A New Iranian Revolution ?

Protests. Riots. Unrest. Iran 2009 is today looking a lot like Iran 1979. But this time the former revolutionaries are holding the reins of power, and new voices are calling for reform. The election between Mahmud Ahmadinejad and his main rival Mir-Hosein Mousavi have unleashed tensions that have simmered beneath the surface of the seemingly orderly society run by the country's religious orthodoxy. How far it will go is anyone's guess.

For more, read below...



Last week a contentious election was held in Iran, pitting incumbent President Mahmud Ahmadinejad against his main rival and pro-reformist Mir-Hosein Mousavi. An Ahmadinejad win seemed certain, until later polls began showing Mousavi running neck-and-neck--a definitely bad sign for any incumbent. When results came in, Ahmadinejad was declared the winner in what was reported to be a landslide.

But Mousavi and his supporters--mostly young and urban--have decried the elections as a sham. Unrest throughout the country has flared up to levels unprecedented since the turbulent 1970s which brought down the Western-backed Shah. Anger and frustration has boiled over into mass protests, riots and clashes with the police. Scenes of cars on fire and young Iranians smashing building windows in fury while fighting with authorities have now traveled the globe. And, in a defiance of a ban on protests, hundreds of thousands showed up in the streets of Tehran today to voice their anger and give their support to Mousavi.

Today in a surprise move that appears to be a reaction to the unrest, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the state's most powerful figure, though previously sanctioning the election results, has called for an official probe to root out any possible fraud. In 10 days the findings of this probe are to be delivered.

In the West there doesn't seem to be much need for a probe to determine what's going on. The dominant news cycle has been focused on the rioting and protests. And given Ahmadinejad's global "pariah" status, not surprisingly there is a definite tilt towards the election being "stolen." France, Britain and the U.S. have voiced their own doubts over what they see as "irregularities" in the elections--and have refused to recognize them. This is the height of irony, as these same Western critics regularly legitimize the ruling powers in countries like Egypt where elections are rigged by the suppression of any reasonable opposition, and in others like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where monarchies do not even hold elections.

Political commentators in the West of varied stripes, from astute analysts like Juan Cole to often misinformed bloviators like Thomas Friedman, seem to also conclude the elections were stolen. However there is a dissenting view, from commentators like Abbas Barzegar and some Mid-East think tanks, who have all spent the past weeks in pre-election Iran talking and surveying everyday Iranians. They posit the West perhaps underestimated Ahmadinejad's support among the poorer masses, and focused too intensely on the very vocal (but minority) urban, young internet demographic--thus taking away a skewed perspective of the actual atmosphere and mood in the country. In truth, the Western media may be reading the nature of the elections themselves through rose-colored glasses.

During the campaign, as many supporters of reform flocked to his green banner, Mousavi became (in the eyes of a Western press corps looking for an easy story) the Obama of Iran--a breath of fresh air who would bring change. How far this analogy can be taken remains to be seen. Mousavi after all is still a conservative. And those in the press who have acted as if his win would signal an Iran ready to hold hands with Israel, kow-tow to US demands and allow in Wal-Marts in a few months, misread completely where most Iranians stand on issues. While most find Ahmadinejad too restrictive, too wedded to power, too brash and even embarrassing with his seeming obsession with engaging in historical fallacies like Holocaust denial, they also are wary of a U.S. with troops next door, what often seem as bullying Western powers and a saber-rattling nuclear armed Israel whose own recent elections have made it a right-wing state. Mousavi's win would certainly open up avenues closed to (or by) a controversial figure like Ahmadinejad; but it wouldn't erase the memories of Western dealings towards Iran---from the overthrow of Mossadeq, to the backing of the repressive Shah to the military support of Saddam Hussein's aggressive war which claimed hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives. Not surprising that some Iranian policy advocates like Trita Parsi have stated that it is essential that whatever the West believes, staying out of the Iranian elections and letting the Iranians sort it out themselves is the wisest course--as any direct intervention would be seen as unwanted meddling.

“The framing that Ahmadinejad is presenting is one in which essentially the whole [opposition] is a Western media conspiracy. If the administration is saying things or doing things before Moussavi and the opposition figures out what the plan is, then that’s a real problem, because then it seems like it’s between Ahmadinejad and the west and not Ahmadinejad and the opposition. So the administration is doing exactly the right thing. They’re not rushing in and they’re not playing favorites. They might prefer the democratic process to be respected, but that’s different than [supporting a] specific faction.”

As for right-wing American neoconservatives urging the Obama administration to immediately support Mousavi and the opposition, Parsi chided their tactics.

“They’re saying ‘Support Moussavi.’ Well, did you talk to Moussavi to learn if this is helpful? A lot of people seem to have the propensity of knowing what the Iranian people want or what specific people want but [don't] contact them. And in past it’s been detrimental" [If such American politicians have] “not learned from that, it’s sad.”

read full article with Parsi quotes here.

So where are we now? Mousavi has appealed for calm, even while disputing the election results, urging that the legal process determine the truth of things. Meanwhile Ahmadinejad remains steadfast, describing the dissenters as disgruntled troublemakers with American and Western backing, holding mass rallies of his own supporters. Tonight the situation has grown even more tense, as a protester became the first casualty of the unrest--killed in a hail of gunfire during an attack on a pro-government militia.

