Eye On U.S.A

[donsaeid]

سفير عربستان در آمريكا:

آمريكا طي دهه هاي آينده به نفت خاورميانه وابسته خواهد بود


سفير عربستان در آمريكا تاكيد كرد ، گرچه دولت بوش قصد دارد ميزان وابستگي آمريكا به منابع نفت خاورميانه را كاهش دهد ولي اين كشور طي دهه هاي آينده همچنان به نفت خاورميانه وابسته خواهد بود .



خبرگزاري رويترز به نقل از تركي الفيصل افزود :گرچه سياستگذاران آمريكايي قصد كاهش وابستگي اين كشور به واردات انرژي از خاور ميانه را دارند ولي واشنگتن طي سالهاي آينده نيز به منابع انرژي كشورهاي خاور ميانه نياز خواهد داشت .

وي كه در دانشگاه جرج واشنگتن سخن مي گفت ، تصريح كرد : آمريكا بايد به جاي طرح چنين مباحثي به فكر گسترش همكاريهاي انرژي خود با كشورهاي خاور ميانه باشد . نه تنها آمريكا بلكه كليه كشورهاي بزرگ مصرف كننده انرژي تا دهه هاي آينده به خاور ميانه وابسته خواهند بود .

هم اكنون 60 درصد نفت مورد نياز آمريكا از طريق واردات تامين مي شود كه بخش زيادي از اين رقم از خاور ميانه تامين مي شود .

دولت بوش قصد دارد ميزان وابستگي آمريكا به واردات نفت از خاور ميانه را تا سال 2015 ميلادي ، 75 درصد كاهش دهد .

[Rasputin]

Making Bush listen to reason

THE RESOLUTIONS against President Bush's Iraq war policies offered by Senator Edward Kennedy and colleagues of both parties are expressions of the democratic will of the country.

The November election and recent polls leave no doubt that a large majority of Americans opposes Bush's war policy and a troop increase. Similarly, several senior generals, both serving and retired, have issued strong public criticisms of Bush's troop increase and his new emphasis on asking US forces to quell Iraq's sectarian warfare by attacking Shi'ite militias as well as Sunni Arab insurgents. The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission unanimously endorsed a new approach.

But Bush has refused to heed calls for a change of course, and against the dispatch of an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq. It is this almost monarchical indifference to criticism that justifies the resolutions the Senate will be considering this week, even though their immediate effect is largely symbolic.

Kennedy was hardly indulging in hyperbole Sunday on "Meet the Press" when he said: "If we have a president that is going to effectively defy the American people, going to defy the generals, defy the majority of the Congress of the United States, Republicans and Democrats, then we, I think, have a responsibility to end the funding for the war."

The bill Kennedy introduced two weeks ago would not actually halt funding for the war. Rather it would oblige Bush to ask for congressional authorization of funds to pay for a troop increase "above the numbers existing as of January 9, 2007." The White House claims it already has the funds for the extra 21,000 troops, and those troops are likely to be deployed before any version of the Kennedy bill could be passed.

[Rasputin]

A US Senate committee has rejected President Bush's plan to send extra troops to Iraq, passing the measure to a full Senate vote likely next week.
The Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismissed Mr Bush's policy as "not in the national interest" in a 12-9 vote.

It comes a day after the president gave his State of the Union address asking Congress to give it "a chance to work".

Both votes are non-binding but may put pressure on Mr Bush to reconsider.

The resolution opposes Mr Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, the majority of them to violence-hit Baghdad in an effort to improve security and end sectarian clashes.

President Bush has made his decision on Iraq; the fact of the matter is we need to get the job done

Vice President Dick Cheney

An advance guard of 3,200 troops arrived in Baghdad on Sunday.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says if the resolution is supported by key senators from both sides of the aisle, the rebuff suffered by the White House will be all the more visible and difficult to ignore.

'The grinder'

The resolution was proposed earlier this month by three leading senators who said the plan was not in US interests, urging an early transfer of security to Iraqi leaders.




Excerpts: State of the Union

The three senators were Democrats Joseph Biden and Carl Levin, and Republican Chuck Hagel, a long-standing critic of the war.

"We better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder," said Senator Hagel, the only Republican to support the resolution.

Senator Biden, the panel's chairman, said the legislation was "not an attempt to embarrass the president".

"It's an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq," he said.

'In disarray'

Before the resolution goes to the full Senate, Mr Biden has said he is willing to negotiate changes in hope of attracting support from more Republicans.

A growing list of Republican senators - including Gordon Smith, George Voinovich and Sam Brownback - have said they will back the proposals, AP news agency reports.

However, Republican Richard Lugar said the resolution would force nothing on Mr Bush but would confirm to US friends and allies that it was "divided and in disarray".

The response from Vice-President Dick Cheney was defiant.

"President Bush has made his decision on Iraq; the fact of the matter is we need to get the job done," he said.

Mr Cheney described suggestions that the administration's credibility was on the line as "hogwash".

Democrats in the House of Representatives intend to hold a vote shortly after the Senate.

[Rasputin]

Tens of thousands of protesters have demonstrated in Washington to demand the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
The rally comes days before Congress is to discuss President George W Bush's new strategy for Iraq - including the despatch of 21,500 additional troops.

The protesters, chanting "Bring the troops home", were joined by Vietnam War-era protester, actress Jane Fonda.

