Iran: The Friendliest People in The World

Timesonline:

Beaming smiles, gel and a joke about lavatory brushes and weapons of mass destruction - Iran overturns all expectations

The metal door to the synagogue swung open and a small boy skipped across the courtyard. He looked puzzled at the three people who stood before him, two of whom were clearly not Iranian. He led us up some steps to the temple, where I slipped a skullcap on to my head. A lady came towards us, smiling. “Are you Jewish?” she asked.
“No,” I replied. “Sorry.”
My friend Annette and I went inside anyway, past a table of food laid out for Passover, and sat at the back as an elderly man read from the Torah in front of eight others.
I'd never have guessed that my first time inside a synagogue would be in Tehran, but Iran is full of surprises. It has a fundamentalist leadership that many in the West believe to be as nutty as a box of pistachios. But it also has a population of 65 million, most born after the 1979 Islamic Revolution (which culminated in the return from exile of Ayatollah Khomeini 30 years ago this month), and far removed from the dour and menacing stereotype often portrayed on the 10 o'clock news. The ordinary Iranian people are by far the friendliest and most welcoming I've met in more than 20 years of travelling.
Our ten-day trip took us from traffic-snarled Tehran 600km (370 miles) south across the Zagros Mountains to Shiraz and the magnificent ruins at Persepolis, started by Darius I in 515BC and destroyed by Alexander the Great in 330BC. (I have never been to a historical site where the past felt so approachable.)
Then we headed back north to the capital via Esfahan and the holy city of Qom, passing near the controversial nuclear facility at Natanz, which looked more like a car assembly plant. I assume, though, that most car factories aren't protected by banks of anti-aircraft guns.
Our guide for the journey was the ever-smiling Mr Sassan, a font of knowledge and always ready with a new story. At the start of the trip I believed all he told me, but as the week got longer his tales got decidedly taller.
We learnt that it paid to sit down when he started to talk, for with Mr Sassan there was no such thing as a quick skip through 3,000 years of history and the conspiratorial goings-on as empires rose and fell, invaders came and went.
“Now this is a sad one,” he'd say before recounting a tale of humble beginnings, love, jealousy, power, betrayal, exile and death. And when we seemed incredulous he'd look slightly hurt. “No, it's true, I'm telling you,” he'd reply. He was also adept at scooping handfuls of nuts and fruit for us from displays in open-fronted shops, walking away waving his cane shouting “Free samples, they don't mind,” as we scurried off. He was also a Mr Fixit.
In Shiraz, after guiding us to the tombs of the classical poets Sa'di and Hafez - as Shakespeare is to us, so are these to Iranians - he tracked down the best local faludeh, a wonderful frozen dessert flavoured with rose water.
The Mausoleum of Shah-e Cheragh has supposedly been closed to non-Muslims for the past three years, since a mullah objected to the revealing outfits of some Spaniards, so we headed through a winding, covered bazaar to its back entrance for a peek through the gates.
Yet, rather than shooing us away, a young caretaker welcomed us inside on the proviso that Annette put on a chador (an enormous cloth that covered her from top to toe) and that we didn't go inside the main shrine.

Read more!

U.S. student arrested in Tehran while working on thesis project

CNN: Esha Momeni, a graduate student at California State University-Northridge, was arrested October 15 in Tehran for unlawfully passing another vehicle while driving, according to Change For Equality, an Iranian women's movement.
"We're seeking additional information about this case," State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Wednesday. "We stand with all those in Iran who are working for universal human rights and justice in their countries."
Momeni, who was born in Los Angeles, California, is a member of Change for Equality's California chapter. She arrived in Tehran two months ago to work on her masters thesis project on the Iranian women's movement, according to the group, which is in touch with Momeni's family in Iran.
Momeni is being held in a section of Tehran's notorious Evin Prison that is managed by the Intelligence Ministry, the group said. Evin Prison houses many Iranian dissidents and political prisoners, and it is where four Iranian-Americans were held for several months last year. All have been released.
Iranian officials had promised Momeni's family that she would be immediately released if the news of her arrest was not published, the organization said.
"While Esha's friends and colleagues were insistent about announcing the news of her arrest immediately, based on requests from her family this news was announced with delay," Change for Equality said on its Web site.
Momeni's parents decided to release the information after they went to Iran's Revolutionary Court on Sunday -- five days after her arrest -- to inquire about her case, and they were told not to return until the investigation into her case has been completed, according to Change for Equality.
The Momeni family returned to Iran after the 1979 Islamic revolution, but Esha had gone back to the United States several years ago to study for her masters degree, according to a blog post from her journalism professor, Melissa Wall.
A separate blog calling for her release (for-esha.blogspot.com) has been established and includes an interview with Wall, who describes her student as "an exceptionally bright person, very creative and artistic." She calls herself "shocked" to hear of Momeni's arrest.
"I'm aware that such things happen in Iran, but I'm confident that they have nothing to fear from Esha's research project," Wall said. "It is simply an academic exercise, not meant for publication outside of academic circles. I cannot image why she should be held in detention."
On her personal blog, Wall said, "She is a videographer who was simply interviewing Iranian women. She has broken no laws, has not done anything wrong."
E-mail to a friend

Share this on:
All About Tehran • Evin Prison

Read more!

