On March 31st, we published an article entitled Russian Intelligence Services State US Is Preparing For Attack On Iran. We were not the first to break the story, and in fact, were behind the curve and found the story posted on the Digg Community. The article was well received, however, we noticed that it was being read by an enormous amount of state governmental agencies as well as a “who’s who” of federal entities - many of whom followed every link and spent a substantial amount of time reading, and then making return visits to the same article. It ls unconscionable that our Mainstream News Media hasn’t followed-up on and reported facts that indicate the United States is on a clear path to war with Iran:
On April the 2nd, and again on April the 5th, Russian sources reported the US was gong to strike Iran within two (2) weeks, yet not a word is mentioned on the MSM or in the Halls of Congress:
Russia ‘Alarmed’ As US Readies April Nuclear Attack On Iran
By News Director on April 5th, 2008
Russian Foreign Ministry Officials are reported to be ‘alarmed’ today over a ‘presentation’ made by the United States War Leaders to President Putin at this weeks NATO summit in Romania and which details the Americans plan to begin a nuclear attack against Iran’s atomic facilities in the next two weeks.
Most disturbing of these reports, according to Foreign Ministry Analysts, are the United States ‘offers and threats’ towards Russia to ‘remain neutral’ in this conflict or face the combined weight of the American and EU central banks deliberate collapsing of the Western banking system, and US dollar, and which is estimated will cause the loss of nearly $800 billion of Russian foreign reserves.
To the ‘offers’ presented to President Putin for keeping Russia out of this war, these reports continue, will be NATO’s rejection of Ukraine and Georgia membership into the Western Military Alliance and the ending of the planned US Missile Shield being planned for Poland and the Czech Republic. MUCH MORE
The same information was reported on April 2nd at “War In Iraq”
The MSM is concentrating on the upcoming November elections and the economy in the US - essentially using it as cover for failing to warn us of an impending attack against Iran. When we are faced with an issue that affects every American here and abroad, it’s time to bombard the MSM with emails, letters to the various editors, and calls to Congress to demand answers. On an issue this serious, the least the MSM could do is to try and debunk what is stated on the news in other countries - tell us why it’s not a problem, and assure us that our military isn’t readying themselves to attack Iran. If Russia is stating that they have evidence an attack on Iran is imminent, I believe that it is not only newsworthy, but to ignore a threat as dire as an attack that could be a precursor to WW III, if the MSM refuse to uphold their responsibility to warn the people, they are as guilty as those who make the final decision to begin the attack.
I expected an answer, either vague or an outright denial from the MSM or Congress itself, similar to the response Congress made when thousands of Americans jammed-up their phones in regard S 1959; with the substantiation that was offered on this issue, it’s fair to say many Americans were making calls and demanding answers, none which I expected until the pressure began to mount-up - and for the first time, I was actually shocked when exactly the opposite occurred:
Conyers: “If Bush Goes Into Iran, He Should Be Impeached”
John Conyers just finished up a panel with John Cole and Christy Hardin Smith at Take Back America with words that were heartening to everyone made just a wee bit uneasy by the recent retirement of Admiral Fallon and the implications it might have for war with Iran:
“If Bush Goes Into Iran, He Should Be Impeached,” said Conyers. (Emphasis added.)
Conyers also said that with regard to FISA, the House was going into conference with the Senate. That the Senate wanted to give retroactive immunity to the telecoms, and that the House is saying “let a judge decide.” But he also made the point that it wasn’t just the Republicans who were the problem: LINK
After reading the above statement, it’s obvious that it isn’t just “conspiracy theorists” who believe Bush/Cheney are readying an attack against Iran. The timing of Mr. Conyer’s statement is remarkable, and while I believe his intentions are good - he, as well as the rest of the country need to wake-up and understand that if we attack Iran - soon thereafter the United States will fall under martial law! How will you impeach Bush when he assumes control of “all aspects of the government?” This is one time that Congress and the American people won’t get a second chance - and it’s up to us to apply the pressure to ensure that each and every member of Congress hears us loud and clear!
Why do I “assume” that an attack against Iran will be a precursor to Martial Law? Actually, when we look to past news reports and our own assessment of Iran’s “QUDS Force” - it’s an event that anyone in possession of the facts would suspect and expect to occur soon after Iran is attacked by the United States and/or Israel. The QUDS Force, which is Iran’s version of our own Special Forces, is a highly trained group of Iran’s most elite fighters - and some of them are already in the United States!
In 2006, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made this statement, and while he didn’t elaborate, US military analysts have indicated Iran’s QUDS force are capable of inflicting serious attacks on the continental United States. Obviously, to carry out attacks within our own borders would indicate the QUDS force has built-up it’s presence within our country, and unfortunately, there is evidence their efforts to infiltrate the United States have been successful:
AP: Iran threatens U.S. with harm & pain
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, March 08, 2006
VIENNA, Austria - Iran threatened the United States with “harm and pain” Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, waves to supporters in western of Iran, Wednesday, March. 8, 2006. Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that Iran has made its decision to pursue a peaceful nuclear program and the world has to give in to Iran’s right for uranium enrichment. Ahmadienjad was apparently referring to the United States which has rejected a Russian proposal to allow Iran carry out research-scale uranium enrichment in return for suspension of large-scale enrichment. LINK
Again, I’m citing a report from 2006, and since then, our relationship with Iran has deteriorated dramatically. Ahmadinejad has made several threats against the United States based on Bush and Cheney’s constant rhetoric - threats which several military analysts take seriously. Even worse, there is now substantial evidence that the QUDS force has already successfully entered the United States, and no one is aware of what they brought with them to sabotage our country.