What the actual truth is regarding these elections is hard to discern from afar. There were no independent UN observers, just as there aren't any in this country. And between the secretive Iranian government who regularly censors information, and the Western propaganda machine which regularly sends out disinformation to destabilize the regime, it's often impossible to tell which way is up, left or right. But what is not in dispute is that whatever the actual election outcome, there is a strong wave of dissent in Iran that is making its presence felt. Given the country's strategic importance and its previous revolutionary history, what happens next is anyone's guess. But the whole world is watching.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama & Iran- Respectful Diplomacy ?

President Obama's taped speech to be broadcast to the Iranian people was a clear departure not only from the Bush administration's "Axis of Evil" designation, but from a dismal US foreign policy towards that nation in some two decades.



For the US, the souring of relations with Iran began with the hostage crisis of the 1970s--which would partially help usher in the Reagan Era, and usher out President Jimmy Carter--and Iranian support for nationalist groups (designated terrorists) which threaten US interests, like Hezbollah. But for Iranians, the beginning of those bad relations was at least twenty-five years earlier, when in 1954 the US CIA, along with British interests, enginerred the overthrow of the popular government of Premier Mohammed Mossaddeq. It was Iran's last democratically elected leadership, to be followed by a very unpopular western puppet in the form of the Shah, and later a socially repressive religious orthodoxy. During this time the US supported Iran's enemey Saddam Hussein (politically and militarily) in an aggressive war that would kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians, in the controversial 1988 Operation Praying Mantis, and have imposed sanctions against the existing regime. And though Iran would show profound sympathy for the US in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and provide key aid in the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, their blatant overtures of diplomacy were repeatedly rebuffed.

Obama's speech is far from anything resembling an apology for the US role in a past tumultuous relationship. Nor should it seen as a backing away from any possible sanction or military attack on Iran over an alleged nuclear program. The administration still loudly refers to an "Iranian Threat" that somehow looms over the world. Yet, it is at least a step away from the brash and thinly veiled hostility of past addresses. There are no calls here to overthrow the current rulers of Iran (something that should be left to the Iranian people to do, if that is what they want), nor the normal arrogance inherent of a "Johnny-come-lately" nation lecturing a country and people that can claim links to the ancient world. And in that, we can at least see a glimmer of hope.




Speech:

THE PRESIDENT: Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world.

This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with friends and family.

In particular, I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nowruz is just one part of your great and celebrated culture. Over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place.

Here in the United States our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans. We know that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.

For nearly three decades relations between our nations have been strained. But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together. Indeed, you will be celebrating your New Year in much the same way that we Americans mark our holidays -- by gathering with friends and family, exchanging gifts and stories, and looking to the future with a renewed sense of hope.

Within these celebrations lies the promise of a new day, the promise of opportunity for our children, security for our families, progress for our communities, and peace between nations. Those are shared hopes, those are common dreams.

So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.

I know that this won't be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence."

With the coming of a new season, we're reminded of this precious humanity that we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning.

Thank you, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak.

Read More...

Summary only...

US Rejected Israeli Request to Attack Iran--Thrice

So it would seem in the question of which set of neocons are more sane--those in Tel Aviv or the ones on Pennsylvania Ave--the latter has won out. The NY Times is reporting that in at least three known incidents, the Bush administration denied Israeli pleas to launch a military attack on Iran. More below.


According to a NY Times article, "President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex." As US officials tell it, the Israelis--lacking the US weapons needed to attack Iran's underground complexes--"backed off their plans, at least temporarily." What was it then that stopped the US from agreeing to the Israeli plans? It seems, in a rare bit of good sense and judgment, the Bush administration actually decided that Israel's plan would be--*reckless.*

As cited by the Times,

The interviews also indicate that Mr. Bush was convinced by top administration officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, that any overt attack on Iran would probably prove ineffective, lead to the expulsion of international inspectors and drive Iran’s nuclear effort further out of view. Mr. Bush and his aides also discussed the possibility that an airstrike could ignite a broad Middle East war in which America’s 140,000 troops in Iraq would inevitably become involved.

More interesting, it turns out that one of the key reasons the Bush administration began backing away from any outright attack on Iran had to do with that pesky NIE report released in Dec. 2007. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, Iran had in fact stopped its attempts at building a nuclear bomb as far back as 2003.

Officials stated that "the Israelis responded angrily and rebutted the American report," providing their own evidence of Iran working on a nuclear weapon. The Bush administration reacted to their own NIE report with similar scoffing. Secretary Robert Gates, the very one kept on by the Obama administration, was "highly critical" of the NIE report. Gates stated the NIE had "presented the evidence poorly, underemphasizing the importance of Iran’s enrichment activity and overemphasizing the suspension of a weapons-design effort that could easily be turned back on." In other words, Gates was laying the ground for the ideology of pre-emption--in which intelligence should be used to predict worst case scenarios rather than current reality. Nevertheless, the much ballyhooed NIE still seemed to be enough to put a speed bump in any Iran attack plans.

