Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on The Huffington Post

Ahmadinejad: Iran Will Enrich Uranium Even More

2009-12-02T08:43:15Z

VIENNA — In a defiant speech, Iran's president declared Wednesday that his country will enrich uranium to a much higher level – a fresh rejection of an international plan to curb Tehran's nuclear program.

Experts said that could put Tehran on the road to making the material needed to arm a warhead within months.

Ahmadinejad: 'Friendly Relations' With UN Nuclear Watchdog 'Are Over'

2009-12-01T16:40:29Z

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Tehran is reviewing the option of decreasing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog after it issued a resolution critical of Iran last week.

Speaking in a live television interview late Tuesday, Ahmadinejad also criticized Russia's support for International Atomic Energy Agency's resolution, calling it a mistake.

Trita Parsi: Washington Can Give An Israeli Attack On Iran The Red Light

2009-11-29T17:10:43Z

Only a few weeks after US-Iran diplomacy began in earnest, it seems to be heading towards a premature ending. Rather than tensions reduction, the world has witnessed the opposite. Iran is refusing to accept a fuel swap deal brokered by the IAEA, the IAEA has passed a resolution rebuking Iran, and Tehran has responded by approving a plan to build ten more nuclear facilities.

With the potential end of at least this phase of diplomacy, fears of a disastrous Israeli attack on Iran are on the rise once more. But contrary to Washington's official line, America is capable of preventing Israel from initiating a war that would further destabilize the Middle East.

Conventional wisdom in Washington reads that the United States has little influence over Israel, particularly on the issue of Iran's nuclear program, since Israel maintains that it is an existential threat.

Washington has utilized the perception of Israeli immunity to international pleas to pressure China to rebuke Tehran. According to the Washington Post, National Security Council officials recently traveled to Beijing and used the Israeli card to get the Chinese on board.

The Chinese were told that Israel regards Iran's nuclear program as an "existential issue and that countries that have an existential issue don't listen to other countries," according to a senior administration official. The implication was clear: Israel could bomb Iran, leading to a crisis in the Persian Gulf region and almost inevitably problems over the very oil China needs to fuel its economic juggernaut."

It is questionable that the Chinese were moved by the notion that Israel cannot be influenced by the international community on this issue. Mindful of the strength of US-Israeli relations, it is hardly convincing that Washington cannot influence Israel's actions towards Iran.

Indeed, there is an important precedent in which Washington successfully prevented Israel from taking military action even when Israel itself had been attacked.

On August 2, 1990, almost a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Iron Curtain divide, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Within months, the George H. W. Bush administration carefully assembled a coalition of states under the UN flag and defeated the Iraqi army and restored Kuwait's ruling family, the House of Sabah. The Bush senior administration saw particular value in ensuring that the international coalition contained numerous Arab states. But to get the Arab's to join a war alongside the US and against another Arab power, Israel needed to be kept out of the coalition.

This turned out to be a tricky issue, particularly when Saddam Hussein hurled thirty-four Scud missiles at Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities, in an obvious attempt to lure Israel into the war. Then-National Security Advisor, General Brent Scowcroft, told me in an interview that the United States told Israel "in the strongest possible words" that it needed to keep itself out of the Iraq operation because Israeli retaliation would cause the collapse of Washington's alliance against Iraq.

For the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, this was a very tough decision. Saddam's missile attacks damaged Israel's public morale; the country's otherwise lively and noisy capital quickly turned into a ghost town. Bush sent Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger to Israel to assure Israeli leaders that the United States was doing all it could to destroy the Iraqi missile launchers.

But neither the Israel Defense Forces nor the Ministry of Defense was convinced. Instead, a feeling prevailed among Israel's leaders that Washington was untrustworthy and that it could not be relied upon when it came to Israel's existence. Bad blood was created between Israel and the United States, according to Efraim Halevi, the former head of the Mossad. Washington's protection of Israel was ineffective, and the image that Israel was relying on the United States for protection was hard to stomach for ordinary Israelis. Shamir's decision to accommodate the Americans was extremely unpopular, because it was believed that it "would cause irreparable damage to Israel's deterrent capabilities," Halevi told me. To make matters worse, people around Shamir felt that the United States did not reward Israel for, in their view, effectively enabling the coalition to remain intact by refusing to retaliate against Iraq.

Just as Israeli retaliation against Iraq in 1991 would have been devastating for the US, an Israeli preventive attack against Iran today would spell disaster for US national security.

In July 2008, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned against any Israeli military action against Iran, saying that the Middle East would become "more unstable" and that it would put US forces under much stress, indicating that an Israeli attack on Iran would inevitably suck the US into war with Iran. "From the United States' perspective, the United States' military perspective, in particular, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us," Mullen told reporters.

A year later, Mullen's line was echoed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who warned that a military attack would only be a "temporary solution." "There's a lot of talk about a military effort to take out their nuclear capabilities, but, in my view, it would only be a temporary solution," Gates told reporters in September 2009.

Beyond the impact an Israeli attack on Iran would have on US national security, the first casualty of war with Iran would be the Iranian pro-democracy movement. Having shown great courage in challenging the Ahmadinejad government, the last thing Iran's pro-democracy activists need is for Iran to get embroiled in a military confrontation with Israel and the US. Their struggle for democracy will be infinitely more difficult in the midst of war.

Should diplomacy with Iran fail, and should Israel seek to attack Iran, America will have plenty of reasons to prevent such a disaster from taking place. And history shows that contrary to conventional wisdom, Washington has the ability to prevent Israel from taking actions that would endanger America.

Iran Approves Building 10 Uranium Enrichment Sites In Defiance Of UN Demands

2009-11-29T11:34:00Z

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran approved plans Sunday to build 10 industrial scale uranium enrichment facilities, a dramatic expansion of the program in defiance of U.N. demands it halt enrichment and a move that is likely to significantly heighten tensions with the West.

The decision comes only days after the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency censured Iran over its program and demanded it halt the construction of a newly revealed enrichment facility. The West has signaled it is running out of patience with Iran's continuing enrichment and its balking at a U.N. deal aimed at ensuring Tehran cannot build a nuclear weapon in the near-term future. The U.S. and its allies have hinted at new U.N. sanctions if Iran does not respond.

Daniel Wagner: Iran's Economic Vulnerabilities

2009-11-27T10:28:18Z

Although there is sharp political division for and against Ahmadinejad in Iran, there is virtual unanimity among all political factions that Iran must have nuclear weapons in order to protect itself. Given this, even if President Ahmadinejad and the hard line clerics were to be removed from power in Iran, the leadership that would follow would almost certainly support the continuation of Iran's nuclear weapons program.

As a result of Iranian intransigence, sanctions appear to be inevitable, even though the West continues to hope for a meaningful outcome. Although Russia's previous position against sanctions seems to be softening, it remains to be seen whether Russia will ultimately support robust economic sanctions. The Chinese are in any event unlikely to participate in a sanctions regime for two primary reasons. First, China wants to underscore its belief in the inherent rights of sovereign nations, and their own belief in non-interference in 'domestic' affairs. Second, the Chinese believe that the U.S. ultimately desires regime change, which stands in opposition to their own desire to strengthen their economic ties with, and derive future economic benefits from, Iran. Regardless of the relative success of future sanctions, they will have a net impact on all of Iran's trading partners.