As Immigration Bill Stalls, U.S. Border Invites Terrorists
Along with Massachusetts Democrat Ted Kennedy, the Arizona Republican co-sponsored immigration legislation currently stalled in the Senate. McCain should recognize that without a barrier or fence, the U.S./Mexican frontier will keep welcoming Islamic extremists pledged to America’s doom.
This is not hypothetical. (Emphasis added.)
“Members of Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist organization, have already entered the United States across our southwest border,” declares “A Line in the Sand,” a January report of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Investigations, then-chaired by Texas Republican Michael McCaul.
The study cites FBI Director Robert Mueller’s March 2005 congressional testimony confirming that, “there are individuals from countries with known al-Qaeda connections who are changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic-sounding names and obtaining false Hispanic identities, learning to speak Spanish, and pretending to be Hispanic immigrants.” (Emphasis added.)
Zapata County, Texas Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez told House members last July: “If smugglers can bring in tons of marijuana and cocaine at one time and can smuggle 20 to 30 persons at one time, one can just imagine how easy it would be to bring in two or three terrorists or their weapons of mass destruction across the river and not be detected.” MORE
You may ask yourselves what damage a few, or maybe even hundreds of QUDS force operatives in the United could inflict upon our country? Iran is a closed society, and while Bush and Cheney are constantly harping on Iran’s nuclear program, there are also reports that Iran is capable of and may be in possession of sophisticated biological weapons. A report from 1996 stated that Iran would be able to deliver biological agents via their military in approximately 10 years, which has already passed. There isn’t a lot of information available to ascertain whether or not Iran still has a covert biological weapons program, but based on tensions that have been building for years, I believe that if attacked, Iran will not hesitate to attack our nation with a ferocity that may take our war planners off-guard. (Again…)
We already know they are here, and several stories from the border indicate their efforts at infiltrating the US has been successful:
Texas Sheriffs: Terrorists Entering U.S. from Mexico
NewsMax.com Wires Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2006
This article by Kevin Mooney originally appeared at CNSNews.com.
The chief law enforcement officers of several Texas counties along the southern U.S. border warn that Arabic-speaking individuals are learning Spanish and integrating into Mexican culture before paying smugglers to sneak them into the United States. The Texas Sheriffs’ Border Coalition believes those individuals are likely terrorists and that drug cartels and some members of the Mexican military are helping them get across the border.
Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez of Zapata County, Texas told Cybercast News Service that Iranian currency, military badges in Arabic, jackets and other clothing are among the items that have been discovered along the banks of the Rio Grande River. The sheriff also said there are a substantial number of individuals crossing the southern border into the U.S. who are not Mexican. He described the individuals in question as well-funded and able to pay so-called “coyotes” - human smugglers - large sums of money for help gaining illegal entry into the U.S. MORE
The evidence that the QUDS force and Al Qaeda have successfully entered our nation is undeniable, and even though we have evidence they are using the porous southern border as an entry point, the gaping hole in our national security is still open, an invitation to anyone that has the desires to covertly enter our country. Even worse than conventional methods for entering our country, the southern border offers potential terrorists an entry point that will also accommodate their weapons, and none of us knows what they might be. Below are several links that also indicate our country is being infiltrated by people who’s intention is to inflict as much damage upon the country as they can in the event of war:
Our nation consists of thousands of square miles of terrain and vital infrastructure, any which could be terrorist targets. From simple targets like oil terminals, pipelines, major power-grid switching stations, Dams, you name it, our infrastructure is laid out in a way that attacks could occur where least expected but would still create a lot of confusion, stress, and wondering where a “safe haven” exists, if there is one. If they have biological weapons, the way the bulk of our water supply is configured and other factors, spreading a deadly disease is much easier than you can imagine. We also have to understand the Iranian philosophy and the reputation of the QUDS force They are hand-picked and rival our own special forces in physical prowess and may surpass us in mental conditioning. As a military unit they are a formidable adversary on the battlefield, but left to their own devices in an open society, the havoc they could wreak upon this nation could be monumental. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be arrogant, speaks when silence would better serve his purpose, and seems intent on not giving an inch - but we must also remember that the Bush administration turned-down Iranian overtures for peace in 2003. Middle-East experts speculate that Bush ignoring previous peaceful initiatives from Iran is largely responsible for their current hard-line stance. While Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is abrasive and seems intent on making the US blink first, I don’t believe that he is stupid either!
He must know that he is treading on thin ice, and while he seems assured the US will not mount a preemptive strike against Iran, analysts believe that he has set in motion a “force” to avenge what he sees as an unprovoked attack against Iran. He has warned us, and I don’t take his threats lightly. It is especially disconcerting when you understand that members of the QUDS force are fiercely loyal and would not hesitate to lay down their lives to avenge America’s attack on their homeland. If we go to war with Iran, we will face a different type of well-organized Guerrilla fighters that by our standards, are fanatics and value no life whatsoever, including their own. Bring yourself back to the Iran/Iraq war and remember when teenage Iranians ran though Iraqi mine fields, sacrificing their lives so the tanks and other support vehicles could get through. That’s the mentality of Iran on a full-blown war footing - and for our troops sake, I hope they are spared from fighting people who resemble barbarians.