Violence continued in Iraq on Saturday, with at least 15 killed in a suicide bomb attack in a Baghdad market.

The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says this anti-war rally at the foot of the US Capitol was a marked shift away from the White House and on to Congress.

The protesters want Congress, now run by the Democrats, to block funding for the president's new strategy, our correspondent says.

Resolution

Jane Fonda, the Hollywood actress who angered many Americans by visiting Hanoi in 1972 during the Vietnam War, told the crowd: "I haven't spoken at an anti-war rally for 34 years. But silence is no longer an option."

Our fellow Americans are dying as we stand here today

Sean Penn, actor

She added: "I'm so sad that we still have to do this, that we did not learn the lessons from the Vietnam War."

Fonda was joined by fellow actors Sean Penn and Tim Robbins.

Robbins said: "What we need is courage, courage and conviction and we need people to represent the voice of the American people, a very clear voice last November, a voice that said: 'We're done with this war'."

The Democrats took control of both Houses in November's mid-term election, sparking Mr Bush's decision to form a new strategy for Iraq.

But our correspondent says Congress has so far balked at using the power of funding and only a handful of staunch anti-war Congressmen were present at the rally.


A man brings a child to hospital after Saturday's Baghdad bombing

Although nearly all Democrats and a growing numbers of Republicans oppose the president's plans, he says, senators have not been able to agree yet on a single non-binding resolution expressing their concerns.

At the rally a coffin covered with a US flag and a pair of military boots was put on display.

Organisers also filled a large bin with tags bearing the names of Iraqis who have died.

More than a dozen veterans, anti-war activists, religious heads and actors addressed the crowd.

A small counter-protest held up a Fonda doll with the sign "Jane Fonda American Traitor".

Mr Bush reportedly reaffirmed his commitment to the troop increase in a phone call with Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki on Saturday.

White House national security adviser spokesman Gordon Johndroe said: "Americans want to see a conclusion to the war in Iraq and the new strategy is designed to do just that."

Violence continued in Iraq on Saturday:


At least 15 people were killed and 55 injured when twin suicide car bomb attacks struck a market in the mainly Shia New Baghdad district

Iraqi police said eight computer firm employees were kidnapped by men in police uniforms in central Baghdad

The US military said it had killed 14 suspected insurgents during an air strike on a building used as a hideout south of Baquba

The US military announced the death of seven more soldiers. Three were killed by a roadside bomb north of Baghdad on Saturday, two by roadside bombs in Diyala province on Friday and two by a bomb in east Baghdad on Thursday.
Also on Saturday, Russia said it planned to question the US on its increasing military presence in the Middle East.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he would seek an explanation during a visit to Washington next week.

He also said it was his "deep conviction that Iran and Syria should not be isolated and must be involved in the settlement process".

[Rasputin]

There is a striking likeness in the expressions of George W Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran as they confront each other over the issues of uranium enrichment and dominance in the Middle East. It falls somewhere between the chastened and defiant playground bully.
This is unsurprising: though not political equivalents, the two are really quite similar. Both had little experience of government or international affairs before being carried to power on a tide of populist, religious conservatism. Neither travelled abroad much, but they both had certain views about the world and the destiny of their nations. They had all the answers, yet there was also a dangerous lack of seriousness in them which has now earned them both the scorn of their people and rebuffs from their elders.

We think of Bush as being the more unpopular of the two. His approval ratings are at the level of Nixon's just before he left the White House. After an unconvincing performance in the State of the Union Address, his plans for the troop surge in Iraq were rejected by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and may now be voted down by the entire Senate. Senior Republican senators such as Chuck Hagel and John Warner are furious that sensible suggestions contained in the Iraq Study Group Report have been ignored. Although the President looked receptive when the report was delivered to him by James Baker, there has been no progress in policy, no evidence of any kind of deeper thinking in the White House. Nothing except that familiar foggy, narrow-eyed truculence of Bush Junior in a tight spot.
This would be a depressing but for similar difficulties experienced by Ahmadinejad over the last few weeks. Just as the senior Republican elders have turned on Bush, so Iran's religious leaders are moving to restrain their President. They criticise his bellicose foreign policy and the exceptionally poor record on promised reforms at home. There is a sense of embarrassment among sophisticated Iranians about their President's pronouncements, which surely rings a bell with Americans.

The most important sign-off disenchantment came in Jomhouri Islami, the newspaper owned by Iran's supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which said in an editorial: 'Turning the nuclear issue into a propaganda issue gives the impression that to cover up the flaws in government you are exaggerating its importance.'

The paper also suggested that the President should speak about the nuclear issue less, stop provoking aggressive powers like the United States and concentrate on the daily needs of the people - 'those who voted for you on your promises'. Two weeks ago, 150 legislators sent a letter to Ahmadinejad openly attacking him for missing his budget deadline and blaming him for inflation and rising unemployment.

A loss of confidence in both men at home is important because it offers us a brief opportunity to assert diplomacy over the habits of rhetoric and escalation. Although UN nuclear experts suggest the Iranians are at least five years from developing a bomb and delivery system, the Iranians are due to open a large uranium enrichment plant within a matter of weeks. If this goes ahead, a peaceful solution will be much harder to find; to decommission this new facility will require a loss of face for Ahmadinejad.