Islamic Republic continues to kill Christians while Larry King interviews Ahamdinejad

The Islamic Republic's religious apartheid regime continues to hang Christians.This report is from a great blog, Internation Musings:

Hossein Soodmand converted from Islam to Christianity in 1960, when he was 13 years old.
Thirty years later, in 1990, he was hanged by the Iranian authorities for that decision.Today, Rashin Soodman the daughter of Hossein Soodman, living in London, fears that her brother, Ramtin, held in a prison cell in Mashad, Iran's holiest city, will face the same 'faith'.
He was arrested on August 21. He has not been charged but he is a Christian. And Rashin fears that, just as her father was the last man to be executed for apostasy in Iran, her brother may become one of the first to be killed under Iran's new law; "Islamic Penal Code", which would codify the death penalty for any male Iranian who leaves his Islamic faith. Women would get life imprisonment. The majority in favour of the new law was overwhelming: 196 votes for, with just seven against.
Today, only in Islam apostasy is punishable (It’s virtually impossible to find a Christian state which persecutes. Most of the countries which do persecute are Muslim–with a few Communist or former Communist states thrown in). And its punishable by death in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Mauritania and the Comoros. In Qatar apostasy is a capital offense, but no executions have been reported for it.
Here the article.
Note: Many ex-Muslims in Great Britain have faced abuse, violence, and even murder at the hands of Muslims; one estimate suggests there are 200,000 apostates in Britain. There are similar reports of violent intimidation of those electing to reject Islam in other Western countries.Other examples of persecution of apostates converting to Christianity have been given by the Barnabas Fund from Kuwait, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Egypt, and Bangladesh.
More info herrreeee and herrreeee and herrreeee.

Read more!

What did the trees do wrong?

Islamic Republic of Vampires in Iran chopped off the trees in a historic Isfahan Bahai cemetery in a vicious act of desecration and hatred against Bahai.

What did the trees do wrong?




The callous wave of destruction against bahai cemetries is nothing new. Last year, The bulldozing of a Baha'i cemetery was the start of this series of incidents in a government-led campaign of hatred against Baha'is.

The list of anti-Baha'i incidents is growing, as are human rights violations against other groups in Iran.

Read more!

US Exports to Iran has increased Ten fold during Bush Admin!!

Last Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that the US has exported and continues to export hundreds of millions of dollars in commodities to Iran.

In fact, despite Bush Administration's ‘axis of evil’ rhetoric, the number of exports has increased “tenfold,” during the past eight years, including $158 million worth of cigarettes alone. When asked by a journalist about this issue, the Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain said jokingly that “maybe that’s a way of killing them.” However, What was more disturbing was the fact that he did know about this and had to check into it.

How could a Presidential Candidate who calls Iran the greatest threat to America not know this significant piece of information???

Read more!

Ayman al-Zawahri Warns of Iranian Threat

Al-Qaeda Warns of Iranian Threat April 19, 2008
The Times
Reuters



DUBAI -- Al-Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri, said in an audio message to mark five years since the US-led invasion of Iraq that Washington's war had met with nothing but failure and defeat.

He mocked President Bush's decision to suspend troop withdrawals from Iraq this summer, saying that he was scared of admitting defeat and was trying to pass the problem on to his successor.

“What the American invasion of Iraq has reached today, after five years, is ... failure and defeat,” he said in the tape posted on a website used by Islamist groups. “The American troops, if they leave, will lose everything, and if they stay will bleed to death. This is what Bush has chosen for his army and his people, who elected him twice.”

The authenticity of the tape could not immediately be verified but the voice sounded like al-Zawahri.

He also warned the US against considering any agreement with Iran. “Iran's objectives are clear: the inclusion of southern Iraq and the east of the (Arabian) peninsula and spreading to join its followers in southern Lebanon,” he said.

Read more!

Iran, Le Choix des Armes,

Forbes:
War with Iran??
Want to know how a U.S. strike on a newly nuclearized Iran might actually work? Turn to page 154 of Francois Heisbourg's extraordinary new book, Iran, the Choice of Arms, published in Paris but, alas, not yet in the English-speaking world. It's frightening, but as accurate as only an insider's insider can possibly be--down to the actual weapons America might launch and their impact on the military machine and civilian infrastructure and population of the nation that is perhaps the world's most dangerous and unpredictable power.
...
The irony of all this, of course, is that Iran, without a nuclear weapon, is well placed to claim leadership as the single most powerful nation of the Persian Gulf and perhaps of the Middle East itself. Yet, as Heisbourg so compellingly points out, if armed with a nuclear weapon, its advantage evaporates, as a nuclear arms race in the region would find a host of other neighboring states buying their way into the nuclear arms club and aligning themselves with the superpowers. Iran would again find itself isolated, alone, shunned and boycotted. Indeed the Iranian people, while they might accept being bashed by the Great Satan (George Bush's America), they "take badly their country being perceived by the world as a sort of leprous regime of the North Korean type rather than as a great nation," Heisbourg points out.