Then, we have our own Iranian population in the United Stares to consider; Wikipedia shows that we have a growing Iranian-American population that in 2000 was estimated to be 338,000. In 2004, that figure rose to 691,000; the last figure they show is 900,000, another substantial rise. Based on people that choose not to participate in Census and other governmental agencies, it’s probably safe to conclude that we are close to one million Iranian-Americans. To the best of my knowledge, our Iranian-American members of society have been productive and peaceful. If I have missed something, I’m sure it will be pointed out by the readership. There is violence in every community, but as it pertains to what we hear on the news and even on Blogs, I have not noted violence in the Iranian-American community that would suggest they are different than any other minority. In fact, I have heard so little it suggests to me that as a whole, they may be less prone to violence than several communities I could list.
Iranian immigration to the United States has been continuous since the 1980s. Today, the United States contains the highest number of Iranians in the world outside Iran not including a large and influential Iranian Zohrastrian community in India. The Iranian-American community has produced a sizable number of individuals notable in many fields, including medicine, engineering, and business. The community expanded predominantly in the early 1980s in the wake of the Iranian Revolution and the fall of the former regime. The majority of Iranian refugees are upper-middle class and others are wealthy[citation needed]. They have comparatively liberal political opinions and westernized lifestyles due in part to American acculturation. Iranian-Americans thus tend to practice moderate, less traditional forms of Shi’ism (some were forced into asylum or exile for disagreements over religion with the Islamic Republic of Iran) as well as liberal Judaism.
Many Iranian Americans are also members of the Azeri, Armenian, Kurdish, Assyrian or other ethnic groups, reflecting the diversity of Iran.
The 2000 US Census estimated that 338,000 Iranian-Americans reside in the United States. In 2004, the Iranian-American population was estimated at 691,000 according to Iranian studies group [4] at MIT [5]. Large concentrations of Iranian Americans live in the state of California, more than 500,000 of them live in Southern California particularly around Los Angeles, Orange County, La Jolla (San Diego), and San José. Other Iranian-American communities in California include the Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Imperial Valley and the Coachella Valley. For this reason, the L.A area with its Iranian American residents is sometimes referred to as “Tehrangeles” or “Irangeles” among Iranian Americans, in allusion to Iran and its capital, Tehran, which is also a sister city of Los Angeles.[6] According to Ethnologue, there are at least 900,000 speakers of the Iranian dialects of the Persian language living in the US.[3] LINK
Of course, I’m speaking of the Iranian-American community as it exists today; tomorrow is too much of a toss-up, and as fast as events are transpiring today, the future remains unknown, uncertain, and unpredictable. Many American Iranian’s have family in Iran, communicate regularly, and certainly care about their families just as much as we care for our own. How much anger and outrage will be generated in America’s Iranian community if we launch an unprovoked first-strike targeting Iran? The Iranian nuclear program covers a lot of ground, and even if we don’t use tactical nuclear bunker-busting bombs, the causalities are likely to be enormous if our mission is to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability. What about the Islamic community within the United States? How large is America’s Muslim community?
Number of Muslims in the U.S.
Nobody knows.
This is a political hot-potato. Some non-Muslims have accused Muslims of exaggerating their numbers in order to obtain more political clout. Some Muslims have accused non-Muslims of releasing false, low numbers in order to “marginalize” Islam. In religion, as in war, truth is often the first casualty.
Estimates of the number of Muslims in North America range from a little over one million adults to seven million adults and children. One cause of the disagreement appears to be related to the percentage of Muslim immigrants: * Who have abandoned Islam since they arrived in the US, or * Who still consider themselves to be Muslims, but who do not participate in mosque activities. MORE
Further, if we attack Iran we are virtually certain they will retaliate. After an attack, we can expect huge protests and anger from both of the above communities - and then retribution if we face violent attacks within our own borders from QUDS force operatives that already exist within the country. In this author’s opinion, it’s a recipe for disaster and a subsequent declaration of martial law would be inevitable. Mr. Conyer’s statement was nothing more than symbolic; based on US troop and naval movements, recent preparations by Israel and Saudi Arabia, and Russia clearly stating it was our intention to attack Iran, a threat of impeachment “after the fact” is hollow and meaningless.
It’s about damn time that our Congress on both sides of the isle wake the hell up and take action to protect our nation as well as themselves and their own families. Our own military doesn’t discount threats from Iran of attacks against the US if we start a preemptive attack. and like it or not, our Congress is configured to include representatives from all fifty (50) states. I doubt if their families are bullet-proof, impervious to disease, or radioactive-resistant, however I’m guessing they are human too, and when you risk the rest of the citizenry, you also risk the welfare of your own families. None of us know where terrorists may strike in retaliation, and that “where” could include your own constituency(s).
Where is the Mainstream New Media on this issue? Several Blogs, including my own, have contained all of this information, and just a few days after the information was published, John Conyers issued a statement that Bush would face impeachment hearings if he attacked Iran. Hello??? Was this a coincidence, or was Mr. Conyers verifying that indeed, we are planning on attacking Iran?
PM declares ‘emergency’ in drill
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared a state of emergency Monday following “a barrage of hundreds of missiles from Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip,” as the country’s largest-ever emergency exercise, “Turning Point 2,” continues.
Dozens of Israeli civilians were “killed” on Sunday as Israel went to “war” with Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas on the first day of the exercise.