So the hawks in the West will begin the slow drumbeat for a first strike. Indeed, it has already started. For some weeks, the Daily Telegraph has been running a series of what, in my opinion, are extremely dubious stories all attributed to mysterious 'European defence officials' and 'senior Western military sources'. A front-page story last week suggested that North Korea has offered to help Iran with a nuclear test within the year. Apart from these shadowy spokesmen, it could offer no evidence, which is why the story was only seriously picked up in Israel.

In Israel, it is believed that the Iranians may be able to launch a nuclear warhead into its territory within three, not five, years. Former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has asked who will defend the Jews from a genocidal government in Iran if they do not themselves. Israeli historian Benny Morris contributed this chilling thought to the Jerusalem Post. 'One bright morning in five to 10 years, perhaps a regional crisis, a day or a year or five years after Iran's acquisition of the bomb, the mullahs in Qom will convene in secret session... and give President Ahmadinejad the go-ahead.'

In Iran, 38 nuclear inspectors have been barred from entering the country in retaliation for the UN resolution introducing mild sanctions, and now the Iranians have installed a missile defence system (supplied by the Russians) to defend their nuclear facilities from air attacks. The Americans have responded by moving another aircraft carrier into the region and by offering Patriot missile systems to Iran's uneasy Arab neighbours.

Make no mistake: this a much more dangerous situation than Iraq and it is unfolding on the watch of a couple of second-raters.

It is true that few nations that have been more estranged over the last quarter of a century, but with the stakes so high, it seems extraordinary that America has no representation in Tehran and almost no contact except through the Swiss embassy. As Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times reminded us last week, in 2003, America rebuffed an advance made by the Iranians through the Swiss, which, in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, suggested the two countries work together on the capture of terrorists in Iraq, stabilising the country after invasion and coming to an agreement on uranium enrichment as well as the financing of Hizbollah and Hamas.

The offer, made almost two years before Ahmadinejad was elected, was layered with insincerity and bluff, but professional diplomats are used to this. At least the two sides would have been talking and Tehran could have been held to account for some of the things that have been going on in Iraq.

But the situation is not beyond hope. The West must realise that if a first strike takes place we have lost. Whatever is destroyed in Iran, the Iranians will come back and produce a bomb that they may feel more entitled to use. The clash of civilisations predicted by neocon academics for years will have moved a step closer to dominating the 21st century at the very moment when all civilisation needs to concentrate on the multiple threats presented by climate change.

What we must hope for is a collective act of will in Europe, and among wiser heads in Washington DC, which says it doesn't have to be this way. This is not impossible. Only last week, representatives from 30 countries led by America and Saudi Arabia met in Paris to contribute to a £5bn fund to prop up Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government in Lebanon. This was a diplomatic action taken by both Middle Eastern and Western powers to defend Lebanon against Iran's proxies in the Hizbollah terrorist organisation, and it is exactly the right way to deal with Iran.

What can the British government do about Ahmadinejad? The first thing to is to recognise his failing support at home is an advantage that will be lost if the drumbeat to war is allowed to continue. There is no reason why Tony Blair should not add to the call from the head of UN inspectors, Mohamed ElBaradei, for a time out in which sanctions would be suspended. Blair still has a voice that is heard in the US. He should consider making a speech which insists that Bush initiates direct diplomatic relations with Tehran as well as a renewed effort to create the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. He owes something to the cause of peaceful resolution and, besides, these are hardly controversial views: both have already been expressed by James Baker's Iraq Study Group.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Only the US hawks can save the Iranian president now

The honeymoon is over. Iran's controversial president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has finally come unstuck. His popularity with the Iranian electorate - the subject of much incredulous analysis in 2005 - seems to be falling back at last, and the country's latest exercise in populism seems to be reaping the rewards of unfulfilled promises bestowed with little attention to economic realities.
Those realities have sharpened with the onset of UN sanctions. Ahmadinejad's casual dismissal of the sanctions has apparently earned him an unprecedented rebuke from the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei - reflecting growing concerns among the political elite, including many conservatives, who are increasingly anxious at Iran's worsening international situation. As if to emphasise this point, Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad's defeated foe in the 2005 presidential election, echoed the condemnation of the president's public complacency, stressing that the threats against Iran were very real. Indeed, as a second US carrier group heads for the Gulf, there is belated questioning of the president's competence. His critics argue that not only does he appear to have courted the anger of the US, but his economic mismanagement and political nepotism have weakened the internal integrity of the Islamic republic - and proved to be a gift to Iran's enemies.


Ahmadinejad was elected on a platform of anti-corruption and financial transparency, and few appreciated how rapidly he was intoxicated with the prerogatives of his office. He very soon forgot the real help he had received in ensuring his election, basking in the belief that God and the people had put him in power. Ahmadinejad soon had a view for all seasons: uranium enrichment. Of course Iran would pursue this, and what's more, sell it on the open market at knockdown rates. As for interest rates, they were far too high for the ordinary borrower, so cut them immediately. And then there was the Holocaust.
None of this might matter so much, if the president had based his rhetorical flourishes on solid policies. But much to everyone's surprise nothing dramatic materialised. Ahmadinejad appeared to follow the dictum of his mentor, Ayatollah Khomeini - "Economics is for donkeys". Indeed, his policies could be defined as "anything but Khatami" (his predecessor). So the oil reserve fund was spent on cash handouts to the grateful poor, and the central bank, normally a bastion of prudence, was instructed to cut interest rates for small businesses.