The orientation of Western pundits toward the impact of politics on Iran's negotiating position has drawn the discussion away from the rather serious economic situation Iran is currently experiencing. Given its over-reliance on oil and gas revenues, Iran's economy is already under moderate strain. Depending on the direction of future hydrocarbon prices, the economy could become severely strained.

In order to balance its budget, Iran needs oil prices to rise above $95 per barrel and stay there. Projected oil revenue shortfalls in the current fiscal year will shift the budget into a large deficit position. As a result of conflicting budgetary demands and clashing political forces, the Ahmadinejad government lacks the political capital required to offset lower hydrocarbon receipts by cutting expenditures and/or raising non-oil revenues. If Ahmadinejad's political troubles deepen and capital flight accelerates, his ability to finance the looming budget deficit will become more limited.

Hydrocarbon exports account for more than 80% of Iran's total exports of goods and services, highlighting the current account's vulnerability to lower oil prices. In addition to price concerns, the physical volume of oil and gas exports is likely to decline over the foreseeable future due to the continuing lack of investment in the hydrocarbon sector. Iran's flexibility to run a current account deficit is therefore limited given its lack of access to international financing as a result of existing sanctions.

Iran posted strong growth in FY 2006-08 in response to the government's loose fiscal and monetary policies. Non-oil and gas GDP has been the main driver of growth, as oil and gas GDP growth has declined in recent years. The pace of economic activity more than halved over the most recent fiscal year due to the impact of the global recession. Growth is likely to slow further in FY 2009/10.

Inflation has receded, but its rapid escalation during FY 2008/09 exacerbated social and political strains. Unemployment did not improve much even when non-oil growth was picking up. As the Iranian "youth bulge" enters the labor market, the economy will be hard-pressed to create the 600,000-800,000 jobs per year necessary to keep up with labor force growth. This can only strengthen opposition political forces and complicate Ahmadinejad's ability to govern.

Foreign Direct Investment continues to suffer as political tensions with the West continue to rise. Of 17 oil and gas blocks put up for tender in February 2007, only three were awarded. And of the 12 oil and gas blocks put for tender in November 2008, none have been awarded. China and Russia continue to be the dominant source of Iran's international commercial relations. Russia's tentative support for future economic sanctions against Iran may change that. Economically, Iran has few friends in the world.

All this points to a rather challenging economic environment in which Ahmadinejad is now forced to operate. Even if hydrocarbon prices were to stabilize above the level necessary for Iran to balance its budget and current account next year, many of the inherent contradictions associated with the country's economic and political process will continue unabated. As the timeline for a decision on whether to impose stricter sanctions on Iran draws nearer, Ahamdinejad and the hard liners in the Iranian government will undoubtedly dig in their heels in a more pronounced fashion, placing the economy under even more strain.

The impact of Iran's economic plight on the nuclear negotiation process is likely to be severe. As the government reckons with its unfolding economic reality and the ongoing vocal opposition to Ahmadinejad's second term as President continues, its inclination will be to reject any meaningful oversight of Iran's low-enriched uranium, to continue to bide for more time to complete the nuclear production cycle, and to continue to justify its past actions.

The chance that there will be a sudden reversal in the government's approach to nuclear dialogue is close to zero. Iran is not bargaining from a position of strength, but weakness. The mismanagement of Iran's economy has only served to reduce the chance that further economic sanctions may be avoided.

Menachem Rosensaft: Finding Common Ground

2009-11-25T06:08:37Z

At a time when Judaeophobia -- a more accurate term than anti-Semitism in the context of Israeli-Arab or Jewish-Muslim relations -- is on a stark upswing in the Arab street, it is important for us to pay tribute to the efforts of the handful of Jewish and Muslim leaders who are fighting against hatred and extremism on both sides of the chasm that separates the respective descendants of Isaac and Ishmael.

Hardliners have long dismissed as naïve and utopian those Israelis and Palestinians who try to find common ground against the ongoing cycle of suicide bombings and rocket attacks followed by military reprisals.

They have a point. The shrill, hate-filled voices of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ilk continue to dominate the airwaves and shape the debate. Each time Ahmadinejad repeats his canard that the Holocaust is a "lie" and a "myth" purportedly invented by Western leaders to justify the creation of the State of Israel, we retreat to our ideological bunkers and reconcile ourselves to the disquieting probability that any perceived light at the end of the tunnel may well be a freight train heading straight at us.

Still, a consensus appears to be growing that dialogue with Israel's sworn enemies may be inevitable. The Israel government appears on the verge of exchanging imprisoned Palestinian terrorists in return for the release of IDF Sgt. Gilad Shalit who was kidnapped by the militant Hamas more than three years ago.

Shaul Mofaz, the former Chief of Staff of the Israel Armed Forces and Likud Defense Minister (now the second-in-command of the centrist Kadima Party) has not only presented an accelerated plan for Palestinian statehood but is prepared to negotiate with Hamas "if Hamas chooses and wants to sit at the negotiating table."

In this charged environment, those among us who remain committed to a political two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must recognize those individuals and organizations dedicated to bringing Jews and Muslims closer together, to shattering stereotypes and creating at least the beginning of a spirit of understanding and trust.

Rabbi Marc Schneier, a Vice President of the World Jewish Congress, believes that "Muslim leaders have an obligation to help prevent the toxic spreading of anti-Semitism among the Muslim masses . . . . In the same spirit, I believe that more Jewish leaders must speak out against Islamophobia, making clear that it is wrong to demonize an entire religion because of the hateful actions of a relative few."

Rabbi Schneier's Foundation for Ethnic Understanding has "twinned" American and European mosques and synagogues, and is endeavoring to bridge the Jewish-Muslim divide by forging a dialogue Imams and Rabbis from the United States, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The London-based Sheikh Dr. Muhammad al-Hussaini is taking part in this process because "it's absolutely critical at this juncture that there are Muslim voices that are willing to stand firmly and practice in opposition to Islamic-inspired anti-Semitism."

In France, the Foundation for the Memory of the Shoah is sponsoring Project Aladdin whose purpose is to spread awareness of the Holocaust in the Muslim world. Project Aladdin translated the Diary of Anne Frank into Arabic and Farsi. When Al-Manar, the television station of the Iranian-sponsored militant Hezbollah, called on Lebanese judicial authorities to prosecute those responsible for "distribution and import" of the classic work, Project Aladdin publicly condemned "this campaign of vilification and intimidation" and reiterated its conviction that reading the Diary "is a way towards the rejection of hatred, anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia. Reading the Diary must be one of the basic rights of every human being in any society."

Project Aladdin's Web site features Arab and other Muslim personalities who have written and spoken out about the importance of teaching the history of the Holocaust. Among them is Iraqi political analyst Bassem Mohammad Habib who denounced Holocaust denial as the result of "irrational doubt, promoted by certain parties under the guise of scientific inquiry."

Lebanese journalist Hazem Saghiya wrote in the daily pan-Arab newspaper Al-Hayat that Holocaust denial "is no longer tackled or discussed, except in intellectually retarded and educationally deficient circles. When the denial is being uttered by Arabs and Muslims, this adds another dimension, which is the inability to achieve any progress in reality, and then proceed to contest history with myth."