The five-day drill opened with an announcement by Olmert at the weekly cabinet meeting of an outbreak of hostilities following the firing of Katyusha rockets into northern Israel by Hizbullah in Lebanon. The simulated conflict quickly escalated and by the afternoon - representing the fourth day of the “war” - Israel was also “being hit by Syrian missiles and Hamas-fired Kassams and Katyushas.” MORE
For an investigative reporter, there is an abundance of evidence that suggests the United States is seriously considering, or is in the final planning stages of an attack on Iran. Don’t forget about Syria, because if we strike Iran, Israel will be up to their noses with instantaneous retaliatory strikes from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, the latter of whom Israel will likely attack first to gain the tactical advantage. What is being planned is not just an attack on Iran, but igniting the entire Middle-East in another one of Bush and Cheney’s wars; we can take it by remaining silent, or we can raise hell by unmercifully calling our Congressional Representatives with calls and emails, and don’t forget to include your local editors too; if enough of you send letters to the Editor, some are likely to be published, helping to bring awareness to the rest of our nation.
I’m sorry, but the MSM has let us down again. I’m hoping they won’t be forgiven so easily for this latest transgression, but if we act in unison and seek universal condemnation of this upcoming war, it’s possible we can raise the awareness of those who are still asleep at the wheel, including many of our own lawmakers. We did it on S 1959, and if we gain join in solidarity, we can make a difference on this issue too. Remember what Thomas Jefferson stated, and in this writer’s opinion, no truer words have ever been spoken before this great nation and we should ponder upon and take to heart his excellent advice:
“Do you want to know who you are? Don’t ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.”
“Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.”
"A string of Israeli air raids targeted Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip on Thursday.
In the afternoon, four boys reportedly aged between eight and 15 were killed whilst playing football near the al-Salam mosque in Jabaliya. Three of them were members of the same family, according to the Palestinian news agency Maan.
The interior ministry building in Gaza City, run by Hamas, was hit on Wednesday evening. The building was empty.
Nearby buildings were caught in the blast, killing a baby and wounding at about 30 other people, Palestinian medical officials said."
The raid was in "response" to the killing of an Israeli student by a Hamas rocket on Wednesday. I use the word "response" reluctantly and with hesitation, because it has the effect of equalizing the military might of the two parties. These raids on Gaza, which have killed at least 20 Palestinians (including at least 9 civilians) are no less morally unjust than the killing of the Israeli student in Sderot, yet Israel escapes condemnation by the international community by claiming the deaths were merely collateral damage. Dead civilians are dead civilians--no matter their nationality, skin color, religion, or sex; whether they are Palestinian, Israeli, Iraqi, Sudanese, Rwandan, or American. When will we begin to treat their deaths with an equal sense of moral outrage?
Though saying I'm not a fan of the organization would be a gigantic understatement, I must admit that Hamas scored a major PR victory today when masked gunmen knocked down most of the fence dividing the West Bank town of Rafah, which Israel closed (let's be honest: caged) last week, allowing tens of thousands of Palestinians to flood into Egypt for much-needed supplies.
This was a very media-savvy move. Since this action, unlike many undertaken by Hamas, killed no Israeli civilians, and since it directly attacked the centerpiece of Israel's human rights issues (that is, restricting the movement of Palestinians), the resultant media attention did something rare: It put the plight of Palestinians themselves right near the top of the story. If you're a journalist or an editor with a Middle East beat, you have to cover this story, since it's a major one. But unlike in other instances where there is wiggle room to favor one story (Israeli civilians being killed) over another (Palestinian civilians being killed), in this case there's nothing to report on but the fact that 1) Palestinians in Rafah were suffering, and 2) someone figured out a way to address this suffering.
This is an obvious, trite, overly simplified thing to say, but it's true: If Hamas and its ilk spent more time working on operations like this, and less time sponsoring suicide bombers and rocket attacks, it would be harder for the world to continue ignore what's going on in the territories.
I caught a bit of Anderson Cooper's show on CNN last night and was fairly shocked by the degree to which the campaigns and the media's coverage already lacks any kind of substance. Perhaps the most startingly vacuous analysis came from Candy Crowley.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: [...] John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all came back to the original theme that has gone throughout this Democratic race. And that is one of change. You know, John Edwards fighting for his life at this point, says he can change because he's the toughest. Barack Obama, he's the newest. Hillary Clinton says, listen, I'm the one with the experience. So, we're back to the original arguments.
Kay noted the other day that the environment seems to simply not be on the agenda. Another important issue we've heard barely anything about is American policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So I asked five expert-types what the media shouild be asking the candidates. Read their answers here.
A group working to promote pro-Israel sentiment at American colleges is hiring students to act as campus emissaries of the Jewish state.
Jewish student leaders from Columbia University, New York University, and Queens College will receive up to $1,000 a year from the advocacy group StandWithUs to bring speakers and films to campus that portray Israel in a positive light. […]
The North American campus director of StandWithUs, Daniel Klein, identified Columbia, MIT, and the University of Michigan as hot spots of anti-Israel sentiment. "The story of democracy in Israel, of a vibrant diverse country, is not being told on campuses," Mr. Klein said.
No disagreement with Klein on that last point—that's not the story being told. Here's the list of campuses that will have "Emerson Fellows" And here's a telling detail (emphasis added):
[Emerson Fellows] will:
Possess clear leadership abilities
Demonstrate interest in Israel’s history, society, and geography
Be organized and clearly motivated to educate their peers about Israel
Be a strong team player
Is it proper for an outside group to pay stipends to students to get them to invite certain speakers to campus? This seems qualitatively different from subsidizing speakers' fees or the like.