Read more!

Tehran:Anti-riot police clash with people protesting savage beating of a young girl by the moral police

صادقيه ميدان زنان:ضرب و شتم يک دختر جوان توسط ماموران نيروی انتظامی موجب تجمع اعتراض آميز و درگيری مردم با ماموران شد. عصر روز شنبه 4 اسفند ماموران طرح امنيت اجتماعي، دختر جوانی را در پاساژ گلديس واقع در فلکه دوم صادقيه به بهانه بدحجابی دستگير کردند. اما به دنبال مقاومت دختر در برابر انتقال به ماشين نيروی انظامي، ماموران اقدام به ضرب و شتم او با باتوم کرده که منجر به زخمی و خون آلود شدن صورت و بدن اين دختر می شود. اين وضعيت موجب اعتراض مردم حاضر در محل و درگيری آنها با ماموران می شود. جمعيت شعارهائی عليه نيروی انتظامی و رئيس جمهور سر داده و سطلهای زباله را آتش زده اند. شاهدان عيني، اين درگيريها را گسترده توصيف کرده و از شليک تير هوائی و اعزام نيروهای يگان ويژه به محل خبر می دهند. گفته می شود برای متفرق ساختن جمعيت خشمگين که صدها نفر برآورد شده اند از ماشينهای آتش نشانی استفاده شده است. تا لحظه تنظيم اين گزارش، فضای ميدان صادقيه ملتهب گزارش می شود. با توجه به نزديکی ايام نوروز و آغاز خريدهای نوروزی مردم، حضور ماموران نيروی انتظامی در ميادين اصلی و مراکز خريد افزايش محسوسی
Translation below:
Iran-Tehran: Police and protesters clash in Sadeghiyeh Square!

The moral police arrested a young girl for improper "hejab". She resisted the arrest and several police officers beat her with their batons violently. Her face and body was soaked in blood. Angry Witnesses came to her rescue and protested against the police by shouting slogans against the police force and the Presdient of Islamic Republic and burning trash bins in the streets.

Hundreds of anti-riot police and firetrucks were dispatched to the scene and shouts were fired to disburse the crowd...


The demonstrators are shouting, "Islamic Government, We don't want, We don't want"


Related: Last year's police brutality against "improper" veils of young women and their forced arrests.

Read more!

Iran envoy defends amputation

'The Crucifixion (detail)' by Matthias Grünewald ca. 1515, Musée d'Unterlinden, Colmar
from: Allthingsbeautiful.com

Iranian ambassador to Spain justifying wicked barbarity (e.g. amputating limbs, eye-gouging, stoning, etc.) in the name of "multiculturalism"..."And for an absolutist to defend his preference for sadism by arguing for cultural relativism, well, is there a better definition of nihilism"?

Read more!

Rude Awakening

This article deserves and merits attention of everyone in the State Dept. An important article by Raghida Dergham, a Lebanese journalist. She has splendidly dissected the Islamic Republic's influence in the and the non-nuclear-related threats the ideologically driven regime represents to moderate Arab countries and Israel in the region. I'm not quite clear on what she means by "rehabilitation of the Iranian regime" and I couldn't find any concrete propositions as to how we are to achieve this task (I have emailed her and waiting for response) but overall, her assessments are dead on and quite honestly, disturbing. The challenges and concerns the United States and her allies have to wrestle with in the Middle East for the coming years require exceptional and unparalleled US leadership skills. So far, I hate to say it but Hillary is the only one who can do the job and the Bush Administration agrees with me.

Read more!

What do George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have in common?

Gloves come off as Iran moderates battle Ahmadinejad

TEHRAN, Nov 15, 2007 (AFP) — Iran's moderates are intensifying criticism of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, landing their first blows in a bitter political fight ahead of elections next year.

The moderate heavyweights Mohammad Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani [only in Iran and in the minds of AFP are these extremists "moderates" - ed.] have been unusually explicit in their criticism of Ahmadinejad's economic policies and his analysis of the threat posed by the United StatesAhmadinejad has shot back using language colourful even by his standards, warning he would expose "traitors" in the nuclear standoff and accusing critics of "being less intelligent than a goat".

The sharp rhetoric is the upshot of concerns over the mounting international crisis over the Iranian nuclear programme and a sign of the proximity of legislative elections on March 14.
There is exasperation among moderates over Ahmadinejad's brushing-off of UN sanctions action as just "pieces of paper" and his refusal to even countenance the possibility of a US military attack.

Political exchanges in Iran are normally marked by the utmost courtesy. But the differences in visions of the country's future means the tensions between the factions are now abundantly clear.

Mohammad Atrianfar, a confidant of Rafsanjani, said the explicit criticism had been triggered by the degree of concern amongst moderates about the state of the country under Ahmadinejad.
"Rafsanjani is genuinely worried," the leading newspaper editor told AFP.
"He was one of those who created this (Islamic) system and as he was a leader in the (1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war) he knows what war means and what price people have to pay.
"Ahmadinejad does not have a true idea about reality. He has no sense of fear. He thinks that if he adopts radical positions his rivals will step back. The attacks are set to multiply ahead of the elections."