The undaunted Israelis however, intent on remaining the only undeclared nuclear power in the neighborhood, was insistent however on attacking Iran. On two occassions in early 2008, they made requests for weapons and other aid from the US in order to strike Iran. And, in what was called "alarming" to US officials, they wanted to do it via Iraq.

In an unmitigated bit of chutzpah, the Israelis asked the US to allow its bombing run on Iran to take place by overflights through Iraq. "Mr. Bush deflected the first two requests, pushing the issue off," the NY Times said, citing a US official, "but 'we said 'hell no’ to the overflights." Concerned that the uproar in Iraq over such a military operation could turn the country into a cauldron of discontent, the Bush administration rebuffed the Israelis. Disagreement over Iran even led some to worry that tensions could arise between the two allies.

As a White House official told the Times, Israeli intentions on striking Iran via Iraq "really spooked a lot of people." White House officials openly fretted that the Israelis might fly over Iraq without American permission. Some pondered whether American military would be ordered to shoot them down or be accused of being complicit in an attack on Iran.

In order to pacify the Israelis, the Times states the US settled on starting up a covert operation meant to deter Iranian attempts at nuclear enrichment. As stated by the Times, this operation, mostly involving sabotage, is "aimed at the entire industrial infrastructure that supports the Iranian nuclear program."

Thus far the Israelis have determined that without US help they cannot carry out an attack on Iran. However, as the Israelis press a popular "war" in Gaza and flex their muscle, whether the next administration can keep the most powerful military in the Middle East from sparking a regional conflict remains to be seen.

Read More...

Summary only...

Christian Zionists?- Scarier Than You Think!

And you were scared about Jeremiah Wright? Here's something to really keep you up at night- Pastor John Hagee and CUFI (Christians United for Israel). Unlike Wright, who was preaching a social gospel of defending the poor and defenseless, Hagee and CUFI call for pre-emptive strikes on Iran and global war on Islam that will draw in Israel and bring on Armageddon. And here's the kicker, they have the ear of the powerful, with not only Presidential candidate John McCain but numerous other GOP members (war hawks, neoconservatives, Israel hawks) running to kow-tow to them at every turn. Forget Jeremiah Wright, CUFI and Hagee are the REAL DEAL type of scary, and the ones you ought to be worried about.



Don’t know how many of you watch Bill Moyers, but you should--as it is one of the last bastions of journalistic integrity left in the media. In case you didn’t catch last week’s episode, please stop by and watch the whole expose on Pastor John Hagee, leader of CUFI (Christians United For Israel). A few weeks back, Hagee endorsed GOP Presidential candidate John McCain.

In the midst of media attention on Sen. Barack Obama’s ties (real and nebulous) to figures like Minister Louis Farrakhan or Pastor Jeremiah Wright, the link of much of the GOP to Pastor John Hagee is getting remarkably short thrift. While Hagee was described as an anti-Catholic bigot, whom McCain was later forced to distance himself from (partly), the news media wholly neglected to delve into his beliefs, and that of CUFI, in full. Hagee and his organization are at the forefront of what is known as the Christian Zionist Movement--who preach a mixture of political and spiritual support for Israel that is based on extremism, anti-Arabism, Islamaphobia, neo-conservative ideals of pre-emptive war and unbridled militarism. There is even a strong strain of anti-Semitism in their ideology, as part of their support for Israel is their idea of the role Jews must play in End Times prophecy--which will "allegedly" result in the mass death of most Jews, except for the ones who accept Jesus in the end.

Whoa! And the media is obsessed with a bunch of brothers in suits and bowties slanging bean pies? And of a preacher of a small congregation in Chi-town?

Forget anything you might hear about the "dangers" of Farrakhan for comments he made some 24 years ago, and has since recanted for (in his own way), or the "radical" view points of Jeremiah Wright---Pastor John Hagee and his Christian Zionist crew are the REAL DEAL type of scary, on a level that is beyond disturbing. Hagee and CUFI have the ear of the powerful, with not only John McCain but numerous other GOP members (war hawks, neoconservatives, Israel hawks) running to kow-tow to them at every turn, while their leader continually calls for pre-emptive strikes on Iran and the destruction of the entire Muslim world.

Watching Bill Moyers I half expected Hagee and his congregants to start "worshipping the bomb" like the radiation-disfigured mutants on the Planet of the Apes saga. One of them, a Lebanese Christian, sounded like a self-hating Arabic Ann Coulter--calling the Muslim world barbaric and without souls, words that are dangerously "exterminationist" in their rhetoric. But these guys don’t look like monsters. Instead, like the Cylons, they look just like us (they even got black folks!)--and more important still, they have a plan!

Peep the video and/or transcript in the link below. Or watch part 1 (of 5) from Youtube above. You can find the remaining video at: Hagee: Strike Iran 'for Israel' on Moyers - part 1 of 5

BILL MOYERS JOURNAL reports on the politically powerful group Christians United for Israel, whose leader, Pastor John Hagee recently endorsed John McCain for the presidency.

Bill Moyers: Christians United For Israel

Read More...

Summary only...