I began a series of articles back in 2005 that delved into the situation in Iraq, and specifically stated that our intent on invading Iraq was a precursor to an eventual attack on Iran. I’m not a well-known Political Commentator, and while I did note an occasional visitor from Iran, they were few and far in between; ever since I wrote Attack On Iran Slated For October 15th, Prepare For Disaster those numbers have changed drastically, and just this month we’ve received a 1,000 % increase of hits originating from Iran, a marked increase in the readership of this site from your country. Those are only the visits that we could verify, however know that many more than that have been logged by other programs. It seems that this small article has been read through-out the Middle-east and Europe, and now, Iran and other countries I never knew frequented this Blog are regular visitors.
As you have noted from previous articles, I am against a preemptive strike against your country by this administration, and sincerely believe that diplomacy, sanctions, and the internal politics of Iran, given enough time, will positively impact the current controversy in regard Iran’s nuclear issues with most of the free world. Too many people in the United States are unaware that the youth of Iran is very supportive of the United States, and their admiration and support was easy to see by their western-style haircuts, clothes, music, and even the concept of being free enough to indulge themselves in free expression, a right that is inherent in the United States, although under fire at the moment, just as it is in Iran.
I write these articles because I believe increasing the awareness of the general public is tantamount in the fight to stave-off war with Iran - and while I’m dead-set against an attack on Iran by the Bush administration, this cannot be construed as me supporting you - which I don’t, but can be viewed as me supporting the people of Iran, just as I do those here in America. There isn’t any question that when the world at large views you and President Bush, not necessarily here in the US or Iran, but even more so beyond our borders, they see two tyrants attempting to justify their actions - when both sides have made grave errors, and there is no justification for the behavior of either nation. This is a case of the “pot calling the kettle black”, as both of you have many of the same characteristics.
You ran on a platform targeting the economically challenged and campaigned with promises of a brighter economic future for those who were experiencing hard times, an audience that desperately needed help, and they placed their trust and votes in you, only to become disillusioned and witness their situations becoming worse, not better.
Ahmadinejad, a hardline conservative and Revolutionary Guard veteran, mounted a surprisingly strong challenge with a populist message aimed at the economically disadvantaged. He promised to strengthen social safety nets, offer subsidized food and housing for the poor, and institute monthly stipends for citizens. Much of Ahmadinejad’s support in the first round of voting came from poorer areas such as South Tehran. MUCH MORE
From what I’ve been able to ascertain, the Iranian economy worsens by the day, gas prices are rising, and the poor and disadvantaged are suffering worse now then before you took office:
Despite its continued bluster on nuclear issues, Iran is discovering that there are costs to be paid for maintaining its confrontational stance. Pressure from Washington to isolate Tehran financially has already succeeded in removing or significantly reducing such major European banks as Credit Suisse and UBS from the Iranian scene. Now several large German institutions are preparing to leave as well. Over the last few months Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank have withdrawn investments. Dresdner Bank has announced it will cancel operations within Iran altogether. It is believed that these banks fear losing U.S. business if they continue to operate in Iran. MORE
But there is also a second, potentially more powerful, element. Since September 2006, US officials have been traveling the world talking to banks and company bosses. They aim to persuade business to voluntarily abandon or scale back all dealings with Iran.
Mr Levey, who is spearheading the Treasury’s campaign, insists he is already getting results.
“There is significant evidence that it’s working in the sense that Iranian business is being subjected to greater scrutiny and it’s more difficult for them to operate,” he says.
“A number of major financial institutions have cut off doing business with certain Iranian banks or with Iran entirely.” MORE
The above information reflects pressure exerted by the US designed to force Iran into accepting the policies of the IEAA. The financial troubles began in Iran prior to those sanctions, and President Ahmadinejad needs to explain to his own people, as well as the world, why he has driven Iran back into the stone-age of social enlightenment, and instead of helping those he vowed to help, President Ahmadinejad has made their conditions worse by spending Iran’s wealth on nuclear facilities, advanced weapons systems, and financial and logistical aid to known terrorist groups.
We in the European and Western nations who drink from the fountain of freedom, albeit diminished, find it hard to understand a society that murders those who exhibit a different different sexual preference than that of what is called for in radical Islam; we fail to understand why you have worked relentlessly to stamp-out any showing of western values in your own nation, and have actually arrested and persecuted those who didn’t follow your draconian dress and hair policies. The “morality police” are real in Iran, and many fear Americans will soon feel the heel of religious oppression via a Supreme Court that has been stacked with conservative Justices.
Iran is a nation rich in natural resources, mainly oil, yet you have built few, if any new refineries to ease the gas crunch in your nation, and the people of Iran do not benefit from Iran’s considerable wealth; armies and weapons are expensive, as are nuclear facilities and the constant financial support you offer to terrorist groups in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinians… Why is it so important to ferment unrest and attempt to project Iran’s considerable local power upon others while allowing the Iranian people to suffer? The same question must be answered by President Bush, as Americans are also beginning to suffer from these endless wars. The people of the United States and Iran have similar goals, and that is to return their nations to what they were before you or Bush’s election (sic). (Again, similarities exist in your election and that of the Bush administration; Bush was “placed” in office in 2000 by the US Supreme Court, and your election was alleged to have been aided by illegal acts ordered by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and carried-out by the Revolutionary Guard:
IRAN: RUNNING TOWARD THE GASOLINE DUMP WITH A LIT MATCH
(Excerpts)
Ever since fanatical Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was installed by the Guardian Council last June via a questionable election, nearly every step taken by the former Commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s foreign assassination outfit has been designed to either solidify his hold on power by purging those in the Iranian government deemed not “revolutionary” enough or making it clear that he seeks confrontation with the west and Israel over the Iranian nuclear program.