Abdulrrahman Wahid, the former President of Indonesia, and former Israeli Chief Rabbi Israel Meir Lau, jointly declared Holocaust denial to be "the most visible symptom of an underlying disease -- partly political, partly psychological, but mainly spiritual -- which is the inability (or unwillingness) to recognize the humanity of others. In fighting this disease, religious leaders have an essential role to play. Armed with the knowledge that God created religion to serve as rahmatan lil 'alamin, or a blessing for all creation, we must guard against efforts to demonize or belittle followers of other faiths."

There are precious few positive developments these days in the Arab-Israeli conflict. If we condemn Ahmadinejad and other patrons of terrorism, we must, with equal force, commend those Muslim intellectuals and religious leaders who have the courage to speak out publicly against the continued fomentation of Holocaust denial and other manifestations of Judaeophobia in their midst. They may yet prove to be one of the most significant factors in the elusive search for peace in the Middle East.

Menachem Z. Rosensaft is Adjunct Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, Vice President of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants, and a former National President of the Labor Zionist Alliance.

Omid Memarian: "A Death in Tehran" And the Most Influential Video of the Year

2009-11-23T13:45:12Z

After watching Frontline World's "A Death in Tehran" documentary, I can say, undoubtedly, that if we want to pick one picture or short video of 2009, in terms of impact and influence, it's the video that documented the moment Neda, a 27-year-old Iranian, was shot during the post elections unrest on the streets of Tehran last June; a video that penetrated layers of censorship and unmasked a government. The documentary beautifully exposes the Iranian government's fierce but failed endeavors to manipulate the truth.

Neda's story is a part of an unexpected reaction of hundreds of thousands of people who believed their votes were stolen from them after the June 12th disputed election; a reaction that completely messed with the Islamic Republic's narrative to portray Ahmadinejad's fabricated epic victory.

They forced foreign print, radio and TV journalists to leave the country and started a brutal, organized and premeditated crackdown. They controlled and censored the domestic media and used their gigantic and influential national TV to frame their own version of reality. They thought that they had the capability of creating a narrative, which could support their post-election crackdown in order to guarantee Ahmadinejad's second term in office. But their narrative failed to dominate the reality of Iranians or that of the outside world-view of the events.

Journalists, both foreign and domestic working in Iran, simply cannot report freely. Yet ethically, in order to cover a story a journalist must cover both sides; in this case, the side of the people and of the government. Even if the story is sometime disproportionate, they still give space and air time to both sides.

Once the authorities forced out and silenced the journalists the Iranian media was left without professional coverage of the post election incidences. This left the government on it's own to perpetuate it's narrative, which backfired and furthered the disproportionate coverage via the many videos and still shots taken by the thousands of protesters which ended up, almost instantaneously, on YouTube and shortly there after on dozens of TV channels. It was not like the situation with foreign journalists, whom they could control, threaten, cancel their visas and/or confiscate their cameras. It was out of their control. In terms of effectiveness, because there was no news corporations or biased reporting involved, it was brutally believable. It was pure story telling.

The Islamic Republic overwhelmingly put the blame on the BBC Persian TV channel, VOA and other news agencies accusing them of stimulating turbulence and directing the crowds. This was not because there was an actual systematic and planned involvement on the part of those media outlets but simply because those outlets overshadowed the government's propaganda machine which was filled with fabricated narratives of the election and post-election incidences.

I talked to two protesters who had been arrested and released after a few weeks of detention. They told me how they were brutally beaten when the police officers found out that they had shot videos of the protests.

Imagine you've spent millions of dollars to articulate and orchestrate a message and then a 20-year-old protester shoots a 1-minute video, uploads it onto YouTube and destroys your whole story. What would you do? I promise, it would make you mad. Those videos, like the one that captured the moments after Neda was shot, severely damaged the image of the Islamic Republic; damage that is very hard and next to impossible to control or reverse.

You might ask why? Or how, despite all the money that they spent and all of planning they did, could they lose their whole fight to cell phones and text messages and things like that?
The answer is simple. Regardless of their huge investment in devices to spy on people's private life, and despite all their effort to censor all media and filter Internet websites, the people who run the show in Iran belong to the pre-Internet era mentality. Their value system is binary based while the youth, the majority, are of the digital era. It's not just having or controlling such devices; it's more about a new way of thinking. It's more about a paradimg shift; a new way of sending a message, processing it and giving feedbacks. So, their attempts to monopolize the communication processes are feudal, and they don't get it.

Neda and at least 36 other protesters died during the post elections protests or in detention by the Iranian police and the others who led the systematic violence. Having said that, it seems very ironic; the Islamic Republic has damaged itself by the incompetency of its own propaganda machine, which was designed to preserve it. The leaders reliance on their own propaganda machine, designed to suppress the genuine movement of the people, effectively shot themselves in their foot.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President, Seeks New Legitimacy In Visit To Brazil (PHOTOS)

2009-11-23T09:18:34Z

(AP) BRASILIA, Brazil; Engaging, not isolating Iran is the way to push for peace and stability in the Middle East, said Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva as he headed into private talks Monday with his increasingly alienated Iranian counterpart.

For Silva, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's first-ever visit to Brazil provides an opportunity to boost the international political clout of South America's largest nation.

For Ahmadinejad, it could provide some sorely needed political legitimacy for his nation as it engages in large-scale war games aimed at protecting its nuclear facilities from attack and refuses to back down from developing a nuclear program.

Oil prices rose above $78 a barrel Monday amid deepening tensions in the Middle East following the start of the war games and boasts by an air force commander that Iran could deter any military strike by Israel.

Silva, who has defended Iran's nuclear program, didn't mention the war games ahead of his meeting with Ahmadinejad but gave him a big bear hug and called for diplomacy to push for peace in the Middle East and ease tensions between Iran, the United States and other nations.

"There's no point in leaving Iran isolated," the Brazilian leader said on his weekly radio program hours before the two met. "It's important that someone sits down with Iran, talks with Iran and tries to establish some balance so that the Middle East can return to a certain sense of normalcy."

Ahmadinejad is the third high-ranking Middle Eastern leader to visit Brazil in recent weeks. Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestine Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas were here shortly before him. During his radio show, Silva proposed a soccer game next March pitting Brazil's national team against a team comprising Israelis and Palestinians.

Silva, a deft negotiator whose skills were honed as a union leader, says a new tact is needed with the Iranians. It may not be as embracing as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, a close ally whom Ahmadinejad will also visit during his South America tour.

But it also shouldn't be as punitive as the U.S. or European approach, Silva said.

"I told President (Barack) Obama, I told President (Nicolas) Sarkozy, I told (German) Chancellor Angela Merkel that we will not get good things out of Iran if we corner them. You need to create space to talk," Silva said last month.

The Iranian leader will next visit allies in Bolivia and Venezuela to shore up more South American support

"With Brazil he gets more bang for his buck in the sense you're getting legitimacy from a more mainstream player," said Daniel Brumberg, an Iran expert at the Washington-based United States Institute of Peace. "One would hope Brazil's diplomacy would be skillful enough to get certain types of messages across to the Iranians and not just give Ahmadinejad the red-carpet treatment."