Look Ma', No Nukes- The NIE Report on Iran

So in the midst of saber-rattling about the threat posed by Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program (President Bush has warned Iranian nukes could ignite World War III), the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was released this week. And what do 16 different U.S. intelligence agencies conclude? That Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program back in 2003, and has not restarted it since. The news has sent the neocon war hawks, the White House and their allies into a frenzy. President Bush, in a series of bizarre speeches, has claimed the report doesn't change anything and that Iran is still dangerous. Neocons and warhawks have spent a great deal of print and air time attempting to spin the report to their liking, or questioning its validity. We've seen this story before, during the lead up to the Iraq war. Only that time, it was behind the scenes, and the intelligence community was pressured to cherry-pick information to come out with bogus claims. After getting blamed for that fiasco in the end (as the hawks and the White House sought to cover their role in pushing for war), the intelligence community has decided they aren't getting burned twice. An awkward looking National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, released the NIE this past Monday in full spin mode--probably only because he knew leaks were inevitable if they tried to bury it. In fact, looks as if President Bush knew the direction the NIE was going since at least August, but STILL continued its saber-rattling. And this guy still isn't impeachable?



So here we are, at an interesting place, where the main drumbeating for war has been interrupted by intelligence reports that come (ironically enough) from the very country that has been doing the most saber-rattling. What do with this pause? The hawks and neo-cons have been busily shoring up support from the Europeans and others. Iran has declared the NIE a victory. World bodies like the UN are moving cautiously. And the White House is still into spin, spin, spin. Three articles below that attempt to shed some light on the meaning of the NIE and where things can, and should, go from here, from three of my favorite writers: an earlier Nov piece by author Trita Parsi, Robert Scheer at the Nation and Juan Cole at Salon.com.

The Iranian Challenge
by Trita Parsi

Iran will be the top foreign policy challenge for the United States in the coming years. The Bush Administration's policy (insistence on zero enrichment of uranium, regime change and isolation of Iran) and the policy of the radicals around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (unlimited civilian nuclear capability, selective inspections and replacing the United States as the region's dominant power) have set the two countries on a collision course. Yet the mere retirement of George W. Bush's neocons or Ahmadinejad's radicals may not be sufficient to avoid the disaster of war.

The ill-informed foreign policy debate on Iran contributes to a paradigm of enmity between the United States and Iran, which limits the foreign policy options of future US administrations to various forms of confrontation while excluding more constructive approaches. These policies of collision are in no small part born of the erroneous assumptions we adopted about Iran back in the days when we could afford to ignore that country. But as America sinks deeper into the Iraqi quicksand, remaining in the dark about the realities of Iran and the actual policies of its decision-makers is no longer an option.

full article:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071119/parsi

Bush on Iran: Fool Me Twice
by Robert Scheer

Bush is such a liar. Or is he just out to lunch on the most important issue that he faces? In October, he charged that Iran's nuclear weapons program was bringing the world to the precipice of World War III, even though the White House had been informed at least a month earlier that Iran had no such program and had stopped efforts to develop one back in 2003

full article:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071217/truthdig


The GOP's Iran Option is Off the Table

Rudy Giuliani was counting on Iran as a weapon of mass distraction in the '08 race. But the flailing Republican right has just been disarmed.

By Juan Cole

Dec. 11, 2007 | The conclusions of the latest National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran's lack of a nuclear weapons program will have a profound impact on the 2008 presidential campaign. The report may well prove a key element in throwing the election to the Democrats. Republicans have used the alleged nuclear threat posed by Iran to scare the American public and to turn attention away from Iraq, economic troubles and Republican scandals. But the NIE findings have pulled the rug out from under the Grand Old Party.

full article: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/12/11/iran_08/

Read More...

Summary only...

AHMADINEJAD-A-PHOBIA

Anyone living in NY for the past few days has been treated to one big soap opera, in which a small president from Iran was turned into the incarnate of Satan, the chancellor of a respected University would embarrass himself in the name of not-so-very "free speech" and the image of the 'ugly American' would reverberate around the world.



First off, I think Ahmadinejad is pretty much alot of mouth and a bit of buffoon myself. Holocaust denial is pretty much up there on my idiot-o-meter. And anyone who can respond to the accusation of the execution of homosexuals with a dead pan, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals" can only be taken so seriously (After all, our ally Saudi Arabia only *flogs* them in public).

All of that being said, Ahmadinejad's rise to power in Iran was directly related to the Bush administration placing a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 in an Axis of Evil--with one country that was their sworn enemy (Iraq) and another on the other side of the world (North Korea). So it is ironic that this beneficiary of boorish and illogical US foreign policy would today become such a great pariah.

Much was made over Ahmadinejad's visit to the US, a routine act during the meeting of the UN's General Assembly; protest over the controversial leader quickly turned into American exceptionalism and jingoism at fever pitch. First you have the US denying his request to place a wreath at the 9/11 memorial. The supposed reason was that they could not secure his security. No one's buying that. So what was the purpose of the snub? Because he's not liked? Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 and Al-Qaeda are Sunni extremists who would love to see Shiite dominated Iran toppled. Perhaps Ahmadinejad was being sincere. Perhaps he was tweaking the US. Whatever the case, the rabid response by NY tabloids and some city officials only helped him solidify his point about the ugly American.