Many analysts questioned Ahmadinejad’s victory in the runoff election against long time Iranian politico Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani whose loss to the little known former mayor of Tehran occurred under suspicious circumstances. Prior to the run-off, there were several charges of corruption, including the unleashing of 300,000 Revolutionary Guards to mobilize support for Ahmadinejad. Two newspapers who dared to print a letter outlining the charges from a reformist politician were summarily shut down. Then, in the subsequent run-off between Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad, ballot box irregularities were reported as a sizable segment of the population boycotted the election. Polling places that were deserted on the day of the election ended up showing thousands of ballots cast for the former hard-line mayor.
It is important to understand that the President of Iran is on a very short leash. His decisions must be ratified by Iran’s Supreme Leader who also controls the ruling Guardian Council which has absolute veto power over laws passed by the Iranian parliament as well as access to the big stick in Iranian society; the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC). The Council is made up of 6 clerical members and 6 lawyers, all of whom are appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Council also has absolute authority in matters involving elections, determining who can run and, as we have seen, who wins and who loses. MORE
As we move on to the crux of the issue that has the European community, several Arab states, Israel, and the United States demanding an explanation of and a halt to Iran enriching uranium, Iran has cast its own shadow of doubt on her nuclear ambitions, and the aforementioned countries have every right to question a program you insist is peaceful; for eighteen years, Iran’s nuclear program was hidden from the rest of the world, and by running a covert nuclear program, Iran effectively demonstrated they were attempting to skirt International treaties and hide their nuclear ambitions - and that action in itself does nothing to bolster an air of trust, which is what Iran is requesting that all of the nations do, without any viable rationale or evidence that your programs are actually peaceful:
History
Iran’s interest in nuclear technology predates the Islamic revolution of 1979. Iran’s revolutionaries forced most western trained scientists, engineers and managers out of Iran, greatly slowing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. In the late 1980s, Iran turned to the Soviet Union to restart its civil nuclear program, which at the time centered on the West German designed, but never completed Bushehr nuclear power reactor. Unknown at the time was that in 1985, Iran secretly tapped into the nuclear black market run by the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program – A.Q. Khan. Khan had established a robust network of front companies and clandestine shipments to fuel Pakistan’s own nuclear weapon program. For 18 years, Iran successfully hid – in violation of international law and its voluntary treaty commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency – its clandestine nuclear procurement and development program. This technology was used to design and begin construction on the Natanz uranium enrichment facility where work resumed on January 9th.
International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards are used in most countries to provide confidence that peaceful facilities are not used for military purposes. This is the case in Europe and Japan, and US and Russian peaceful enrichment facilities are open to IAEA inspection. International confidence – albeit a subjective measure – is high that these countries will not use their peaceful enrichment facilities for the production of weapons.
Iran’s now documented 18-year track record of hiding nuclear facilities, and the behavior of its leaders and security forces provide the international community with much lower confidence in its peaceful intentions. Moreover, Iran currently lacks both the nuclear plants needed to make use of enriched uranium or the domestic stocks of uranium ore to justify the expense of a domestic uranium enrichment program. The existence of a robust and economically competitive international set of enrichment providers casts even further doubt on Iran’s motives for pursuing enrichment on such an accelerated and (previously) secretive basis. MORE
If your nuclear plans are peaceful as you claim, why was your nuclear program hidden from the world for eighteen years? Why did Iran also procure plans to build a nuclear weapon from Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan? The history of Iran’s so-called “peaceful” nuclear enrichment program is suspect at best based on Iran’s questionable activities prior to the discovery of their nuclear program - and it’s unreasonable for the world to accept a song and dance from President Ahmadinejad that the program is entirely peaceful until the IEAA is allowed to continue inspections throughout Iran; visiting sites that have been preprepared for international view is nothing more than an open-house into those programs that do comply with IEAA guidelines, however, until Iran allows the IEAA unfettered access to Iran in general, and is able to follow-up on any leads into suspected sites that could be used to produce weapons, the West, Israel, and the European community will remain skeptical of Iran’s intentions, and in this writer’s opinion the skepticism is well deserved.
President Ahmadinejad, the majority of the people in the United States do not favor a preemptive strike against your country, but there are several issues that Iran constantly skirts, and answers have been slow or downright impossible to receive that pertain to sites that we suspect are still operating in secrecy. I have no hard evidence that Iran is actively attempting to produce a nuclear warhead, and while the suspicions we hear may be political rhetoric with no basis in fact, Iran has made it exceedingly difficult to prove those allegations are false. Transparency in the nuclear cycle, from all of Iran’s nuclear facilities would go a long way to dispel those fears, and now we are faced with a situation where Iran can effectively diffuse the situation by cooperating with the International community - but you and those that control your policies are stubborn, refuse to halt uranium enrichment for a period long enough to successfully negotiate and build the trust we need to end this stalemate and enter a period of progress and understanding.
I’m not a diplomat and lack the ability to speak in guarded political terms, so from here forward I’ll just be blunt, speak my mind as an American citizen, which I am entitled to do - and I’ll do my best to communicate how you can help to end this stalemate, gain the trust of the International community, and how you can affect politics in the United States in a positive manner by acting responsibly and working with us to regain stability in the Middle-East as a whole and again bring Iran into the modern world, at least as much as your restrictive society will allow.