The attacks are coming from a broad front of reformists, moderates and more pragmatic conservatives:
-- Khatami, president from 1997-2005, is an unashamed reformist who until recently refrained from making public criticism of the government.
But in the last month he has accused it of "ignorance and lack of expertise" and sounded the alarm over its economic policies, saying inflation was a growing problem which government statistics were trying to conceal.
-- Rafsanjani, president from 1989-1997 but humiliated by Ahmadinejad in the 2005 vote, has also stepped up criticism of the president's confidence that the United States will not attack.
The cleric, who now heads two powerful elite bodies, said the danger from the United States "exists and is very serious", a flat contradiction of Ahmadinejad's position.
-- Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, a pragmatic conservative seen as a possible contender in the 2009 presidential elections, on Tuesday made his most explicit criticism yet of the government.
Officials had to act with "more maturity, intelligence and cunning as it seems that that situation is going to become more sensitive," he said.
-- The influential former Revolutionary Guards commander Mohsen Rezaie said the threats of Iran's foes should not be taken as "jokes", in a clear warning to Ahmadinejad's perceived complacency.
Although opposition figures found common ground in their attacks on the president, it remains to be seen if their unity will extend to the parliamentary elections and the presidential poll in 2009.
Reformists like Khatami are by no means natural allies of traditional conservatives like Qalibaf or even more moderate figures, athough the Ahmadinejad era appears to have brought them closer.
The next months will be critical, especially if the United States steps up sanctions against the Islamic republic or even drops more hints it is considering military action against Tehran.
"The financial sanctions are starting to have an effect. In addition, you cannot underestimate the danger of military strikes. The situation could spiral out of control," said leading reformist Mostafa Tadjzadeh.---

If we learn nothing else from the Third Reich, we should learn that sometimes crazy people mean what they say.Given that, the best indicator of intentions remains one's actions, not words. The speedy re-armament of Germany, reoccupation of the Rhineland, and onset of a bellicose police state ought to have tipped people off in the 30s.

Likewise, aggressive interference in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq along with a nuclear weapons program and overt threats ought to tip us off.

Link via Tigerhawk

Read more!

Islamic Republic's Utter contempt for democracy and free expression.

by: Akbar Ganji:

The Islamic regime brutally stifles dissent and determines rights and privileges based on religion.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is master of the double standard. For instance, the regime believes it has the right to establish political groups in other countries, such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, the Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council and a number of groups in Afghanistan. It openly supports Hamas to the tune of millions of dollars -- another example of this general modus operandi. So, by logical extension, the Islamic Republic asserts that opponents of a government have the right to create an armed organization, and foreign governments have the right to supply these opponents with money, weapons and training...

Read more!

David Brooks: 'The Bush administration is not about to bomb Iran (trust me).'

Ny Times

What is Condi doing?

This is the question that’s been floating around foreign policy circles over the past few months. It is then followed by more specific questions: Why is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spending her remaining time in office banging her head against the Israeli-Palestinian problem? Why has she bothered to make eight trips to the region this year? What can possibly be accomplished when the Israeli government is weak and the Palestinian society is divided?

It took a trip to the region for me to finally understand that this peace process is unlike any other. It’s not really about Israel and the Palestinians; it’s about Iran. Rice is constructing a coalition of the losing. There is a feeling among Arab and Israeli leaders that an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance is on the march. The nations that resist that alliance are in retreat. The peace process is an occasion to gather the “moderate” states and to construct what Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center calls an anti-Iran counter-alliance.
It’s slightly unfortunate that the peace process itself is hollow. It’s like having a wedding without a couple because you want to get the guests together for some other purpose. But that void can be filled in later. The main point is to organize the anti-Iranians around some vehicle and then reshape the strategic correlation of forces in the region.

Iran has done what decades of peace proposals have not done — brought Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Palestinians and the U.S. together. You can go to Jerusalem or to some Arab capitals and the diagnosis of the situation is the same: Iran is gaining hegemonic strength over the region and is spreading tentacles of instability all around.

The Syrians, who have broken with the Sunni nations and attached themselves to Iran, are feeling stronger by the day. At least one-third of Iraq is under Iranian influence. Hezbollah is better armed and more confident now than it was before its war against Israel. Hamas is being drawn closer inside the Iranian orbit and is more likely to take over the West Bank than lose its own base in Gaza.
In short, Iran is taking advantage of the region’s three civil wars and could have its proxy armies on Israel’s northern, western and southern borders.
Arab opinion, even in Sunni nations, is sympathetic to Iran. Egypt, which should serve as a counterbalance to Iran, is sclerotic and largely absent from the scene.
It’s no wonder Rice has acted so forcefully to forge the “moderate” coalition. She seems to sense what leaders in the region say privately: It’s not so much that they have high hopes of peace; it’s that they are terrified they will fail. If they cannot restart the peace process and build an anti-Iran alliance upon it, then the days of the moderates could be numbered. That’s why Ehud Olmert, the prime minister of Israel, pinned what’s left of his career to this Annapolis process at a speech before the Saban Forum Sunday night, and why other leaders are so fervent behind the scenes.
There are a few problems to overcome. The Saudis, as is their nature, are trying to play both sides, making supportive noises about the anti-Iran project without doing much to actually help.
Some “moderate” Arab autocrats have become soul brothers with Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharaff, and are lobbying America to betray its principles and not condemn him.
Finally, there is the peace process itself. There is remarkably little substance to it so far. Even people inside the Israeli and Palestinian governments are not sure what’s actually going to be negotiated and what can realistically be achieved. Moreover, it’s not clear that either of those governments can actually deliver anything. The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, can sign deals, but it’s not clear that he controls events a block from his headquarters. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert can do the same, but his cabinet is hostile and his people are cynically disengaged.