These had the effect, as Ahmadinejad was warned, of pushing up inflation. The rationale for high interest rates was to encourage the middle classes to keep their money in Iran. Now they decided to spend it. Richer Iranians, worried about rising international tension, decided it would be prudent to ship their money abroad. This further weakened the rial, and added to inflationary pressure. In the past few months the prices of most basic goods have risen, hurting the poor he was elected to help. Moreover, far from investing Iran's oil wealth in infrastructure to create jobs, he announced recently that Iran's economy could support a substantially larger population, as if current unemployment was not a big enough problem.

Views such as these, along with his well publicised unorthodox religious convictions, have earned him the ridicule of political foes. What is more striking perhaps is the growing concern of those who should be considered his allies, especially in the parliament. These are people who supported him and expected results. They expected their populist protege to overturn the heresy of reform.

Much to their irritation, not only has Ahmadinejad singularly failed to consolidate and extend his political base, the recent municipal elections saw his faction defeated throughout the country. Traditional conservatives and reformists reorganised and hit back, ingeniously using technology to work round the various obstacles placed in front of them. Now, over the past weeks, with biting weather, shortages of heating fuel are further raising the political temperature, while his political opponents point to the burgeoning international crisis for which the globetrotting president seems to have no constructive answer. Talk has turned to impeachment.

Ironically, it is this very international crisis that may serve to save Ahmadinejad's presidency, a reality that the president undoubtedly understood all too well. As domestic difficulties mount, the emerging international crisis could at best serve as a rallying point, or at worst persuade Iran's elite that a change of guard would convey weakness to the outside world.

There can be little doubt that US hawks will interpret recent events as proof that pressure works, and that any more pressure will encourage the hawks further. Yet the reality is that while Ahmadinejad has been his own worst enemy, the US hawks are his best friends. Ahmadinejad's demise, if it comes, will have less to do with the international environment and more with his own political incompetence. There is little doubt that it will take more than a cosmetic change to get Washington to listen to Iran. But the real question mark, as the Baker-Hamilton commission found to its cost, is whether Washington is inclined to listen at all.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. immigration agents have charged an Oregon businessman with trying to buy batteries used in U.S.-built Hawk surface-to-air missiles for shipment to Iran, court documents showed on Thursday.



Robert Caldwell, 56, of Portland, Oregon, is charged with conspiring to export regulated items without a license under rules governing international arms trade. He was freed on $50,000 bond pending trial.

Caldwell was arrested last week after giving an undercover agent a check for the $5,000 batteries during a meeting at a hotel across from the historic Alamo mission, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jerry Robinette said,

"There is no way to get a license," Robinette said. "He would not have been able to acquire a license to ship something like that to Iran."

Hawk missiles, which are launched from fixed positions and considered highly lethal, downed dozens of Iraqi Air Force jets at the start of the Gulf War in 1990. They are believed to be among weapons the United States sent to Iran as part of the Iran-Contra weapons-for-hostages exchange in the 1980s.

But the United States now strictly bans weapons exports to Iran, which it designates as a sponsor of terrorism.

Robinette said Caldwell is an import-export broker in Oregon. He did not say how many batteries Caldwell allegedly attempted to buy. They cost $5,000 each, officials said.

Caldwell's, Van Hilley, said his client was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"Mr. Caldwell is a broker, and he met this fellow from England and got involved in something that was well beyond his comprehension," Hilley said.

The federal documents show Caldwell is the second person arrested for attempting to buy the batteries. The other suspect is said to have told investigators that the plan was to send the batteries to Iran.

That suspect allegedly fingered Caldwell as a middle man in the scheme, prompting agents to set up the sting in San Antonio.

"Our concern is to make sure that this battery or any other components of a Hawk missile don't make it to Iran," Robinette said. "We want to make sure they never get ... used against our troops or against our allies."

[Rasputin]

To start waging a twelve-year war against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRVN), the U.S. under a Democratic President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, concocted the fictitious Vietnamese attack on a U.S. naval vessel in the Gulf of Tonkin. To enter a four-year-war so far, against the people of Iraq, Washington this time headed by a Republican President -- George W. Bush -- manufactured the fiction of Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

Currently, the U.S. is laboring its mental powers to come up with a similar hoax. But to make such a deception believable, the neo-conservative hoaxers must prepare the mental condition of their audience. To that end, President George W. Bush, with the generous help of the mainstream media (Fox News, CNN, Wall Street Journal, New York Times and many others) has painted Iran already guilty of multiple crimes that have be confronted for the sake of the safety and security of the “international community.”

Following the report by the Iraq Study Group (ISG), it needs no further proof that after almost four years at a huge human and financial cost to the American working class, the U.S. administration has conclusively lost the war in Iraq and has a long way to go in Afghanistan to see a light, if any, at the end of the death tunnel. Taking it personally, Bush II deeply feels that as Commander-in-Chief of the Iraq war and leader of the world-wide fight against international “terrorism”, he has been a failure. Our overtly confident and sole “decider” continues to utter platitudes about winning the war, but he and everyone in the world knows he has lost not only personal credibility but more importantly has dragged U.S. prestige down with him. How would he explain this downward spiral?