We know you follow American politics very carefully, and I have suspicions that many of your actions are based on a perceived belief that our President, George W. Bush, will not instigate an attack on Iran. Those “suspicions” could be true, however, if millions of Americans themselves also don’t trust Bush and Cheney - that should be a wake-up call to your country that a real danger exists - and as the President of Iran, in my humble opinion, rather than risk the lives of people who voted you into office because of a sense of national pride, wouldn’t it be wise to consider negotiating with a true spirit of diffusing the crisis?
As you know, there is now an impeachment measure in Committee to impeach Vice-President Dick Cheney, and if that measure succeeds, you can believe that Bush will be next. If you are a true leader, value the lives of your countrymen as well as the stability of the Middle-East - then what have you to lose to stop the nuclear enrichment program as we in America work to expel the warmongers from the White House and return our country to sanity, the Rule of Law, and halt the aggression of the Bush administration? Is your pride worth starting a war when it could be stopped by prudent action designed to allow negotiations to proceed in good faith? Are you a leader of the people, or a President that resembles our own, intent on furthering his own twisted agenda rather than one that would lead to peace and stability?
When two bullies square off to fight in a battle that everyone loses in the long run, who is the better man - one that decides to make the other look small by complying with United Nation mandates - or allowing the other bully to let your pride possibly cause the destruction of your entire society? Consider this; if Iran’s nuclear program is indeed peaceful as you state, then make a statement to the world, cease nuclear enrichment temporarily until the IAEE has definite proof that your plans are peaceful - and in the final analysis, if you’re telling the truth, who will emerge as the better leader, you who swallowed his pride and complied with the United Nations, or Mr. Bush and Cheney - who are looking for any excuse they can to start a war with your country? If the IAEE eventually does state unequivocally that Iran’s nuclear program is entirely peaceful, the blow you will deal to a President that has the lowest poll rating in US history will also have to bear the brunt of explaining why he lied again, and only you can make that happen by deescalating the crisis.
It takes two to tango, and while my father is no longer with us, he always stated the better man was the one that walked away from a fight. Which will you be, the better man, or will you continue to defy UN mandates and give Israel or Bush and Cheney an excuse to start World War III - and if you believe that any of us would survive that event, then you too have failed your people, just as Bush and Cheney have failed America and the world in general.
There's a really heartbreaking, well-reported piece in today's New York Times about Gaza and the Israeli military's recent tendency to kill children there. Definitely worth a read.
“Like Israel, the authors have often had to defend the right of their theory to exist.” With that quip Thursday evening, Jane Wales, president of the World Affairs Council of Northern California, kicked off a talk on “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. They spoke in the chandelier-lined Terrace Room of the swank Fairmont Hotel atop San Francisco’s Nob Hill.
Philip Weiss has called the book serious, cold, and stunning. Ditto for W&M’s presentation. I would add to that list: remarkably polished. Each man spoke for about 30 minutes and then fielded audience questions and I didn’t hear either of them stumble or utter a single “um” or “eh”.
The audience reaction was less raucous than I expected. It wasn’t raucous at all, actually. People listened attentively in complete silence until about 45 minutes in when there was a light sprinkling of applause at Mearsheimer’s suggestion of a viable Palestinian state. The crowd was uniformly polite and, judging from the sizeable lineup for book signatures, at least somewhat supportive.
In a way it was heartening to see the room packed with influential-looking people: almost exclusively middle-aged to elderly, white, mostly in suits and evening wear. On the other hand, in a room of several hundred, I was probably one of just a dozen attendees under 30—likely due in part to the World Affairs Council’s unfortunate decision to charge for tickets. So to Farrar, Straus and Giroux: add more campuses to W&M’s tour. Most students won’t be willing to shell out $26 for a book, but it would be a smart move in terms of intellectual and cultural impact.
The younger and sprier of the two scholars, Walt defined the Israel Lobby (like any other interest group; not monolithic; not composed exclusively of Jews), calling it “as American as apple pie,” an oft-repeated line designed to ease concerns the authors are somehow painting American Jews as a dangerous fifth column. They are explicitly not doing that.
There’s an article in today's Times about the response to an upcoming book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, which argues that “a powerful pro-Israel lobby has a pernicious influence on American policy.” Walt and Mearsheimer, who wrote an essay outlining their argument that was met with extreme controversy following its publication in March 2006, are now finding it difficult to promote and discuss their book, as “several institutions backing away from holding events with the authors.” Read More »
When word started to circulate last fall that the Israeli parliament (Knesset) was interested in passing legislation to raise university tuition, Israeli university students didn't take it lying down. The proposed increases would have raised tuition from about 9,000 NIS (around $2,250) per year to about 15,000 NIS (around $3,750) per year--an increase that would make it impossible for most young Israelis to pursue higher education or face the choice to plunge themselves into overwhelming debt.
Where have we heard this before?
Before you dismiss the tuition as too low to matter anyway, take this into account: most Israeli university students begin university studies after their army service, and while many return to live at home with their parents, they are older than American university students and typically pay for all or most of their tuition themselves.
So what did the students do about this attack on access to higher education?
They organized. It began as coordinated hour-long and one-day strikes and rallies across the country, with efforts intensifying as talk of the tuition increase grew in immediacy. And for over a month now, all students at all Israeli universities have been on full-time strike.
Despite threats of academic repercussions from university administration and the arrests of several student protesters, the students have remained vigilant. Yesterday, the students rejected a compromise deal negotiated between the student union leadership and the office of the Prime Minister because it not only didn't represent promises made verbally in the negotiations, but because the students didn't feel it did enough to improve and protect access to higher education.