The whole thing could backfire and leave the anti-Iranian cause in worse shape than ever. If that happens, then life will get really ugly for Rice. America’s friends in the region will try to flip Syria out of the Iranian orbit by offering it the re-conquest of Lebanon. Rice would then face a Faustian bargain — continue the struggle against Iran, but at the cost of her own principles.
Still, despite these perils, Rice is surely right to be trying something. She’s an admirer of former Secretary of State Dean Acheson and is now present at the creation of a containment policy across the Middle East. The Bush administration is not about to bomb Iran (trust me). It’s using diplomacy to build a coalition to balance it, and reverse an ugly tide.

Read more!

Interpol wants Iranian regime officials

Interpol Issues Warrants for Ex-Iranian Regime Officials in Argentina Terror Case

Interpol has finally made the decision to move forward on the capture of five Iranian regime officials and bringing to justice those believed to be responsible for the killing of innocents. According to the news the men on the capture notices by the Interpol are the former Iranian intelligence chief Ali Fallahian, former Revolutionary Guards chief Mohsen Rezai, regime’s former diplomat Ahmad Reza Asghari, also known as “Moshen Randjbaran,” Ahmad Vahidi of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ Al-Quds Force, Mohsen Rabbani, the cultural attaché in the Iranian Embassy in Buenos Aires, and Hizballah’s military chief Imad Mughniyeh of Lebanon.

Link zaneirani.blogspot.com

Read more!

The Dumb Blonde Responds to Ahmadinejad in Columbia

Desperately Seeking to Talk in Columbia and seek justice from Mahmood:

http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/2007/09/hezbollah-in-iran-9-videos.html

http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/2007/05/islam-is-mercy.html


http://www.abfiran.org/english/memorial.php

http://asre-nou.net/1385/mehr/12/koshtar/m-moghadamehEN.html


http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/2007/06/10-women-in-shiraz.html


http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/2007/08/iranian-bahai-students-shut-out-of.html


http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/2007/08/in-death-martyrs-smile-foretells.html

Read more!

two peas in a pod

Iran, Zimbabwe Coalition against Global Bullies

Both petty cruel and worthless dictators suffer from utter incompetence and ineptitude to govern. The economies of both countries, Iran and zimbabwe, are in shambles.

Pets are slaughtered as meat in Zimbabwe and Kidneys are sold to make ends meet in Iran.






READS:“Kidney donation, B+”, note that “donation” does not mean this transaction does not include transfer of money.

Read more!

In Iran, "It's the Ideology, Stupid"

Excellent article:

IHT: TEHRAN: When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was first elected president, he said that Iran had more important issues to worry about than how women dress. He even called for allowing women into soccer games, a revolutionary idea for revolutionary Iran.

Today, Iran is experiencing the most severe crackdown on social behavior and dress in years, and women are often barred from smoking in public, let alone from attending a public event in a stadium.

Since coming to office two years ago, Ahmadinejad has grabbed headlines around the world and in Iran for outrageous statements that often have no more likelihood of implementation than his soccer plan. He generated controversy in New York last week by asking to visit the site of the destroyed World Trade Towers - a request that was denied - and by agreeing to speak at Columbia University on Monday.

But it is because of his provocative remarks, like denying the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, that the United States and Europe have never known quite how to handle the firebrand president, say politicians, officials and experts in Iran.

In demonizing Ahmadinejad, they say, the West has served him well, elevating his status at home and across the region at a time when he is increasingly isolated politically because of his go-it-alone style and ineffective economic policies.

Political analysts here are surprised at the degree to which the West focuses on their president, saying the denunciations reflect a general misunderstanding of their system. Unlike in the United States, say, the Iranian president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president's power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up.

"The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad," said a political scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. "He is not that consequential."

That is not to say that Ahmadinejad is insignificant. He controls the mechanics of civil government, much the way a prime minister does in a state like Egypt, where the real power rests with the president. He manages the budget and has put like-minded people in positions around the country, from provincial governors to prosecutors. His base of support is the Basiji militia and elements of the Revolutionary Guards.