It goes without saying that this Commander-in-Chief would not admit that he has ordered the U.S. military to fight and die in an unjust war and invade an ancient country with a 3000 year history, whose citizens have decided to fight back using anything and everything that they can put their hands on, especially the 200,000 rifles, machine guns and millions of rounds of ammunition that the U.S. military “lost” on its way to Iraq. No way! To be true to his character, Bush Jr. had to find a scapegoat for his and the U.S. mighty military’s failure to bring the people of Iraq to their knees.

No longer are Osama bin-Laden in Afghanistan and the U.S. promoted sectarian conflicts between the Shi’ia and Sunni population of Iraq, who had co-existed side by side in the same communities for centuries, sufficient and convincing explanations for sacrificing the lives of additional American troops. The U.S. administration now has to deflect from its own failures and put the blame on Iraq’s neighboring countries of Iran and Syria. This wicked behavior is not limited by time and place or specificity of war. In the last century, the colonial and neo-colonial powers such as France in Algeria, Britain in Iraq, the Dutch in Indonesia, and the U.S. in Vietnam, exhibited very similar conduct and arguments.

This time the U.S. has targeted Iran as a scapegoat for its fiasco in Iraq. To be acceptable to the conservative social classes of the American and European societies and to the semi-colonial Sheikdom of Saudi Arabia and the puppet kingdom of Jordan, the case against Iran has to be manifold, mean-spirited and fearful. For the White House and the Pentagon, headed now by a trickster from the CIA, Robert Gates, to receive a green light, or at least no serious opposition to continuing the war and taking the U.S. to the brink of war with Iran and utter disaster, these American heads have to scare the American people to death. Now, the enemy is Iran, the “biggest threat to the United States” in the words of neo-conservative hysteria-maker Michael Ledeen.

Manufacturing Lies
This process of case-building against Iran began a long time ago, as far back as 1979, but is absolutely necessary to raise Iran as the “specter” haunting the United States.

Just as in 2002, that the U.S. administration replaced Osama bin-Laden with Saddam Hussein, today the focus has shifted from the failed state of Iraq to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For example, the lie was spread that Ayatollah Khameini had died some days ago, and Iran was hiding the news. Another slander was that Ali Khameini had criticized Ahmadinejad for his preoccupation with the nuclear energy issue. In most cases, it is either the Zionist lobby in Washington or Tel Aviv itself that is the center spreading many of these lies and disinformation.

In the last few months and especially during the last few weeks, the Bush regime, in direct opposition to the general consent and strong public opinion in the U.S. and internationally, has escalated the tension between the two countries and embarked on a series of provocations, which include:

* The non-stop stream of disinformation, running through radio, TV and news publications and ceaselessly characterizing Iran as a “threat” to the U.S. and the rest of the world community.

* The kidnapping and threatening of Iranian diplomats in Iraq and around the world.

* The blacklisting of Iran’s commercial bank of Sepah in the European countries.

* Arbitrarily interpreting the UN sanctions and with the assistance of U.S. Congressional legislation, imposing embargos on foreign companies in non-nuclear commercial relations with Iran. So far the U.S. has imposed sanctions on several Chinese and Russian companies, in violation of international laws.

* The deployment of Patriot missiles to Israel and the Persian Gulf states with the perceived scenario of shooting down in-coming Iranian Shahab-3 missiles, in case Tehran tries to retaliate in response to the American-Israeli missile attacks.

* The deployment of the USS Eisenhower nuclear strike force to the Oman Sea and the vicinity of the Persian Gulf waters.

* The baseless claim of Washington that Iranian “networks” are operating inside Iraq with the purpose of helping the guerrillas to target U.S. troops.

* The U.S. allegations that Iranian “operatives” are collaborating with the Sunni resistance movement to destabilize Iraq and drive the U.S. out of that country.

* The constant violation of Iran’s airspace by flying drones for the purpose of dropping electronic transmission devices and collecting intelligence information.

* The deployment of U.S. special forces to the border regions in Khuzistan province next to Basra in Iraq and in Sistan-Baloochistan Province next to the territories in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The purpose of the intrusions into those territories is to influence the ethnic minorities and stir up separatist ideas among them.

It is regrettable but not surprising to learn that the U.S.-British plan of “divide and rule” that was applied in Iraq and now used in the Middle East in general, has found big ears among the Arab rulers. The same scheme that was used by the U.S. to exploit social tensions in Iraq, using the sectarian yardstick of Shi’ia and Sunni, currently has found a greater application in the entire sub-continent of the Middle East. The plan is devised to embolden the Sunni majority of the Muslim world to confront the Shi’ite minority. In this game of occupiers, the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan have become two enthusiastic and happy players. Both leaders have expressed their dissatisfaction with Iran’s growing regional status.

The U.S. objective in raising the tensions with Iran is to test the unity, solidarity and tolerance of the Iranian government and its people to economic, diplomatic, and military pressures. The knowledge of if and when a split begins to appear among the political class in Iran is of utmost importance to the U.S. empire and its long-term strategy of world domination. In a recent NY Times article on Iran, it was reported that one of General Abizaid’s jobs was to calibrate responses in Iran to U.S. threats and moves in the Persian Gulf area. Posturing and the U.S. psychological war, the first phase of the conflict is reaching its maturity. Short of an accident, as in the First World War, neither Iran nor the U.S. is looking for a war.