Ahmadinejad said Sunday that the two countries may discuss cooperation in the nuclear field, where Iran is under intense international pressure to stop uranium enrichment for fear that it is developing atomic weapons.

"We can build partnerships to build nuclear plants," he said in an interview with Brazil's Globo TV News. "Our two countries need nuclear power to generate electricity. Both Brazil and Iran are entitled to benefit from nuclear technology."

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Ahmadinejad said in Sunday's interview that critics are politically motivated and believe only wealthy countries should have the technology.

Several dozen Ahmadinejad supporters and opponents held demonstrations in Brasilia on Monday, a day after about 500 people gathered at Rio de Janeiro's Ipanema Beach to protest his visit.

Groups representing gays, Afro-Brazilian artists, Christians, Jews, and Holocaust survivors carried protest banners and a giant cage Sunday containing white balloons, which they said was a symbol of Iran's "repressed values."

The Iranian leader has called for the destruction of Israel and repeated in Sunday's interview that homosexuality goes against human nature.

Israel is voicing concern about Iran's push in Latin America. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman visited Brazil and Argentina in July and Israeli President Shimon Peres visited the same nations last week the first such high-level visits in decades.

Brazil has the world's seventh-largest uranium reserves and enriches it for its own nuclear energy program. The nation has flatly said it would not sell enriched uranium to Iran, or any other nation.

In addition to encouraging Brazil to press Iran on its uranium enrichment, the U.S. State Department said it hopes Brazil raises the case of three American hikers being held in Iran after they crossed an unmarked border while hiking in Iraqi Kurdistan in July. Ahmadinejad didn't mention the hikers during his interview with Globo TV.

___

Associated Press Writer Marco Sibaja contributed to this report.

Azeem Ibrahim: Why Israel Is Safer (From Iran) Than It Might Seem

2009-11-20T11:20:20Z

Is Iran's nuclear energy program just a cover for making nuclear weapons? If so, can it be prevented? And if not, will it attack Israel?

In thinking about these questions, it might help to imagine a scenario in which Iran did have nuclear weapons capability. I believe that doing so reveals three reasons why they would be unlikely to use it directly against Israel. None of these make it any less likely that Iran would seek to transfer their know how to Hizbollah, Hamas, or other groups. They just mean that the direct threat to Israel from an Iranian strike has been exaggerated.

First -- Ahmadinejad does not control Iran's foreign policy.

Most of the arguments that Iran is a threat to Israel center around Iranian President Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism and holocaust denial. But he does not make Iranian foreign policy, Khameini does. Khameini has been in office since 1989, throughout the period of relative detente with the West during Khatami's presidency, and through the violent and volatile Ahmadinejad years. Yes, there is evidence that Khameini is a tyrant comfortable sanctioning violence to hold onto power in Iran; no, there is no evidence that he is a psychopath whose hatred of Israel would drive him to order the murder of millions. Yes, there is evidence that he sanctions the sponsorship of anti-Israel terrorism to increase his influence in the region, but no, there is no evidence that he values a confrontation with Israel the reprisal from which would inevitably cause Iranian casualties and threaten the regime's already weak power structure (from within even if not from without).

Second -- Mutually assured destruction would prevent a nuclear first strike in the middle east, just as it did in the Cold War.

Renowned nuclear thinker Sir Michael Quinlan's (architect of decades of British nuclear policy and world expert on nuclear strategy) excellent thesis on nuclear strategy takes as its premise that nuclear weapons prevents conventional war between those states which possess them. Since their first use in 1945 that has remained true. He argues that they guarantee that any war between nuclear states stays within very limited confines as a result of their both having nuclear weapons. The Cold War seems to bear this out.

The counterargument is that the above rules do not apply because Ahmadinejad is crazy. The two counterarguments to this are that:

Iran has not actually shown irrationality in its foreign policy

As explained, Ahmadinejad doesn't run the foreign policy anyway

In short, if Iran had nuclear weapons, both Iran and Israel would know that any nuclear first strike by either would have unthinkable results and they wouldn't do it.

Third -- A nuclear first strike would not serve any realistic conception of Iran's interests.

There is plenty of evidence that Iran's strategy has been to increase its influence in the region. If this is so, a nuclear strike would not realistically serve that agenda.

Iran would alienate all allies

...lose any moral authority it may have acquired with allies such as Chavez etc

...very likely harm Palestinians due to extreme geographical proximity between Jewish and Palestinian populations, contributing further to the above two points

Fourth -- Israel has a sophisticated -- and tested -- anti-missile system called Arrow, which could knock out a potential Iranian first strike.

The Iranians are trying to buy an equivalent anti-missile system from Russia. But until they do, Israel can defend against Iranian missile attacks.

Conclusion -- Yes, there is a real danger that if Iran had nuclear weapons capability it could transfer that to Hizbollah, Hamas, or other groups, like they have in the past. Although Israel has conventional military superiority in the regions where those groups operate, that threat is not to be belittled.

But the particular threat that Israel is talking up -- that of a conventional nuclear strike from Iran if it makes nuclear weapons -- is overblown.

Ramin Pourandarjani's Death Raises Suspicions

2009-11-18T16:17:15Z

BEIRUT — An Iranian doctor who went public with reports of tortured protesters he treated at Tehran's most feared detention facility dies, amid conflicting reports of a heart attack, a car accident or suicide – raising opposition accusations that the 26-year-old was killed.

Revelations that protesters detained in Iran's postelection crackdown were tortured, some to death, were a deep embarrassment to the country's clerical rulers. Dr. Ramin Pourandarjani was pressured to change the death certificate of one of the most well known victims and later spoke to a parliament commission investigating the abuse, opposition Web sites reported.

UN: Once-Secret Iran Nuclear Facility To Start In 2011

2009-11-16T11:30:16Z

VIENNA — Iranian construction of a previously secret uranium enrichment site is at an advanced stage, with high-tech equipment already in place at the fortified facility ahead of its 2011 startup, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report Monday.

The revelation of the existence of the underground plant known as Fordo, near the holy city of Qom, has heightened concerns of other possible undeclared Iranian facilities that are not subject to IAEA oversight and therefore could be used for military purposes.

Iran Rulers More Brutal Than Shah, Opposition Says

2009-11-14T15:50:28Z

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's embattled opposition leaders accused the government of becoming more brutal than the shah's regime in Web statements Saturday, and authorities announced a new Internet crackdown aimed at choking off the reform movement's last real means of keeping its campaign alive.

Two of Iran's top pro-reform figures said police used excessive force against anti-government protesters who took to the streets last week on the sidelines of state-sanctioned rallies to mark the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Embassy takeover.

Amb. Marc Ginsberg: "Qum" Buy Ya

2009-11-13T16:20:59Z

On October 25th, inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were granted access to the secret and recently outed nuclear facility under construction in a secluded mountain inside an Iranian Revolutionary Guard base near the holy city of Qum.

We now have definitive confirmation from IAEA and European diplomats that the nuclear installation was too small for peaceful nuclear enrichment, but large enough to hold enough centrifuges to convert low grade enriched uranium into enough weapons-grade uranium needed to make nuclear warheads.

In other words, the Qum nuclear facility appears to be the smoking gun in Iran's secret nuclear weapons construction program. If the neutral IAEA has come to that conclusion, I can't wait to hear from those who would love to spin it as nothing more than an innocent doughnut factory.