But Ahmadinejad has not shown the same political acumen at home as he has in riling the West. Two of his ministers have quit, criticizing his stewardship. The head of the central bank resigned. The chief judge criticized him for his management of the government. His promise to root out corruption and redistribute the nation's oil wealth has run up against entrenched interests.

Even a small bloc of members of Parliament that were once aligned with him have largely given up, dissolving a small caucus they had formed in his support, officials said.

Rather than focusing so much attention on the president, the West needs to learn that in Iran, what matters is ideology - Islamic revolutionary ideology, according to politicians and political analysts here. Nearly 30 years after the shah fell in a popular rebellion, Iran's supreme leader also holds the title of "Guardian of the Revolution." Ahmadinejad's power stems not from his office per se, but from the refusal of his patron, Khamenei, and some hard-line leaders to move beyond Iran's revolutionary identity, which makes full relations with the West impossible.

There are plenty of conservatives and hard-liners who take a more pragmatic view, wanting to retain "revolutionary values" while integrating Iran with the world, at least economically. But they are not driving the agenda these days, and while that could change it will not be the president who makes the call.

"Iran has never been interested in reaching an accommodation with the United States," the political scientist said. "It cannot reach an accommodation as long as it retains the current structure."

There is another important factor that restricts Ahmadinejad's hand: While ideology defines the state, the revolution has allowed a particular class to grow wealthy and powerful.

When Ahmadinejad was elected, it appeared that hard-liners had a monopoly on all the levers of power. But today it is clear that Ahmadinejad is not a hard-liner, not in the traditional sense. His talk of economic justice and a redistribution of wealth, for example, ran into a wall of existing vested interests, including powerful clergy and military leaders...

Read more!

Greenspan Says Preemptive Strike on Iran Is `Difficult Choice'

Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the threat posed by Iran may force the U.S. to consider a preemptive strike, and conceded that the Iraq war, which he advocated, has made the Middle East ``less stable.''

Iran has rejected calls to cease efforts to enrich uranium, which the U.S. and its European allies claim is a step toward developing nuclear weapons. President George W. Bush has said he would prefer a diplomatic solution to the standoff with Iran, though he has refused to rule out a military response.

``It's a very difficult choice,'' Greenspan, 81, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital With Al Hunt'' to be broadcast this weekend. ``This issue of when do you strike -- preemptive strike'' arose during the Cold War ``because if you didn't act, your country was destroyed.''

Expanding on his memoir, ``The Age of Turbulence,'' published this week, Greenspan suggested the 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified, even though the country didn't possess weapons of mass destruction, as he initially believed.

Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ``had access to huge amounts of cash,'' which could have allowed him to ``buy nuclear devices or weapons,'' Greenspan said. ``I could see him irresistibly moving -- in a sense irrationally -- to try to take over the oil fields of the Middle East by one device or another.''

Still, Greenspan said the Middle East is now ``less stable'' than it was before the invasion.

McCain Over Giuliani

On the 2008 U.S. presidential race, the former Fed chief, a Republican, was enthusiastic about Senator John McCain's candidacy.

``John McCain would be a name I would put in,'' Greenspan said. ``There is no doubt in my mind that he'd be a very effective president.'' Greenspan added that he was saddened that the Arizona senator's campaign hasn't recovered from some recent setbacks, including fund-raising shortfalls and staff defections.

His possible support for the Republican frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, was more qualified. Greenspan only said he would ``probably'' support the former New York mayor if he wins the party's nomination.

In other interviews this week, Greenspan said the Democratic frontrunner, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, is ``unquestionably qualified'' to be president, though he added that his tendency would be to vote for a Republican.

Praise for Clinton

In the book, Greenspan commends Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, for prudent tax and fiscal policies that brought the budget from deficit to surplus.

In the Bloomberg interview, the former Fed chief reprised his criticism of the Republican Party for its lack of fiscal probity, saying fellow party members dashed his hopes of what a unified Republican government could achieve.

``I was obviously overjoyed when Republicans took over both the House and the Senate in the early '90s and I looked forward to the implementation of many of the policies which I felt were very important for this country,'' Greenspan said. Instead, he said, ``they swapped policy for power and achieved neither.''

While he criticized his party, Greenspan praised several Republican lawmakers, including Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, whom he described as ``really quite knowledgeable and very thoughtful'' and ``very engaging.'' Greenspan also called Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire ``very smart.''

Though his own party has been irresponsible on budget and economic issues, the Democrats who took control of Congress in the 2006 elections are no better, Greenspan said. ``Now that they're in power, they're behaving like Republicans.''

Greenspan said that former New York Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who died in 2003, was ``unbelievable in a sense of a broad scope of vision, intellect, and judgment.'' He also said former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker of Tennessee was ``one of the most effective people in government I have ever encountered.''

Greenspan said he wished that Barry Goldwater, a former Republican senator from Arizona who lost the 1964 presidential election to Lyndon Johnson, had become president.

``I consider myself coming out of the roots of Goldwater Republicanism,'' Greenspan said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Benjamin in Washington at mbenjamin2@bloomberg.net

Read more!

Gary Sick, Ahmadinejad's Best Pal

Why Does Columbia host Ahmadinejad?