It has been said by the Iranian historian, Professor Ervand Abrahamian, that should the U.S. administration provoke a war between the U.S. and Iran, it will last 30 to 100 years. The U.S. ruling class may start the war, but it would be the Iranians who will finish it.

[Rasputin]

Three former high-ranking American military officers have warned against any military attack on Iran.
They said such action would have "disastrous consequences" for security in the Middle East and also for coalition forces in Iraq.

They said the crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme must be resolved through diplomacy, urging Washington to start direct talks with Iran.

The letter was published in Britain's Sunday Times newspaper.

It was signed by:


Lt Gen Robert Gard, a former military assistant to the US defence secretary

Gen Joseph Hoar, a former commander-in-chief, US Central Command

Vice Adm Jack Shanahan, a former director of the Center for Defense Information
"As former US military leaders, we strongly caution against the use of military force against Iran," the authors said.


Iran's account of its nuclear programme has not satisfied the US

They said such action would further exacerbate regional and global tensions.

"A strategy of diplomatic engagement with Iran would serve the interests of the US and the UK and potentially could enhance regional and international security," the letter said.

It also said that "the British government has a vital role play in securing a renewed diplomatic push and making it clear that it will oppose any recourse to military force".

The US and its Western allies suspect Iran of using its nuclear programme as a cover to produce nuclear weapons, a claim denied by Tehran.

Washington has so far refused to rule out military action if Iran does not halt its nuclear activities.

The US has also recently beefed up its military presence in the Gulf.

[Rasputin]

I know the materials printed in this website will be studied by the American monitoring offices stationed in Dubai and I hope I could directly open my hearts to them.

I am not related to the Iranian regime whatsoever, neither have I ever had anything to do with politics. I would like to ask them just one question: Is the USA really a friend of Iranian people as its president persistently emphasizes? The USA does not show the simplest cue of friendship to ordinary Iranians at all. Just pay a visit to the American consulate in Dubai and see for yourself the impolite and humiliating behavior of their workers when they see our Iranian passport.

What kind of country would talk of friendship when its court in Chicago tries to auction ancient pieces of Iranian heritage, which also happens to be the heritage of humanity -- only out of spite towards a regime? What country would talk of respecting another country's culture and history while it actually tries to make the people of that country jobless and hungry?

I am an Iranian businessman who started from scratch and worked hard for the past four decades. I have the responsibility of taking care of more than 500 families who work in my manufacturing plants. In the past few months after the U.S. involvement in putting pressure against Iran, my business went down like many many others.

Two months ago after the U.S. treasury department implemented sanctions against Sepah Bank, many of my transactions with the west came to a halt. We badly needed materials and some spare parts but somehow had great difficulty importing them from our various sources in Europe. Now we hear the news of even more possible financial sanctions in the near future. In that case I have to close down most of my businesses and wait for the dark future that the blue-eyed Americans have in store for us.

More than 500 of my employees will soon be out of jobs and their families who greatly depend on their incomes will be hungry. I am not the only one who has to do this and I personally know scores of small and big businesses which cannot survive without continuous transactions with the outside world. Soon after blocking the transaction of Iranian banks with the outside world, hundreds of thousands of people will be out of jobs and millions will be affected.

Do you think the jobless people will take to the street and topple the regime? If so, you do not have an inkling about this country and nation. I have saved enough money to help my family survive and have a comfortable life in case of any possible happening, so I am not worried about myself. The thing is I could not look into the eyes of my employees when I have to tell them they have to stop coming to work because a number of stupid, illogical and virtually illiterate people in the U.S. Treasury Department have decided to implement more sanctions on Iranian banks.

Any American who has ever traveled to this country would testify a total lack of hostility toward his compatriots in Iran. Iranians are the one and only friends left for the USA in the region and maybe in the world. I have not seen very many pro Amercians among my European friends either. I have lived among Arabs for such a long time and I know the degree of their hatred and resentment toward Americans. But this will not be forever.

American sanctions will eventually show their true nature to the Iranian youths who would love to watch American films and visit the USA just for the heck of it. Contrary to the Bush's administration's repeated claims that the sanctions target the regime, there are signs that shows they have targeted ordinary Iranians. Just turn back time and remember the promises of Mr. Bush for a rich and prosperous Iraq. Now the country is torn apart in blood and smoke and there is not a small sign of security and happiness there. Mr. Bush has the same plans for our poor country too.

Mr. Bush should know the future sanctions will not have ANY effect on the government in Tehran. Just remember the fact that Saddam Hussein built half of his grand palaces during the last ten years of UN sanctions while Iraqi babies died in scores everyday due to lack of food and medicine. Just look at Cuba and see more than 40 years of political and financial pressure did not make any crack mindset of its leaders. Now Castro is dying, yet there is no prospect of the dictatorial regime falling apart.

I think the Bush administration is quite ill-advised on this matter. I know there are some stupid Iranian opposition groups who live in the USA and many of them try to justify U.S. actions in one way or another, but they have lived so many years far away from this country that they hardly even speak colloquial Farsi of today. Some of them are inviting American soldiers to their motherland but they do not really know what they are talking about.