So much for the value of the once vaunted November 2007 U.S. intelligence agencies' National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that proffered Iran was not engaged in any weapons-oriented uranium enrichment enterprise. Even before his inspectors finished their inspection of Qum, IAEA chief Mohamad ElBaradei directly accused Iran of violating its international legal obligations by failing to disclose the Qum facility to the IAEA.

Now what?

While the technical revelations regarding the Qum nuclear enrichment facility filter out as the IAEA prepares its final report to the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. is at a crossroads regarding Iran's nuclear program.

Cautious optimism that an Obama administration-orchestrated Geneva proposal whereby Iran would agree to ship 1200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to a third country for further enrichment under international supervision has evaporated. Living up to everyone's worst expectations of Iranian negotiating duplicity, the deal is now so bogged down with Iranian preconditions and qualifications to make further Western concessions to revive the tentative deal pointless, unless of course, Iran reverses course.

To make matters worse, Obama's engagement entreaties to Iran keep getting a "return to sender" response. And just yesterday Iran's state prosecutor signaled his intent to bring espionage charges against three detained American hikers -- making them pawns in this high stakes showdown. Moreover, Ayatollah Khamenei has gone out of his way in recent days to make pointed accusations against President Obama.

Even in the face of these Iranian retorts engagement efforts remain justified. But Iran's continued rejection of the Geneva plan, coupled with the IAEA's revelations regarding the illicit Qum nuclear facility are severely narrowing the Obama Administration's engagement policy options. All this coming at the worst possible moment for an administration trying to cope with other major foreign policy challenges. The president has stated he would give Iran until December to abide by its international obligations. Then, there will an effort to increase economic sanctions on Iran.

The atomic ayatollahs appear indifferent to any carrot or stick. Let's hope that is another Iranian negotiating ploy. Perhaps with its hands caught red-handed in the nuclear cookie jar the Iranians may reconsider and seek a face-saving way to avoid a showdown with the West and Israel. Unfortunately, there is nothing on the horizon to suggest Iran's leaders wish to meet Obama's outstretched hand half way.

Ahmadinejad: Capitalism Is Dead

2009-11-10T10:30:43Z

Istanbul, Turkey - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sought to bolster the Islamic Republic's regional standing at an economic summit for Muslim leaders in Turkey on Monday, by declaring that a "new era is starting" after the "definite defeat" of capitalism.

3 Journalists Freed By Iran

2009-11-07T21:10:03Z

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian authorities have released three journalists who were among more than 100 people arrested during pro-government and opposition street demonstrations this week, the country's official news agency reported.

One of the reporters, Farhad Pouladi, is an Iranian who works for Agence France-Presse. The other two are foreign reporters, but the report by the IRNA news agency did not identify them or say for whom they work.

Shirin Sadeghi: Iran Protests: Is Obama Staying on Ahmadinejad's Good Side?

2009-11-04T09:16:14Z

The Iranians are still coming. In droves.

Despite the intermittent media coverage in the United States, Iranians have not yet stopped protesting the June election. Throughout Tehran, Shiraz, and other major Iranian cities on November 4, Iranians of all ages took to the streets, capitalizing on the government's annual commemoration of the takeover of the US embassy 30 years ago, to commemorate the latest takeover: of the Iranian streets, by the people.

The protests were one of the biggest since the election day defiance of 5 months ago. And with big protest came big violence.

There are even reports that Neda's mother -- yes, that famous Neda -- has been arrested.

"There were something like 5 to 10 security personnel for each one of us protesters," says Ali, a protester who marched at Haft-e Tir Square today in Tehran. According to him, plainclothes officers are mixed into the crowds, while uniformed officers block pathways for the marches, and disperse the protesters.

"They divide us in the streets because they don't want international audiences to see how big our group is and they also want to be able to control us more easily."

Thousands of Iranians chanted "down with the dictator", referring to the Supreme Religious Leader, but also addressed the other big player in Iranian politics: President Obama.

"Obama, Obama: Ya ba oona, ya ba ma"

Translation: Either the US is with the Iranian government, or with the Iranian people. There's a difference, say the protesters.

"We are slowly starting to believe that maybe this is the government the US wants," says Parnia, another protester who participated in Tehran today, expressing frustration at US efforts to negotiate with the Iranian government.

"Either the US still doesn't understand that we don't want this government, or Obama is getting some sort of benefit out of staying on Ahmadinejad's good side."

She says that US history has repeatedly shown that when there is no longer any benefit to the relationship with another government, America stops playing nice.

"Look at the Shah -- the Americans put him aside once he started disobeying them. And look at Iraq and Afghanistan -- there wasn't any negotiation there, either."

But Parnia is quick to add that this isn't about military action against Iran but rather "taking steps to clearly demonstrate that Iran is not a partner for the US."

So the people march on.

And it's not just students, but Iranians of all ages. "We have elementary schoolers all the way up to retirees", Ali says.

According to him, sometimes the older protesters are much braver than the younger ones. "A 60-ish lady told me 'we were the ones who revolted 30 years ago, we regret it, so now we must help to fix this.'"

Andy Borowitz: Obama to Iran: Abandon Nukes or We Will Defriend You on Facebook

2009-10-30T07:59:16Z

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - Using his strongest rhetoric to date, President Barack Obama warned Iran today that if it did not abandon its nuclear program the United States would join with other Western nations to defriend Iran on Facebook.

As strongly worded as it was, the defriending threat, delivered in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, underscored the limited array of tools available to the President in countering Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"President Obama can and probably will convince other nations to defriend Iran," said one foreign policy insider who attended the President's speech. "Whether or not he can convince them to block Iran remains to be seen."

Blocking Iran on Facebook might be seen as a provocative measure, since it would prevent Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from playing some of his favorite Facebook games, such as What Anti-Semitic Celebrity Are You?

Elsewhere, many American children will be going as Northwest pilots for Halloween, meaning they will just stay in their rooms and play on their laptops. More here.

Robert Amsterdam: Lula's Red Carpet Welcome for Ahmadinejad

2009-10-29T14:16:52Z

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, affectionately nicknamed Lula, comes as close to being a global rock star as a politician can get. But like any towering celebrity, there are some troubling developments behind all the glamour.

With less than a year to go before finishing his second term in office, Lula is riding a wave of popularity that is virtually unprecedented in Latin American history (75-80% approval ratings). The Brazilian economy, with the swagger of its BRIC status, has swelled over the past decade and survived the crisis, championed by many investors to be the top emerging market for growth over the short term (5% GDP growth speculated for this year). The President himself has been beatified to almost-sainthood in several films, including the latest high-budget biopic entitled "Lula, Son of Brazil," which has many guessing that he's aiming to become Secretary General of the United Nations. All that, plus he just got them the Olympics and the World Cup.

Why then, with so much going for him and his country, should he make such controversial choices in his friends? Lula's increasingly warm embrace of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, including an official state visit to Brazil Nov. 23-26, is causing many of his fawning admirers to rub their eyes in disbelief.