Mohammad Parvin and Hassan Daioleslam

Iran's President Mahmood Ahmadinejad is scheduled to speak at Columbia University on Monday September 24th. This arrangement is not accidental. The event would have not been possible without the tireless and focused efforts of the well known Tehran advocate Dr. Gary Sick, an influential figure in Columbia.

As it has already been examined in a recent article "Pro-Ayatollahs Disinformation and Manipulation Campaign by Washington Think Tankers"1, the Iranian lobby in US could not exist without generous assistance of some American interest groups and proxies such as Dr Gary Sick, the American Iranian Council in which Sick is a board member of, and his circle of cohorts.

In the past two decades Dr. Sick has been a tenacious activist in advancing the interests of Iranian Ayatollahs. His dossier of friendship with Tehran includes positions such as the directorship of The Gulf/2000 Project established in 1993 in the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University . This project is mainly financed by the oil industry and is focused in engaging Tehran.

When Mohammad Jafar Mahallati, the former Iranian deputy foreign minister and ambassador to the UN, was terminated from his official positions to commence his duties in "unofficial diplomacy", Dr. Sick's active influence secured him a position in Columbia from 1991 to 1997. The list of Gary Sick's collaborations with Mahallati is long. 2

In 1997, Dr. Gary Sick worked intensely with Hossein Alikhani, an Iranian closely related to the Iran's ruling mullahs, to found the "Center for World Dialogue". Gary Sick is a founding board member in this organization.3 Alikhani is a felon who in 1992, pled guilty to the charges of violating anti-terrorist sanctions 4 and spent some time in US federal prisons. Recently Iran's Ayatollahs awarded him the deed for the US embassy complex in Tehran5 for his pain and suffering in American prisons. The collaboration between Sick and Alikhani has been long and multifaceted and has been well received by the mullahs in Iran.

Dr. Sick has shown a distinct quality. He, under all circumstances, has been able to discover a reason to support the Iranian theocratic regime. For example, under the "moderate" president Rafsanjani, the wave of Iranian international terrorism reached new summits and the bombing of the Jewish center in Argentina was accompanied by hundreds of assassinations against the Iranian dissidents abroad. Dr. Sick however cleverly discovered a creative explanation6:

"The pattern of actions suggests that these practices originated in the early 1980s, when the Islamic leadership faced a massive domestic terrorist threat. The Iranian response to this threat was apparently to establish one or more covert units, possibly buried deep within the intelligence agencies, to hunt down and destroy perceived threats to the revolution. This kind of shadow warfare is hardly unique to Iran. But the evidence suggests that these units in Iran have acquired a life of their own, launching operations on an opportunistic basis with little interference by the central authorities and no apparent coordination with Iran's foreign policy agenda."

For Dr. Sick, the sophisticated machine of Iranian terror is the same as the Japanese soldiers lost in Pacific's remote islands during the World War II. Similarly, Dr. Sick's view of the Iranian sponsored terrorism in the Middle East is very imaginative: 7

"Iran's support for terrorist activities carried out by Hamas is a matter of dispute. Iran claims that its support for Hamas is no different than the Saudi's support. They give money for clinics and medical needs, but that money is used for terrorism. Iran has a different view on this. So it's a matter of dispute. As for the peace process, at this point Iran feels vindicated. They have been saying all along that the Israeli-Palestinian deals are a sham and that Israel will not keep its promises. With what Netanyahou has done so far, Iran's position is getting more support from the Arab states."
In a very interesting article in 1996, Sick advised the US administration to lower its expectations from the Iranian government especially concerning the human rights because according to him: 8
“The revolution is over, and the fiery slogans have a hollow ring. Khomeini said the revolution was not about the price of melons, but it turns out that it is! The demonstrations in Iran are not about clerical rule or a return to the monarchy or even about democracy and human rights. “
Dr. Sick’s support to the Iranian regime does naturally include the ultra-fascist president Ahmadinejad. After his first appearance before the UN assembly in 2005 and his shocking declarations, Sick found new qualities in the president and told the CFR interviewer Gwertzman: 9
"I was taken with the fact that Ahmadinejad is an engineer with no foreign experience at all, who has only been president for about a month. I think he learned his brief pretty well. He handled himself well not only in the speech but also in his discussions with CNN and Time magazine and others who had interviews with him. I think he came through with some constructive ideas. … He's a very prideful man, and I think that sense of Iranian pride is one that may be very difficult for the West—and the United States in particular—to deal with."
On September 24th, that "prideful man", responsible for the daily torture of his people, will talk in Columbia. He needs public relations support for his nuclear and regional domination ambitions. Count on Dr. Sick and his usual circle of friends to be there and extend a supportive hand. All the same, Columbia University's tacit acceptance of this advocacy can not be justified under the disguise of academic freedom.