American sanctions and military intervention will have only one effect on us and that will be the fact that ordinary Iranians will soon realize the true face the United States. These sanctions will take all of them out of their reverie and they will see the real war-making machinery of Bush-Rice administration is no friend of ours. And it will unite us all together. Soon after the very first bombs falls on Iranian soil, America's very best friends in the world, will turn out to be its greatest enemies. Guess who benefits from that?

[Rasputin]

يک افسر نظامی آمريکايی که به دليل امتناع از رفتن به عراق در دادگاه محاکمه می شود، در اولين جلسه دادگاه ادعای بی گناهی کرده است.
ارن واتادا، افسر پياده نظام از هاوايی در دادگاه نظامی در ايالت واشنگتن، واقع در شمال غرب آمريکا، اتهامات وارده را رد کرده و گفته چون جنگ عراق غيرقانونی است، دستور عزيمت به آن نيز دستوری غيرقانونی است.

اما قاضی دادگاه نظامی دفاع اين افسر آمريکايی را بر مبنای قانونی بودن يا نبودن جنگ، غيرقابل قبول دانسته است.

آقای واتادا به جز اتهام 'غيبت' با دو مورد اتهام ديگر نيز روبروست که هر دوی آنها به انتقادات وی از جنگ عراق و 'غير قانون و غير اخلاقی' خواندن آن بر می گردد.

وی که پس از حملات يازده سپتامبر در سال 2001 ميلادی به ارتش آمريکا پيوسته، ژوئن سال گذشته ميلادی (خردادماه 1385) از اعزام به عراق خودداری کرد و اگر در همه موارد اتهام مجرم شناخته شود، با مجازات حداکثر چهار سال حبس روبرو خواهد بود.

با وجود اينکه نظاميان ديگری نيز از رفتن به عراق امتناع کرده اند، آقای واتادا اولين کسی است که به اين دليل در دادگاه نظامی محاکمه می شود.

بنا به گزارش ها به هنگام محاکمه اين افسر آمريکايی گروهی از فعالان ضد جنگ از جمله شان پن، هنرپيشه سرشناس آمريکايي، به هواداری از وی بيرون دادگاه تجمع کردند.

پيشتر آقای واتادا در صحبت های خود گفته بود آماده است به افغانستان اعزام شود، اما از اعزام به عراق را به دليل آنچه 'غيرقانونی بودن مداخله نظامی آمريکا' در اين کشور خوانده بود، امتناع کرده بود.

بنا به آمار رسمی منتشر شده، از زمان حمله به عراق در سال 2003 ميلادی تا کنون بيش از سه هزار سرباز آمريکايی جان باخته اند.

[Rasputin]

The analysis by John Pilger in "Iran: The war begins" that the war with Iran is going to happen, is not news. Many have already been talking about this, and I, for one, have been writing about the high probability of it happening for the last 2-3 years. And if it happens it would not happen only because of the American/British policies, but also because of the policies adopted by the Iranian government.

While every effort should be made to prevent this catastrophe (even though it may be too late now), it does not help the anti-war movement to concentrate wholly on the US government’s designs and exonerate the Iranian government of what it has been doing -- as John Pilger does in his analysis.

Take the notorious statement by President Ahmadinejad that has been vaguely translated in the west as Israel being "wiped off the map". John makes a lot out of the fact that what Ahmadinejad has said was that “The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” This is true. But how much difference does that make in real terms?

Indeed, as a Persian scholar I can say with authority that the meaning of what he has said, in the context he used to pronounce it, could be taken as much stronger than just saying that Israel should be wiped off the map. When you express it in terms of “time” (eternity) instead of “place” (map of the world) you are saying, in effect, that not only the regime must vanish “now” but “forever”. This fits well with the apocalyptical philosophy that guides Ahmadinejad’s policies and is manifest in many of his pronunciations, including those he has delivered at the United Nations.

The comparison with the demise of the Soviet Union does not help to dispel the enormity of what Ahmadinejad has said about Israel either. Ahmadinejad knows well that the Soviet Union was not a democratic system, but an oligarchy -- like the one he represents himself. It needed only a free election to get rid of the system.

However, no such election would do the same in Israel -- except only if it disappears as a State first, and then the election is held in the whole of Palestine as a single country. So the comparison, too, implies that Israel must vanish as a State -- something that can only be done by force.

And think of what would have been the reaction of John Pilger and many on the Left in the west if President Reagan had used similar terms in reference to the Soviet Union in early 1980’s -- even though he may have defended his position by saying that he didn’t mean the use of force to achieve that end, but only through free elections...

The tragedy of the Iranian people is not only that they have become the next target of the American neocon policies, but also that they are being ruled by the most brutal and ideologically backward-looking and fatalist government in their recent history. The Iranian government has managed to concentrate the world opinion on its nuclear policies and as a result to push aside its horrible human rights record off the agenda.

And the Left in the west has been playing into its hands by ignoring the plight of the Iranian people and concentrating solely on the American designs. This is not the way to effectively fight the impending war. An anti-war stand should be combined with a worldwide campaign for democracy and human rights in Iran -- not only to help relieve Iranians of their sufferings, but also as the best means to diminish the tension in the area and remove any excuse for an American/Israeli attack on Iran.