For those of us who enthusiastically support Brazil and its people, culture, and economy, the logic of the relationship with Iran is perplexing. There is no overlap in values, for example. This week Iran executed five people (including women), while another 135 juvenile offenders are on death row. Second only to China in capital punishment, Iran has also issued death sentences to five people now accused of fomenting unrest during the post-elections protests - a number which is likely to grow. Brazil, on the other hand, has proudly outlawed capital punishment since 1889, the second country of Latin America to adopt such a law.

The low level of trade between the two countries fails to provide an explanation either. Iran doesn't figure among the top 20 trade partners either for purchasing Brazilian exports or sending imports, and although Ahmadinejad has excitedly said that relations with Brazil have "no limits," even oil minister Azizollah Ramezani has stated that it is too far away to be a potential market for hydrocarbons (though oil and gas technical expertise is an area of interest).

The professed area of mutual interests is in the nuclear sphere. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki describes Brazil as holding a "common position" on rights to nuclear energy, while on Brazil's behalf Lula has repeatedly voiced his opposition to sanctions.

However, the true motivations behind the Brazil-Iranian relationship have very little to do with these statements. For Brazil, the elephant in the room is Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, whose own jovial relations with Iran and the purchase of $6 billion in Russian arms are prompting his neighbors to take action toward containment. What better way to procure information on what Iran is doing with its new "factories" in remote parts of Venezuela than strike up a competing relationship - which could also be the logic of Brazil hijacking the Honduran situation from Chávez's control by housing ousted President Mel Zelaya in their embassy.

During a visit this month to Brasilia, I was repeatedly told that the government believes that Chávez can be most influenced by keeping him close. Hence the hasty vote today to confirm Venezuelan ascension to Mercosur despite their failing to meet conditions set forth in the Treaty of Asunción. Many would call Brazil's decision to incorporate Chávez into Mercosur as naïve, but at the time of this writing President Lula was already boarding a plane for a coincidental visit to Caracas to celebrate Venezuela's entry at a presidential dinner.

Though there are other explanations for Lula to pursue his Iran policy (his South-South agenda, generalized anti-American goals, or bolstering Brazil's diplomatic clout in the UN), the balancing strategy with Venezuela is the most convincing. He feels that he has to create these alliances as measures of security to catch up with Chávez, which demonstrates once again that the Venezuela's activities cannot just be dismissed as harmless mischief-making by Washington. Testifying before Congress this week, Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Council of the Americas, underscored this threat and commented that Brazil is "playing with fire" in bringing Iran into the region.

Venezuela is not only having an impact on foreign policies of neighboring states (Ecuador's Rafael Correa is in Moscow today), but also in the arms race Chávez has kicked off. Lula recently commented, "Everyone knows Brazil is a peaceful nation, but we need to be able to show our teeth if anyone wants to mess with us."

As for Iran's interest in Latin America, their thinking goes that the further they are able to penetrate into Washington's backyard, the safer they become. By increasing the costs of intervention, the Latin American strategy provides a staging ground for a real or imagined threat to the United States, which aims to have a dissuasive impact on the push for sanctions and diplomatic pressure. To boot, after a questioned election, it is always good to receive the congratulations of the global leader of the responsible left.

At the moment it is hard to say whether Lula, despite his celebrity and admirable achievements, is in over his head with Iran. Brazil is an impressive growing power, and one that has changed dramatically in the recent past, so it is understandable that its assertion of international leadership is fraught with challenges and inconsistencies. Soon the country's influence will be too big to simply shrug off issues of human rights and democracy without costs to its reputation.

This may already be happening. The most callous and frightening thing Lula has said with regard to Iran came shortly after the June elections, when demonstrations erupted and the police truncheons came down violently on the heads of protesting students. Quoted in the Brazilian media, Lula described these events as nothing more than the tears of poor "losers." That is not a hopeful message for those brave young men and women who now face show trials and execution for having attempted to change their country. Coinciding with the sports analogy, Fabio Barretto, the director of the latest glowing Lula biopic, was recently quoted saying, "In Brazil, there are no losers ... only people who keep trying until they succeed."

It would be nice if Lula's own story could mean something more outside of Brazil.

Ahmadinejad: We Will Cooperate With West, But No Retreat "Even An Iota" Over Nuclear Right

2009-10-29T08:34:05Z

VIENNA, Austria — Iran has given an initial response to a plan that calls for Tehran to ship most of its enriched uranium abroad, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Thursday. An official familiar with Iran's response said Tehran was unwilling to accept the deal, which would delay Tehran's ability to make a nuclear weapon.

The U.S. and allied countries were seeking Iranian agreement to ship out 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium to Russia in one shipment for further enrichment and conversion into fuel for a Tehran research reactor.

Reza Pahlavi: Cries for Democracy in Iran

2009-10-26T23:33:56Z

This year marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thirty years ago, Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran from exile to found a totalitarian theocracy -- the likes of which we have not seen for hundreds of years, perhaps even since medieval Europe. Thirty years ago, Iranian militants took American embassy workers hostage. Thirty years ago was the last time I saw Iran. To this day, I have not been able to return.

In 1979, the new Iranian clerical regime promised the Iranian people a republic. By definition, a "republic" is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of its citizens. But in the last thirty years, Iranians have experienced an archaic system of theocracy tyrannically take hold.

The struggle in Iran today is about human rights and democracy. The struggle is not about the moderate camp versus the radical camp, rather it pits the forces of state despotism and religious fundamentalism against a nation that demands democracy, rejects military fundamentalists and repudiates the concept of a Supreme Leader. The issue in Iran is not which faction of the Islamic Republic can meet the demands of the Iranian people, but rather what system other than a self-appointed theocratic dictatorship can save Iran.

Every night, the brave sons and daughters of Iran shout from their rooftops for freedom. We know the day will come when those cries are answered, when the system of governance in Iran is one that belongs to the people -- a system that is both secular and democratic.

In the 19th Century, British writer George Jacob Holyoake coined the term "secularism" to describe a social order that is separate from religion and faith but that does not condemn religious beliefs. History has proven that Holyoake's philosophy is a feasible one.

The catch? You need a real democracy.

In a country where one supreme theologian selects six clerics directly and another six clerics indirectly to create an almighty Council of Guardians, and then has those twelve clerics approve the three candidates who can run for president, and then the government disenfranchises the people's vote, you do not have democracy. In a regime that bans coverage by international media, silences and imprisons its reporters, and murders its freedom-seeking youth, you do not have democracy. In an Islamic Republic, with a Supreme Leader at the helm, it is clear where the "supreme" power vests. And it is not with the people.

I envision a democratic Iran where leaders are elected through free and fair elections, where each individual's vote is a meaningful one. I envision an Iran where social, religious and cultural groups are both tolerated and celebrated.

Democracy, in addition to vesting power in a people, entails a robust exercise of human rights. Iranians have suffered the regime's brutal disregard of their most basic human rights. The world has witnessed the bloody Basij attempting to crush a hopeful and peaceful opposition movement. Daily, accounts of torture, rape and murder at the hands of the current regime amass. The Islamic Republic of Iran has shamelessly eroded the freedoms of equality and expression and the rights to life and liberty to which every human being is entitled.

History has taught us that the respect and revival of these fundamental liberties require a representative, democratic state. The case for a secular, democratic Iran must rest most firmly on this notion of human rights. But the tentacles of democracy would also reach the foreign policy front.