Speaking of ugly Americans, we also had GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney writing a letter to the UN Secretary General declaring that the Iranian president shouldn't be allowed to address the assembly. Uh, newsflash Mr. Romney. The Secretary General of the UN has zip/zilch power on restricting the head of state of a
member nation from speaking anywhere. If you don't know this Mr. Romney, it's reason #8790 why you should not be President of *anything.*

The greatest controversy came about over Ahmadinejad's speaking at Columbia University. This was a legitimate debate, as the Iranian president has certainly done enough for many to be offended at his presence. But how did the President of Columbia who steadfastly protected the freedom of speech for Ahmadinejad react once the Iranian leader was there? Well Chancellor Lee Bollinger, after being savaged by right wingers, Iran-o-phobes and local news outlets, showed up and dutifully played the part of the "ugly American," engaging in alot of name-calling and sharp insults of the man he *invited* to speak.

"You, quite simply, [are] ridiculous," Bollinger berated his guest. "You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. . . . I doubt you will have the intellectual courage to answer [our] questions . . . I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mind-set that characterizes so much of what you say and do. . . . Your preposterous and belligerent statements . . . led to your party's defeat in the [last] elections."

Wow! What a hero! He berated the head of state of an unpopular country in front of a crowd that also despises that country. Such bravery! What's next? Maybe pillorying Bill Clinton in front of a Rush Limbaugh Fan Club Convention?

Embarrassingly, what Bollinger showed was not only unsightly behavior repackaged as "courage," but his own ignorance in calling Ahmadinejad a " petty dictator," as the Iranian government is structured in such a way that while one can argue that it is dictatorial, it puts no such power in one individual. Ahmadinejad is a souped-up spokesman who has to answer to alot of higher-ups and more behind the scenes "Dutch uncles." If Bollinger really wanted to berate actual dictators, he might have looked to the Al-Saud family of Saudi Arabia or Al-Sabah of Kuwait, all key American allies.

And if you were in the NYC area and had a chance to see the daily vitrolic headlines in the Daily News and that other private but state directed venue the NY Post, caricaturing Ahmadinejad as "evil" and "the devil," etc., you saw ugly Americanism at its best---putting itself on an equal moral and journalistic level as any state run Iranian publication that calls the US "The Great Satan." Way to go there folks.

What this entire excerise did show was that for all the touted ideals of American free speech, it can be circumvented and restricted without reaching the heights of jack-booted thugs disappearing dissenters into the night--though that may be forthcoming given time. When you marry journalists with the state, and a specific ideology that forces even university presidents to obediently play the role of belligerent attack-dog, you've already denied free speech and replaced it with a farce.

Ironically, for all Ahmadinejad's foot-in-mouth disease, and Iran's repressive regime, he/they have not invaded anyone in the last 100 years, occupied any territory that is not their own, sent the region they live in spinning into instability or damaged the reputation of the UN or the delicate geopolitical balance of the world. In fact, the last time Iran had a war, it was because an American ally (Saddam's Iraq) attacked them. Much the same cannot be said for the 'land of the free...'

Glass houses and all that...

Below is an article by Juan Cole, which highlights how this entire kicking up of dust over Ahmadinejad's UN visit is a neo-con drumbeat for war. Also see: The Bollinger/Ahmadinejad Farce.

Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1

Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial are all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war.

By Juan Cole

Sep. 24, 2007 | Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited.

The media has focused on debating whether he should be allowed to speak at Columbia University on Monday, or whether his request to visit Ground Zero, the site of the Sept. 11 attack in lower Manhattan, should have been honored. His request was rejected, even though Iran expressed sympathy with the United States in the aftermath of those attacks and Iranians held candlelight vigils for the victims. Iran felt that it and other Shiite populations had also suffered at the hands of al-Qaida, and that there might now be an opportunity for a new opening to the United States.

Instead, the U.S. State Department denounced Ahmadinejad as himself little more than a terrorist. Critics have also cited his statements about the Holocaust or his hopes that the Israeli state will collapse. He has been depicted as a Hitler figure intent on killing Israeli Jews, even though he is not commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces, has never invaded any other country, denies he is an anti-Semite, has never called for any Israeli civilians to be killed, and allows Iran's 20,000 Jews to have representation in Parliament.

There is, in fact, remarkably little substance to the debates now raging in the United States about Ahmadinejad. His quirky personality, penchant for outrageous one-liners, and combative populism are hardly serious concerns for foreign policy. Taking potshots at a bantam cock of a populist like Ahmadinejad is actually a way of expressing another, deeper anxiety: fear of Iran's rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American and Israeli status quo. The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.

The neoconservatives are even claiming that the United States has been at war with Iran since 1979. As Glenn Greenwald points out, this assertion is absurd. In the '80s, the Reagan administration sold substantial numbers of arms to Iran. Some of those beating the war drums most loudly now, like think-tank rat Michael Ledeen, were middlemen in the Reagan administration's unconstitutional weapons sales to Tehran. The sales would have been a form of treason if in fact the United States had been at war with Iran at that time, so Ledeen is apparently accusing himself of treason.