Ahmadinejad should be condemned for the statements he has made about Israel and Holocaust. Calls should be made for free and fair elections in Iran. Iran’s horrible human rights records should be condemned and those implicated of human rights crimes (many of them in the government) should be brought to justice. And of course, war should be opposed in any circumstances. The Left should be in the vanguard of these campaigns -- if it wants to have any credibility in its campaign against the war...

[Rasputin]

For a period of time, it was clear that this administration had no policy on Iran except to say that it stands behind the Iranian people so long as the Iranian people stand for freedom. Regardless of how abstract and vague that policy was, it's clear that it has shifted now to something much more confrontational, and less focused on human rights. Here's an excerpt from a recent interview in the Wall Street Journal:

Bush: My theory all along has been to isolate the Iranian regime to determine whether or not there are people in their country who will worry about financial isolation, isolation from trade opportunities. One of the interesting things that we do know about Iran is that there is a large diaspora that is communicating inside Tehran, for example. There are rational people in that country who believe that isolation is not in their interests. And there is enough commerce that if it can be affected through international cooperation, it may cause people to say, 'Wait a minute. We'd better take a look to see who's running this deal.' And I can only tell you that I'm encouraged by the fact that others are beginning to question whether Ahmadinejad is capable of leading the country

I think you have a much stronger and dramatic shift in the Bush policy on how to promote democratization in Iran. The notion that economic isolation will force the Iranians to overthrow the government is too simple to actually believe. This is buttressed by the fact that the same tactic did not and has not worked in China, Iraq, or in North Korea. Rather the notion of economic isolation seems more like a tool the government can use to persuade its constituents that it is actually "doing something." That is to say, sanctions on Iran do nothing except help politicians get votes.

Rather, the key difference here is Bush's recognition of links between the Diaspora and Iran. That link is important because it demonstrates that the administration has a fundamental belief concerning how the Diaspora and Iran interact and may influence one another.

I do not think the administration believes that the Iranian Diaspora is a significant lobbying group. It's clear that the Diaspora is disorganized, diverse, often conflicting with one another, and for the most part apolitical and apathetic. Especially since 9/11, most Iranians have shed their Iranian-American skin for American clothing. Most Iranian-American Muslims have for the most part stopped identifying Muslim part. In essence, we have become more Persian than Iranian in the most historically inaccurate way possible. Thus, I doubt that the administration is appealing to the Diaspora in order to appease them or gain their trust.

I think there is an opposite effect in hoping that the Diaspora can be a front, amongst many fronts, against the Iranian regime. This is nothing new or novel, but the approach I think might be different.

It is apparent that in the past the US administration would often cater to "organized" political groups in the US, such as the monarchists, the MKO, etc. While these groups may continue to have a nominal role in influencing US politics, particularly within military circles where I am sure officials continue to rely on them for intelligence (despite how unreliable that information obviously is), I think they are no longer trusted as a viable counter-weight to the Iranian government. In part, I think the US government has finally realized that Reza Pahlavi and Maryam Rajavi do not have support within Iran, and that US support for these groups harms more than furthers any US interest within the region.

So then when Bush talks about the "Diaspora", who is he talking about? Most likely he is talking about you and me, normal Iranian-Americans who might have ties within Iran. There is certainly a growing realization that we are much more realistic and reliable source of information when it comes down to describing Iran, its people, and current political movements there. But there are several limitations to this approach which I wonder whether the administration or intelligence units are cognizant of:

1. While a number of those within the Diaspora travel back and forth from Iran, few if any stay in Iran long enough to be able to identify with it and be able to adequately describe the "mood" of the country. Given travel restrictions in Iran and the current hostility with the US, it has become almost impossible for Iranian-Americans to stay in Iran for an extended period of time. The most one could conclude is that the perception of an Iranian-American, even one who is fluent in Persian and has family there, is really viewing the country and its people from the perspective of a tourist.

2. Those who travel to Iran often see what the want to see and reject the multitude of diverse beliefs, particularly those which run counter to their own perspective. An Iranian-American who wants to believe that Iranians are pro-American for the most part will completely discount the elements of Iran which are clearly anti-American. Or those anti-American elements will be discounted as "foreign" to the country, when they are really not. On the other hand, those who have an anti-American perspective will view Iranians as being hostile to Americans, moreso then they really are. Perspective guides reality, and reality is all a matter of perspective.

3. Most Iranian-Americans come from a cross-section of Iran which is unrepresentative of the country as a whole. Is there any question that most Iranians in America come from wealthy, educated families in Iran? Obviously not. Thus, there is clearly a liberal bias in their views. Thus, even Iranian-Americans which are in constant contact with their family abroad should be viewed with suspicion, since they are more likely relaying the opinions of those who really only constitute 1% of the Iranian populace. This same bias was detriment to media coverage of Iran's presidential elections.

While there it is positive that the administration and intelligence agencies are finally moving away from elements within the Diaspora which possess political biases, are ill-informed, do not have support inside or outside of Iran, and are generally supportive of a more confrontational support with Iran than the overwhelming majority of Iranians are, there should be some skepticism when reaching out to other Iranian-Americans. As much as we would love to claim ties to the home country, the fact remains that we are Iranian-Americans. We do not live in Iran. We do not work in Iran. We do not go to school in Iran. We are in America and that disconnect with the every day lives of Iranians is sufficient to make all our views about the country and its people limited and possibly discredited.