As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has never actually been denied their sovereign right to nuclear technology and peaceful civilian use of it. However, without democracy, the world distrusts their motives. The issue is not nuclear capabilities, but rather, whose finger is on the trigger. And currently, that finger belongs to a Holocaust-denying, Hamas-supporting, brutal regime that kills its own people shamelessly. The current regime has demonstrated a perverse lack of transparency in its dealings with the international community. And only when true democracy reigns, can international credibility prevail.

I remain hopeful that in the face of the brutality and intransigence of the mullahs' regime, we will come together inside and outside Iran, in support of the higher ideals of secular democracy, majority rule and respect for human rights. In the aftermath of the June elections, people poured onto the streets to demand the end of tyranny powered by the manipulation of faith. The power of the people of Iran is this regime's Achilles' heel.

Secular democracy now inevitably awaits Iran. Let us remember that in a secular democracy, no one man incarnates what is good for a people. The movement in Iran belongs to everyone.

Rep. Keith Ellison: Why Increased U.S. Sanctions on Iran Don't Work

2009-10-26T12:16:39Z

Fifteen years of sanctions on Iran have taught us one important lesson: They have not produced the intended results. More sanctions are unlikely to produce results now. In fact, additional sanctions, while satisfying some, are more likely to produce results that we do not intend. If we impose increased sanctions, we will likely strengthen President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hand and risk snuffing out the emerging democracy movement in Iran.

No doubt about it: The Iranian government armed with nuclear weapons is objectionable. And the U.S. must stand firmly on key issues like human rights.

But, Congress needs to give President Barack Obama's diplomatic efforts a chance before increasing sanctions. So far, President Obama's disciplined diplomacy is working. There is finally some progress in dealing with Iran's nuclear aspirations. President Obama's diplomacy has yielded an agreement that increases inspections and verification, and reduces Iran's stockpiles of enriched uranium. This is a good step.

If Congress insists on further sanctions on Iran, it could derail President Obama's diplomatic efforts at this delicate time. Iranian Americans, like Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, agree:

The progress we have seen is partly due to Obama's ability to unite the Security Council. But if Congress moves forward with sanctions that target our allies, the unity will collapse. Where Obama has been a uniter, Congress will become a divider.

Increasing sanctions enables the Iranian president the opportunity to change the subject -- from his failed policies to the nationalistic pride symbolized by nuclear energy. Right now the Iranian people are focused on accountability for abuses committed after an election that was deeply flawed. What the world witnessed this summer was the birth of a civil rights movement in Iran. We need to listen to, help and not hinder the Iranian people at this critical moment.

Iranian leaders like Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji tell us that sanctions will only hurt the people of Iran. Opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi has denounced sanctions, saying that anyone who supports his "Green" movement should also oppose additional sanctions. According to Mousavi, "Sanctions would not actually act against the government -- rather, they would only inflict statesmen. We are opposed to any types of sanctions against our nation. This is what living the Green Path means."

Researchers agree that increased sanctions on Iran will not serve U.S. interests. A recent report by the RAND Corporation documented a growing corollary between the power of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, a branch of the military associated with much of Iran's corruption -- and sanctions. With inflation in Iran at over 20 percent and with manufacturing in serious decline, sanctions will only lead to higher prices and greater black-market trade, which is already controlled by the Revolutionary Guard.

Michael Axworthy, a lecturer in Middle Eastern and Iranian history at the University of Exeter in England, thinks that increased U.S. sanctions on Iran are exactly what the Revolutionary Guard wants. He said, "(The Revolutionary Guard) profit by a situation in which there are sanctions and shortages and in which the people can't get what they want, and they are able to control a fairly small stream of what the people want at an inflated price. I don't think the Revolutionary Guard is very likely to put pressure on the Iranian regime to open politically in order to open economically."

Iran has been able to ward off some consequences of sanctions by boosting trade with Russia, China and India. The more we take trade opportunities away from American businesses the more Russian and Chinese businesses step into the vacuum.

Increased sanctions have not worked in Iran. When they do "work," they likely do so at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable -- as they did in Iraq. Researcher Richard Garfield estimated "a minimum of 100,000 and a more likely estimate of 227,000 excess deaths among young Iraqi children from August 1991 through March 1998" from all causes including sanctions.

Iran's political leaders use polarizing rhetoric to demonize the United States and allies. But they are also shrewd. Increased sanctions at this time, while actually harming their own people, rally and strengthen the nation's resolve to further its nuclear ambitions in the name of self defense. If we fall prey to their trap, we run the risk of losing both a nuclear-free, and a democratic, Iran.

The change we seek in Iran can only be brought about through a disciplined dialogue and determined diplomacy, as President Obama's talks are showing.

Ellison serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Saad Khan: Iran, Balochistan and Pakistan: The Next Insurgent Frontier?

2009-10-24T12:41:21Z

In a recent suicide attack in southeastern Iran, dozens of Revolutionary Guards lost their lives along with an important commander. Jundullah, an important Balochi resistance group with alleged links to Al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility for this attack. Jundullah is active in the Sistan-Baluchestan province where these attacks took place. True to its policy of aggression, Iran immediately blamed Pakistan for facilitating these terrorists and demanded the extradition of Abdel Malik Rigi; the alleged leader of Jundullah hiding in Pakistan. Ahmadinejad also embroiled the United States and Britain as responsible for these attacks. An Iranian general went to the extent of asking permission to attack Pakistan to capture the alleged perpetrators of this attack.

Now let us dissect Iranian policy in the Sistan-Baluchestan province of Iran, which has seen a lot of military offensives in recent years. The province is dominated by ethnic Balochis; they are Sunnis and thus practice a different sect of Islam from the majority Shiite Iranians. Iran has a long history of oppressing Balochis and denying them basic human rights. Hundreds have been brutally murdered on false charges of terrorism while thousands are under police detention.

They are denied of proper education and economic opportunities and are one of the poorest ethnic groups in Iran. Their situation in neighboring Pakistan is not much different except for the fact that they are allowed to freely practice their faith. A brutal army "oppression" is underway in Pakistani Balochistan and there have been reports of widespread violation of human rights. Pakistani Balochistan also shares a border with Afghanistan and the capital city of Quetta has a strong presence of Taliban, along with speculation about Mullah Omar, and the American ambassador in Pakistan expressed serious concerns over it.

Balochistan has all the ingredients that could conjure up major trouble for U.S forces in Afghanistan. If the Taliban council of elders is present in Balochistan, Pakistani authorities need to take stern action. They, however, have denied these reports and are still intent on their excuses for the surging power of the Taliban. The recent offensive in South Waziristan will fail to achieve any positive results if Pakistani authorities do not act on American intelligence reports and comb up the Baloch areas.

Coming back to Iran, Ahmadinejad is following the old policy of stretched truth, and is not ready to accept the grave mistakes in the Balochistan region. How can the government expect the Baloch people to be faithful if they continue killing them, and impose the dirtiest restrictions on freedom of religious practice? The Iranian part of Balochistan is free of any Taliban due to tight border security.