But the right has decided it is at war with Iran, so a routine visit by Iran's ceremonial president to the U.N. General Assembly has generated sparks. The foremost cheerleader for such a view in Congress is Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., who recently pressed Gen. David Petraeus on the desirability of bombing Iran in order to forestall weapons smuggling into Iraq from that country (thus cleverly using one war of choice to foment another).

American hawks are beating the war drums loudly because they are increasingly frustrated with the course of events. They are unsatisfied with the lack of enthusiasm among the Europeans and at the United Nations for impeding Tehran's nuclear energy research program. While the Bush administration insists that the program aims at producing a bomb, the Iranian state maintains that it is for peaceful energy purposes. Washington wants tighter sanctions on Iran at the United Nations but is unlikely to get them in the short term because of Russian and Chinese reluctance. The Bush administration may attempt to create a "coalition of the willing" of Iran boycotters outside the U.N. framework.

Washington is also unhappy with Mohammad ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He has been unable to find credible evidence that Iran has a weapons program, and he told Italian television this week, "Iran does not constitute a certain and immediate threat for the international community." He stressed that no evidence had been found for underground production sites or hidden radioactive substances, and he urged a three-month waiting period before the U.N. Security Council drew negative conclusions.

ElBaradei intervened to call for calm after French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said last week that if the negotiations over Iran's nuclear research program were unsuccessful, it could lead to war. Kouchner later clarified that he was not calling for an attack on Iran, but his remarks appear to have been taken seriously in Tehran.

Kouchner made the remarks after there had already been substantial speculation in the U.S. press that impatient hawks around U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney were seeking a pretext for a U.S. attack on Iran. Steven Clemons of the New America Foundation probably correctly concluded in Salon last week that President Bush himself has for now decided against launching a war on Iran. But Clemons worries that Cheney and the neoconservatives, with their Israeli allies, are perfectly capable of setting up a provocation that would lead willy-nilly to war.

David Wurmser, until recently a key Cheney advisor on Middle East affairs and the coauthor of the infamous 1996 white paper that urged an Iraq war, revealed to his circle that Cheney had contemplated having Israel strike at Iranian nuclear research facilities and then using the Iranian reaction as a pretext for a U.S. war on that country. Prominent and well-connected Afghanistan specialist Barnett Rubin also revealed that he was told by an administration insider that there would be an "Iran war rollout" by the Cheneyites this fall.

It should also be stressed that some elements in the U.S. officer corps and the Defense Intelligence Agency are clearly spoiling for a fight with Iran because the Iranian-supported Shiite nationalists in Iraq are a major obstacle to U.S. dominance in Iraq. Although very few U.S. troops in Iraq are killed by Shiites, military spokesmen have been attempting to give the impression that Tehran is ordering hits on U.S. troops, a clear casus belli. Disinformation campaigns that accuse Iran of trying to destabilize the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government -- a government Iran actually supports -- could lay the groundwork for a war. Likewise, with the U.S. military now beginning patrols on the Iran-Iraq border, the possibility is enhanced of a hostile incident spinning out of control.

The Iranians have responded to all this bellicosity with some chest-thumping of their own, right up to the final hours before Ahmadinejad's American visit. The Iranian government declared "National Defense Week" on Saturday, kicking it off with a big military parade that showed off Iran's new Qadr-1 missiles, with a range of 1,100 miles. Before he left Iran for New York on Sunday morning, Ahmadinejad inspected three types of Iranian-manufactured jet fighters, noting that it was the anniversary of Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 (which the Iranian press attributed to American urging, though that is unlikely).

The display of this military equipment was accompanied by a raft of assurances on the part of the Iranian ayatollahs, politicians and generals that they were entirely prepared to deploy the missiles and planes if they were attacked. A top military advisor to Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei told the Mehr News Agency on Saturday, "Today, the United States must know that their 200,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are within the reach of Iran's fire. When the Americans were beyond our shores, they were not within our reach, but today it is very easy for us to deal them blows." Khamenei, the actual commander in chief of the armed forces, weighed in as well, reiterating that Iran would never attack first but pledging: "Those who make threats should know that attack on Iran in the form of hit and run will not be possible, and if any country invades Iran it will face its very serious consequences."

The threat to target U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unveiling of the Qadr-1 were not aggressive in intent, but designed to make the point that Iran could also play by Richard M. Nixon's "madman" strategy, whereby you act so wildly as to convince your enemy you are capable of anything. Ordinarily a poor non-nuclear third-world country might be expected to be supine before an attack by a superpower. But as Mohammad Reza Bahonar, the Iranian deputy speaker of Parliament, warned: "Any military attack against Iran will send the region up in flames."

In the end, this is hardly the kind of conflagration the United States should be enabling. If a spark catches, it will not advance any of America's four interests in the Middle East: petroleum, markets, Israel and hegemony.

