would damage efforts aimed at building mutual trust. The Iranian president also discussed Tehran\'s cooperation with Moscow on a range of issues, mainly regional peace and security, fight against terrorism, and the Syrian crisis. Lavrov, in turn, said that under international law all countries should have access to a peaceful nuclear program including uranium enrichment. He said Iran and Russia have a similar take on the nuclear deal struch in Geneva. Earlier, the top Russian diplomat held separate talks with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif over the conflict in Syria and Iran\'s nuclear program.
Islamophobia in Canada & Beyond | Change Through Politics | Maulana Syed Muhammad Rizvi | English
- Today\'s political landscape which recognizes Islamophobia as a serious problem, in the aftermath of the shooting in a Quebec city mosque six years ago, and the truck attack in London, Ontario...
- Today\'s political landscape which recognizes Islamophobia as a serious problem, in the aftermath of the shooting in a Quebec city mosque six years ago, and the truck attack in London, Ontario two years ago
- These tragedies led to the first Action Summit on Islamophobia, and the creation of the Office of the Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia
- One week ago, the government appointed Amira Elghawaby as the new Special Representative on Islamophobia, affirming the importance of engagement at various levels of civil society
- An NCCM report also announced, that “for the first time in Canadian history a school board finally issued an anti-Islamophobia educational strategy\", which was done by Peel District School Board.
- Discussing some highlights of this strategy
- NCCM has urged the Muslim community to send a message of thanks to PDSB. You can simply do that by going to the NCCM’s website and click on “Send A Letter” button.
- The struggle for justice and fairness for all citizens of Canada must continue
- Even the Muslims in the USA are active on the political level. One such example is Ilhan Omar: she came to the US in the 1990s as a Somali refugee; and was elected to the US congress in 2018
- She was also a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Republicans who secured a majority in the Congress in the midterm elections in November, voted on a resolution to remove Ilhan Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Obviously, the members voted along party lines and removed her from that position. = She was removed because she was critical of human rights violation by Israel.
- We pray for the success of all who stand up for the rights of the minorities and the oppressed people around the world.
Friday Juma Khutba
February 3rd, 2023
Donate towards our programs today: https://jaffari.org/donate/
Jaffari Community Centre (JCC Live)
More...
Description:
- Today\'s political landscape which recognizes Islamophobia as a serious problem, in the aftermath of the shooting in a Quebec city mosque six years ago, and the truck attack in London, Ontario two years ago
- These tragedies led to the first Action Summit on Islamophobia, and the creation of the Office of the Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia
- One week ago, the government appointed Amira Elghawaby as the new Special Representative on Islamophobia, affirming the importance of engagement at various levels of civil society
- An NCCM report also announced, that “for the first time in Canadian history a school board finally issued an anti-Islamophobia educational strategy\", which was done by Peel District School Board.
- Discussing some highlights of this strategy
- NCCM has urged the Muslim community to send a message of thanks to PDSB. You can simply do that by going to the NCCM’s website and click on “Send A Letter” button.
- The struggle for justice and fairness for all citizens of Canada must continue
- Even the Muslims in the USA are active on the political level. One such example is Ilhan Omar: she came to the US in the 1990s as a Somali refugee; and was elected to the US congress in 2018
- She was also a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Republicans who secured a majority in the Congress in the midterm elections in November, voted on a resolution to remove Ilhan Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Obviously, the members voted along party lines and removed her from that position. = She was removed because she was critical of human rights violation by Israel.
- We pray for the success of all who stand up for the rights of the minorities and the oppressed people around the world.
Friday Juma Khutba
February 3rd, 2023
Donate towards our programs today: https://jaffari.org/donate/
Jaffari Community Centre (JCC Live)