Iran, on the other hand, was involved in fueling terrorism activities in Pakistan when the country saw some of the worst sectarian rioting between the majority Sunnis and minority Shiites in the 1980s and 1990s. Saudi Arabia also supported the Sunni groups as Pakistan became a victim of proxy war between these two countries. Sectarian tensions have died down in recent years except in the volatile tribal region of Parachinar where Shiites are a significant minority.

The ultimate victims are the poor Balochis, who face a double whammy: they are unable to practice their faith and live normal lives in Iranian Balochistan; they are free to practice their faith in Pakistan but face equal injustices and economic and racial discrimination. Covert military offensives are carried out in both of these regions on the pretext of countering liberation movements. There is, of course, an air of resistance in Baloch areas as they are fed up with decades of discrimination and brutal police and army offensives.

Pakistani Balochistan, specifically, is seeing a shift towards a liberation struggle -- headed by the Balochistan Liberation Army -- and nascent repercussions of this movement are evident from infrequent attacks on military personnel and installations. The strategic importance of Balochistan is evident from its geographical location at the cross roads of Middle East and South Asia. Additionally, the construction of Gwadar port as an alternative to the narrow Strait of Hormuz -- through which most of the Gulf region's oil supply passes, and where the Iranian threat is always present --has further exalted the position of Balochistan in the eyes of international security establishment. China is deeply interested in this region and has already shown its interest by building the Gwadar port for Pakistan.

The proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline will also pass from this region and the area itself is quite rich in mineral resources. Pakistan extracts a major chunk of its natural gas supplies from this area and there are also big deposits of gold, uranium and copper. Iranian Balochistan, on the other hand, also has these mineral deposits and the Iranian government is exploring them to a greater extent.

Despite being rich in mineral resources and located in one of the most geographically important regions in the world, Balochis are suffering in silence. Decades of injustice and discrimination has shredded the "near non-existent" Baloch middle class to the core and extremist forces have taken over. This trend is really threatening the regional security and Pakistan is already crying about an Indian hand in supporting Baloch separatists. The iron-fisted military presence of Iran has kept that region in relative calm except for infrequent suicide bombings and skirmishes. There is, however, no guarantee of a sustained peace as the Iranian military may start a major -- and of course brutal -- offensive in that region to avenge the death of its Revolutionary Guards. Public reaction from that offensive can further complicate the situation.

At the end of the day, Balochs are the real inhabitants of this region and they should have the final say in their matters. Before that, they need to be freed from the military brutality of both Iran and Pakistan. Iran, in particular, has to mend its ways, as it has barred Balochs from practicing their faith besides keeping them destitute and impoverished . Although Balochs are not as religiously fanatic as the Pashtuns, curbing their religion is one of the biggest reasons for disenfranchisement and the Iranian government knows about it. Additionally, a lack of economic development and the dominance of the Persians needs to be ended; this should be the case with Pakistan as well, as Punjabis dominate the economy of Balochistan and there is growing resentment against this hegemony.

Fissures in Balochistan -- both Iranian and Pakistani -- can be controlled and a disaster can be avoided if -- and only if -- an average Baloch is empowered and included in the mainstream of national life in both these countries. Otherwise, the world should be prepared for another security disaster in the middle of a region with great strategic importance and rivers of natural resources.

Kian Tajbakhsh, Iranian-American Academic, Gets 12 Years For Election Unrest

2009-10-20T08:55:43Z

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran ignored appeals by Hillary Rodham Clinton and even rock star Sting and sentenced an Iranian-American academic to 12 years in prison Tuesday for his alleged role in anti-government protests after the country's disputed presidential election.

The sentence for Kian Tajbakhsh was the longest prison term yet in a mass trial of more than 100 opposition figures, activists and journalists in the postelection turmoil.

Daniel Levin: Historical Revisionism on the Temple Mount

2009-10-19T16:10:09Z

Last week, clashes on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem provided a Fatah spokesman, Dmitri Dilani, another opportunity to reaffirm the Palestinian Authority's denial of any Christian or Jewish historical connection to the Temple Mount. "Do not call it the Temple Mount," Dilani corrected an American interviewer. "No one can find any trace of the Temple. The area you refer to is only a Muslim holy site."

It seems Iranian President Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial is not the only historical revisionism taking root in Middle Eastern politics. The assertion that no Judeo-Christian history ever happened in Jerusalem is fast becoming a central tenet of Palestinian nationalism.

Last month, the top religious official in the Palestinian Authority, Sheik Tamimi, issued a more sweeping denial of any ancient Hebraic or early Christian presence in Jerusalem, saying all excavated artifacts proving those traditions' historical link to the Mount are "forgeries." In Jerusalem, archaeology has long been politics, but this open rejection of a Judeo-Christian connection to Jerusalem has become -- like a weed slowly swallowing an ancient ruin -- a growing force that may permanently endanger Jerusalem's ancient and modern past.

During the research for my recent novel, The Last Ember, I saw the physical consequences of this revisionism. The Waqf Authority -- the Islamic land trust that has administered the Temple Mount since the 12th century -- has used bulldozers to destroy Judeo-Christian ruins beneath the Mount. I toured the rubble firsthand and saw the crushed Herodian-era glass, Temple pottery, and smashed Templar crosses. The Israeli archaeologists sifted through the piles like medics surveying a battlefield with no survivors.

The Supreme Court of Israel has declared that the Waqf Authority violated antiquities laws on 35 occasions by removing more than twenty thousands of tons of archaeologically rich soil, and dumping them in the adjacent Kidron Valley. Because of the touchy international jurisdiction of the Mount, neither UNESCO officials nor Israeli archaeologists can enforce archaeological supervision. The Waqf carefully regulates the entrance of non-Muslims like Manchu priests guarding the forbidden city. Christians and Jews may enter only four hours daily, and no non-Muslim prayer is permitted on the sacred site.

In 2007, a U.S. Congressional bill was introduced "condemning the Waqf's digging activities at the Temple Mount site and deploring the destruction of artifacts vitally important to Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths."

Sadly, the media response to this pandemic of physical revisionism on the Temple Mount has been silence. The UN World Heritage Sites Committee has not pressured the Waqf to permit supervision of its construction of subterranean mosques beneath the Temple Mount.

Before the UN last week, Netanyahu responded to Ahmadinejad's modern revisionism by holding up a photocopy of a Nazi memo that outlined the extermination of the Jewish race. But he combated the ancient revisionism, too. He quoted the inscription on a UN building near where he stood. "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation," he told the other UN delegates, reminding them that those words were written by the Jewish prophet Isiah in Jerusalem nearly 3000 years before. "We are not strangers to that land."

Ancient historical revisionism has consequences beyond the history books, as special U.N. envoy George Mitchell's failure last month to bridge gaps between Israel and the Palestinian negotiators reminds us. Why should the international community be able to assist building the region's future when it won't commit to protecting the last ember of its ancient past?

Iran Suicide Bomb: Senior Revolutionary Guard Commanders Killed In Iran Bomb

2009-10-18T03:36:43Z

TEHRAN, Iran — A suicide bomber killed five senior commanders of the powerful Revolutionary Guard and at least 37 others Sunday near the Pakistani border in the heartland of a potentially escalating Sunni insurgency.

The attack – which also left dozens wounded – was the most high-profile strike against security forces in an outlaw region of armed tribal groups, drug smugglers and Sunni rebels known as Jundallah, or Soldiers of God.