The Middle East has two-thirds of the world's proven petroleum reserves and nearly half its natural gas, and its fields are much deeper than elsewhere in the world, so that its importance will grow for the United States and its allies. Petro-dollars and other wealth make the region an important market for U.S. industry, especially the arms industry. Israel is important both for reasons of domestic politics and because it is a proxy for U.S. power in the region. By "hegemony," I mean the desire of Washington to dominate political and economic outcomes in the region and to forestall rivals such as China from making it their sphere of influence.

The Iranian government (in which Ahmadinejad has a weak role, analogous to that of U.S. vice presidents before Dick Cheney) poses a challenge to the U.S. program in the Middle East. Iran is, unlike most Middle Eastern countries, large. It is geographically four times the size of France, and it has a population of 70 million (more than France or the United Kingdom). As an oil state, it has done very well from the high petroleum prices of recent years. It has been negotiating long-term energy deals with China and India, much to the dismay of Washington. It provides financial support to the Palestinians and to the Lebanese Shiites who vote for the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon. By overthrowing the Afghanistan and Iraq governments and throwing both countries into chaos, the United States has inadvertently enabled Iran to emerge as a potential regional power, which could challenge Israel and Saudi Arabia and project both soft and hard power in the strategic Persian Gulf and the Levant.

And now the American war party, undeterred by the quagmire in Iraq, convinced that their model of New Empire is working, is eager to go on the offensive again. They may yet find a pretext to plunge the United States into another war. Ahmadinejad's visit to New York this year will not include his visit to Ground Zero, because that is hallowed ground for American patriotism and he is being depicted as not just a critic of the United States but as the leader of an enemy state. His visit may, however, be ground zero for the next big military struggle of the United States in the Middle East, one that really will make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

-- By Juan Cole

Read More...

Summary only...

Media News Roundup- Sun Jul 15th to Sat Jul 22nd

Keeping an eye on the failing Fourth Estate and looking for some TRUTH in journalism.

Big Media touts administration news on Iran's involvement in Iraq; says little on much larger and substantial Saudi role. Media under reports, or completely misses, White House executive order on property seizure. Near news blackout on Colin Powell's criticism of White House's lack of diplomacy. Bright spot of the week: Media Matters exposes NBC correspondent who received $30K for speech attacking presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards.



Big Media Echoes White House Charges of Iran's Iraq Involvement; Ignores Larger Role of Saudia Arabia--and now Turkey.

Following White House and Pentagon spin machines, the mainstream news media has repeatedly implicated Iran in attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Much was made this week in fact on Wednesday's Senate vote of 97-0 to pass a resolution sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to censure Iran “for what it said was complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.” Yet the LA Times on July 15 published an article that showed that of the foreign fighters in Iraq, over half are from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, these foreign fighters are Sunni and allied with the Sunni insurgency thought to be most responsible for attacks on U.S. troops, especially suicide bombers. Whatever aid Iran is giving to Iraqi factions, it is undoubtedly Shia-based, and has little to do with attacks on American forces. Though the LA Times is a mainstream news journal, even its story hardly made a blip on major media corporations. As if to underscore this blindspot, NATO ally Turkey's heavy shelling of Kurdish strongholds just inside the border of northern Iraq (on the same day the Iran Censure was passed by the U.S. Senate) hardly made a media ripple. One can understand why the Bush administration wants to single out Iran as a threat, ratcheting up the rhetoric to justify any future attacks. What isn't as clear, is why the news media seems just as eager to do so.

Media Under Reports, or Completely Misses, White House Executive Order on Property Seizure

In a little reported incident, the Bush White House issued an executive order last Tuesday that has some Constitutional scholars worried. President Bush directed the Treasury Department to block the U.S.-based financial assets of anyone deemed to have threatened "the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq" or who "undermin(e) efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq." The order targets those individuals or organizations that either "have committed, or ... pose a significant risk of committing" acts of violence with the "purpose or effect" of harming the Iraqi government or hindering reconstruction efforts. As the order states plainly, it applies to "U.S. persons," that is, American citizens. Now exactly which Americans have joined up with the Iraqi insurgency or carried out any acts to destabilize Iraq? The only possible Americans this can be directed towards would be anti-War activists, whom both Homeland Security and the Pentagon have spied upon in the past. By itself perhaps, this executive order may merely raise an eyebrow or two. But taken together with the varied other assaults on civil liberties and Constitutional law (from the abuse of signing statements to domestic spying to recent Emergency Powers acts) and this is a troubling development. Even more troubling was the fact that other than a few online sites like TPM Muckraker, the mainstream media hardly gave it even a mention. If the populace isn't kept aware of the doings of its government, exactly how are they suppose to exercise any form of civic responsibility?


News Blackout on Colin Powell's Criticism of White House's Stance Towards Hamas

The following story, near buried in the US media press, managed to make the news--in the Jerusalem Press:

Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday the international diplomatic Quartet on the Middle East should find some way to talk to Hamas.

"I don't think you can just cast them into outer darkness and try to find a solution to the problems of the region without taking to account the standing that Hamas has in the Palestinian community," Powell said in a radio interview.

He said Hamas, which controls Gaza, is not going away and enjoys considerable support among the Palestinian people.