"We went to the negotiations with our known demands: restoring budgets, the right to veto the recommendations of the Shochat Committee [calling for higher tuition fees] and restoring the Winograd framework for lowering tuition fees," said Itai Barda, the head of the student union.
According to the students, their negotiations with officials such as Oved Yehezkel, representing the prime minister, resulted in an agreement to restore about NIS 1 billion cut from higher education budgets since 2000, and this would not be linked to the reforms proposed by the Shochat Committee.
The Israel Students Union, which represents some of the colleges, has also decided to reject the latest offer. A similar proposal was made to the students of the teaching colleges.
The National Students Union has not yet announced a decision on the prime minister's offer. It has said, however, that the strike would continue as would the "struggle for rescuing higher education ... until its goals are achieved."
The Prime Minister's Bureau did not comment on the situation.
This is incredible to an American student audience. Could you imagine a nationwide strike of all university students until there was legislation passed that would increase the budget for professors and programs and cut tuition? And keep in mind-this is over a tuition increase to just $3,750 per YEAR--a miniscule sum compared to the average cost of college in the US, even taking into account the difference in average family income. Israeli students believe that access to higher education should be a basic right provided by the government, just like basic healthcare (there is universal healthcare in Israel) and national security.
What's even more impressive is that this isn't just a pocket-protecting move on behalf of the students. Another deal was offered early on to raise tuition only for students entering in the next academic year--and it was immediately dismissed and rejected by the students. Their aim truly is comprehensive support and access to higher education for all.
Unsurprisingly, this has gotten very very little coverage in the English-language media: even Israeli publications exclude this story from their English-language editions. I, for one, am extremely proud of my Israeli student friends. All of us concerned with student involvement in the fight for access to higher education should express our solidarity with their strike--and do so loudly.
Even-tempered thinking on Israel/Palestine is in short supply. So that's why the story of what's happening to New Voices--a progressive Jewish magazine distributed on college campuses--is particularly sad. After publishing articles that criticized select elements of Israeli government policy and writing about alternative student tours of Israel that travel to the occupied territories, New Voices lost tens of thousands of dollars of funding and had to layoff a staff member. Now New Voices' funders are forcing them to publish rabid advertisements decrying the supposed "anti-Semitic climate" ravaging American college campuses.
That's just the kind of over-heated rhetoric that made Jewish students like me tune out. As New Voices editor Ilana Sichel tells The Nation, "To suddenly be told you have to toe this party line--it's contrary to what we stand for and it's contrary to what the Jewish intellectual tradition stands for."
I like Dana's post analogizing the fact that AIPAC doesn't represent the views of American Jews on Iran to how Bill Donahue's Catholic League is far to the right of most American Catholics on social issues. However, I take mild issue with the idea also expressed by Ezra that AIPAC, or its views on Israel, are "aligned with conservatives." As has been mentioned ad nauseum in the media recently, major liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have spoken before AIPAC and been warmly received. Strong support for Israel is a position that crosses party lines in this country.
I think that Dana's and Ezra's and Ari Berman's view that AIPAC is totally out of step with the majority of American Jews on Israel proper, not just Iran, reflects a generational divide. Our parents generation of Jews, who are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats as well, came of age at a time when strong support for Israel--a social democracy in the Middle East and the homeland for refugees from the Holocaust--was viewed as entirely consistent with staunchly liberal politics. To a younger generation of liberal secular Jews, who came of age during the era of occupation, anti-Israel activism on campus, and settlements being built by religious extremists seeking to restore biblical Israel and being egged on by creepy Christianists, taking a more nuanced view has become the norm.
So my cohort seems to view AIPAC's line as out of step with most Jews because it is out of step with the cadre of highly informed and mostly secular young liberal Jews that they talk to about politics. But if you talk to Jews over the age of 50, or younger Jews who were raised to be pro-choice, pro-welfare and pro-Israel but don't follow politics for a living, you will find much less of a gap.
Ann Friedman has written an In These Timestribute to Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for a Free Choice. Kissling, who was once a nun for six months, is a national progressive leader on abortion rights, access to contraception, LGBT rights, and stem cell research. She’s also a favorite target of extreme right-wing Catholics like Bill Donahue, whose Catholic League instigated the Edwards blogger ruckus last month. When Kissling stepped down, Donahue tarred her as anti-Catholic, saying, “I hope she takes her tapestries of Tibetan Buddhist deities with her when she exits her office, as well as any New Age paraphernalia she may have acquired over the years.” But as Ann reports, “For 25 years, Kissling has pointed out that criticizing church doctrine and agitating for reform is not anti-Catholic.”
Indeed, polls show that Catholics are more accepting of premarital sex, homosexuality, and birth control than Protestants, and about two-thirds accept abortion in at least some circumstances.
I realize I’m taking a risk with this analogy, but to me, the vitriol that the Bill Donahues of the Catholic community reserve for the Frances Kisslings -- social justice thinkers who are in line with their own constituents’ beliefs -- parallels quite neatly what sometimes happens to Jewish Americans who are critical of AIPAC and Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. As Ezra pointed out last week, 87 percent of American Jews are progressive, so it’s no surprise many of us are uncomfortable with AIPAC’s alignment with conservatives, particularly those of the literalist Christian variety who support Zionism because they believe all Jews need to relocate to the Promised Land before Jesus makes another showing. And far from being hawkish on Iran (as AIPAC is), more than half of American Jews oppose military strikes there. If you’re interested in alternative media voices that express the progressive views held by millions of American Catholics and Jews, I highly recommend Conscience and Tikkun.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