Mohammad Parvin is the Founding Director of the Mission for Establishment of Human Rights in Iran (MEHR) - http://mehr.org

Hassan Daioleslam is an independent Iran Analyst and writer http://iranianlobby.com/

Notes:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=33939
http://ilexfoundation.org/whowe/cv_mahallati.html
http://www.worlddialogue.org/governors.htm
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/63-05.html
http://www.asianews.ir/main1.asp?a_id=27078
6. The Washington Post, April 4, 1993, Sunday, Final Edition
7. http://www.iranian.com/Features/Nov97/Trust/index.html
http://fas.org/irp/threat/fp/b19ch13.htm
9. http://www.cfr.org/publication/8894/iran_expert_sick_advocates_usiran_dialogue_on_nuclear_issues_iraq.html

Read more!

Putin Will be in Tehran October 16

Stratfor:

...Mottaki also confirmed -- and this is significant -- that Russian President Vladimir Putin would visit Tehran on Oct. 16. The occasion is a meeting of the Caspian Sea littoral nations, a group that comprises Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. According to the Iranians, Putin agreed not only to attend the conference, but also to use the visit to confer with top Iranian leaders.

This is about the last thing the United States wanted the Russians to do -- and therefore the first thing the Russians did. The Russians are quite pleased with the current situation in Iraq and Iran and do not want anything to upset it. From the Russian point of view, the Americans are tied down in an extended conflict that sucks up resources and strategic bandwidth in Washington. There is a similarity here with Vietnam. The more tied down U.S. forces were in Vietnam, the more opportunities the Soviets had. Nowadays, Russia's resources are much diminished compared with those of the Soviets -- while Russia has a much smaller range of interest. Moscow's primary goal is to regain a sphere of influence within the former Soviet Union. Whatever ambitions it may dream of, this is the starting point. The Russians see the Americans as trying to thwart their ambitions throughout their periphery, through support for anti-Russian elements via U.S. intelligence.

If the United States plans to stay in Iraq until the end of the Bush presidency, then the United States badly needs something from the Russians -- that they not provide arms, particularly air-defense systems, to the Syrians and especially the Iranians. The Americans need the Russians not to provide fighter aircraft, modern command-and-control systems or any of the other war-making systems that the Russians have been developing. Above all else, they want the Russians not to provide the Iranians any nuclear-linked technology.

Therefore, it is no accident that the Iranians claimed over the weekend that the Russians told them they would do precisely that. Obviously, the discussion was of a purely civilian nature, but the United States is aware that the Russians have advanced military nuclear technology and that the distinction between civilian and military is subtle. In short, Russia has signaled the Americans that it could very easily trigger their worst nightmare.

The Iranians, fairly isolated in the world, are being warned even by the French that war is a real possibility. Obviously, then, they view the meetings with the Russians as being of enormous value. The Russians have no interest in seeing Iran devastated by the United States. They want Iran to do just what it is doing -- tying down U.S. forces in Iraq and providing a strategic quagmire for the Americans. And they are aware that they have technologies that would make an extended air campaign against Iran much more costly than it would be otherwise. Indeed, without a U.S. ground force capable of exploiting an air attack anyway, the Russians might be able to create a situation in which suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD, the first stage of a U.S. air campaign) would be costly, and in which the second phase -- battle against infrastructure -- could become a war of attrition. The United States might win, in the sense of ultimately having command of the air, but it could not force a regime change -- and it would pay a high price.

It also should not be forgotten that the Russians have the second-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. The Russians very ostentatiously announced a few weeks ago that their Bear bombers were returning to constant patrol. This amused some in the U.S. military, who correctly regard the Bear as obsolete. They forget that the Russians never really had a bomber force designed for massive intercontinental delivery of nuclear devices. The announcement was a gesture -- and reminder that Russian ICBMs could easily be pointed at the United States.

Russia obviously doesn't plan a nuclear exchange with the United States, although it likes forcing the Americans to consider the possibility. Nor do the Russians want the Iranians to gain nuclear weapons. What they do want is an extended conflict in Iraq, extended tension between Iran and the United States, and they wouldn't much mind if the United States went to war with Iran as well. The Russians would happily supply the Iranians with whatever weapons systems they could use in order to bleed the United States a bit more, as long as they are reasonably confident that those systems would not be pointed north any time soon.

The Russians are just as prepared to let the United States have a free hand against Iran and not pose any challenges while U.S. forces are tied down in Iraq. But there is a price and it will be high. The Russians are aware that the window of opportunity is now and that they could create nightmarish problems for the United States. Therefore, the Russians will want the following:

In the Caucasus, they want the United States to withdraw support for Georgia and force the Georgian government to reach an accommodation with Moscow. Given Armenian hostility to Turkey and closeness to Russia, this would allow the Russians to reclaim a sphere of influence in the Caucasus, leaving Azerbaijan as a buffer with Iran.

In Ukraine and Belarus, the Russians will expect an end to all U.S. support to nongovernmental organizations agitating for a pro-Western course.

In the Baltics, the Russians will expect the United States to curb anti-Russian sentiment and to explicitly limit the Baltics' role in NATO, excluding the presence of foreign troops, particularly Polish.

Regarding Serbia, they want an end to any discussion of an independent Kosovo.

The Russians also will want plans abandoned for an anti-ballistic-missile system that deploys missiles in Poland.

Read more!