"They won an election that we insisted upon having," Powell said. "And so, as unpleasant a group they may be and as distasteful as I find some of their positions, I think through some means, the Middle East Quartet… or through some means Hamas has to be engaged."

If only our news media could at least show that amount of objectivity towards the Palestinian-Israeli situation.


Bright Spot of the Week

Media Matters: NBC Correspondent Received $30K for Speech Attacking Sen. Edwards


Despite the right-wing charge of a "liberal media," the folks at Media Matters once again showed the glaringly anti-progressive, anti-liberal, anti-left and often anti-Democrat stance that is so often found in the mainstream media. In this case, NBC chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, breaking with NBC's own code of ethics, took $30,000 from the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce to address its Business EXPO 2007--during which he attacked a prominent presidential candidate, Sen. John Edwards.

For more:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200707180001

Read More...

Summary only...

President Lieberman ?

Joe Lieberman. From supporting the Iraq War, to restricting abortion rights to helping block legislation calling for a vote of no-confidence for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Senator's name is one now hissed in progressive circles with the venom usually reserved for the likes of George Bush or Dick Cheney. Yet it was only 7 years ago that he was hailed as the last line of defense against those same GOP candidates. Who would have thought that the former running mate of Al Gore in 2000 would today become the walking incarnation of neoconservatism--dressed up in Democrat drag. Robert Scheer at The Nation ponders "President Lieberman" and "provides a cautionary tale for folks who talk of backing 'any Democrat' who can win."


President Lieberman: A Cautionary Tale

Robert Scheer

June 13, 2007

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/truthdig

What if Al Gore had won the 2000 presidential election but died in office? Would President Joe Lieberman have been worse than George W. Bush? His recent actions suggest that he could have descended even lower in his illogical and immoral responses to the tragedy of 9/11. Although now an independent, Lieberman provides a cautionary tale for folks who talk of backing "any Democrat" who can win.

At a time when even President Bush has recognized the need for negotiations with Iran in order to stabilize Iraq, where disciples of Tehran's ayatollahs have risen to power, thanks to the US occupation he fervently supports, Lieberman urges war with Iran. "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," he told CBS on Sunday, "and to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran."

He never learns. This is the joker who bought the Ahmad Chalabi line that invading Iraq would result in a pro-West and pro-Israel democracy with Chalabi (who later failed to get 1 percent of the vote) playing Iraq's George Washington. For five years before 9/11, Lieberman pushed funding for Chalabi's exile organization to lead the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Lieberman was also a principal author of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which threw $100 million in Chalabi's direction.

Even as late as June 2004, when Chalabi was exposed by the United States as a spy for Iran, Lieberman continued to profess admiration for the architect of a policy that replaced the secular despot of Iraq with Shiite fundamentalists trained in Iran. "I met Dr. Chalabi and others of the Iraqi National Congress," he said in a speech defending Chalabi after US intelligence uncovered his contacts with Iranian spies. "It's fair to say I found them to be patriotic Iraqis. Their counsel to us was important."

In fact, Chalabi's "counsel" concerning Iraq's WMD program and ties to Al Qaeda turned out to be totally fraudulent and as embarrassing to the United States as it was convenient to Iran's plans to overthrow Hussein. Lieberman's statement in support of Chalabi came two months after the National Security Agency reported that Chalabi informed Iranian agents that the United States had broken Tehran's encryption code. At the time of the revelation, Chalabi traveled freely within Iran, where he maintained a residence. Despite Lieberman's warm endorsement of Chalabi, "a person of strength, principle and real commitment," the Bush Administration ended his monthly $340,000 stipend.

Having fallen for the Iranian plot to gain control over Iraq, Lieberman now seeks to undo the damage by invading Iran. He is apparently unaware of public warnings that key Shiite leaders in Iraq would take up arms again in support of their co-religionists across the border. Indeed, the Iranian arms being smuggled into Iraq that Lieberman complains about are going to the Shiite militias dominating America's surrogate government in Baghdad.

Bush seems to grasp this reality, which is why the United States is now negotiating with the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad, leaving Lieberman to play the role of a hawkish critic of an Administration he apparently feels has lost its enthusiasm for yet another disastrous invasion. This is a man whom leading Democrats, including Bill Clinton, supported in his primary campaign against an intelligent Democrat who sought to end the Iraq nightmare.

But, as those "any Democrat is better" apologists will likely argue, Lieberman, as President, would have conducted the occupation in a more measured manner, sensitive to civil liberties and other enlightened concerns. That conceit was also smashed on Monday, when Lieberman voted against holding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales accountable for sabotaging the federal judiciary. At a time when Arlen Specter and six other Republicans voted to advance a no-confidence vote, Lieberman supported the attorney general, who may well be remembered most for his consistent support of torture.

No surprise there, given Lieberman's previous apologies for this Administration's assault on the rule of law. Indeed, even after the revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib, Lieberman was able to find a bright spot, noting that "those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, never apologized."

Great. So we are now to be comforted by exceeding the standard set by Osama bin Laden. Lieberman also failed to acknowledge in his statement that the perpetrators of 9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq before the invasion. The same can be said for Iran--but that does not quiet Lieberman's cry for wider war.

Read More...

Summary only...