Five Sentenced to Death in Iran for Post Election Protests

A reminder that well our attention may be diverted, the autocratic regime in Iran is not letting up.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran has sentenced five people to death over the unrest that followed the country's disputed June presidential election, state television reported Tuesday.

At least three others caught up in the turmoil have received death sentences previously.

Iran began a mass trial in August of prominent opposition figures and activists, accusing them of a range of charges from rioting to spying and plotting what authorities have called a "soft revolution" to topple the country's Islamic rulers.

The opposition led massive street protests and clashed with security forces in the weeks following the disputed June 12 presidential election. The opposition claimed fraud after election authorities declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner of a second term and their anger unleashed the most serious internal unrest in Iran in the 30 years since the Islamic Revolution.

A Justice Department statement said the five sentenced to death were members of "terrorist and armed opposition groups," state television reported. The statement said the courts have sentenced a total of 89 defendants since the process began and 81 of them got prison terms ranging from six months up to 15 years.

"So far, 89 of defendants were tried and based on their cases, death sentences were issued for five of them," the statement said.

It said the 81 people sentenced to prison terms were charged with a range of offenses from security violations, agitating against the Islamic Republic, violating law and order, damaging public and private property, and assaulting civilians and security forces.

Why is McCain Such a Credible Voice on Afganistan?

What I find interesting is that someone who voted for and has spoken fervently in support of the Iraq War which diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan and said in the long run we can just "muddle through" the war in Afghanistan; is taken seriously in this latest debate on possibly escalating troop levels there.


Don't get me wrong, I am not one of those who thinks we should retreat from there immediately. After all Afghanistan is the war where there was a threat and where elements of Al-Queda have received aid and we should continue to battle to defeat or mollify such elements, though as we have seen in Iraq nation building is something that only bogs us down. People should remember that just because you throw money and soldiers at a problem does not automatically solve a problem, unless they have a solid strategy to guide them.

Iranian People Would Be Willing to Get Rid of Nuclear Weapons Making Capacity

Image: World Public Opinion.org


Next time a neoconservative tries to persuade you that an invasion or 'military strike' is beneficial to the United States and is necessary; one may want to examine this data from a new world public opinion survey (H/T Washington Independent). Considering this is a nation's whose regime and titular 'president' have such an authoritarian approach towards dealing with those in power, it amazes me that Iranians would be brave enough to voice such an opinion.

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll finds that two-thirds of Iranians would favor their government precluding the development of nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions against Iran.

Only one-third would be ready to halt enrichment in exchange for lifting sanctions. However, another third, while insisting on continuing enrichment, would agree to grant international inspectors unrestricted access to nuclear facilities to ensure that that there are no bomb-making activities.

The WPO poll also finds that six in 10 Iranians believe that economic sanctions, imposed by the United States and the United Nations over fears that Iran's nuclear program might produce an atomic weapon, are having a negative impact. Seven in 10 say they believe sanctions will be tightened if Iran continues its current nuclear program.

As the Washington Independent points out, Iran is far from a democracy and doesn't necessarily appraise the wishes of public opinion. Having said that, the citizens of Iran polled say that their desire to compromise and conclude this standoff in a course of action that does not involve the use of force is congruent with ours.

Sanctions, the bedlam that was a product of the June Iranian elections, and the continued bellicosity of Ahmadinejad and intransigence of the Ayatollahs place the governing structure of the Islamic Republic in a vulnerable and precarious position.

Comparatively, while Iranian opinion in the streets seems to be in favor of negotiating away the ability to construct nuclear weapons, the U.S Public seems to be in favor of using military force to thwart Iranian attempts at developing a nuclear weapons program, at least according to one poll (although a vast bi-partisan majority still back direct talks with Iran).

But right now a military strike would be a victory short-lived, only cause the government to enhance its efforts to reconstitute a nuclear program, drive them to even greater extremes, further destabilize neighboring countries where U.S and International forces are stationed and weak regimes are installed in power, and despite the actions of the Iranian regime over the past months, solidify the Iranian populace around their "leader" in a show of nationalism and deflate the dissident movement at a juncture when the U.S and other countries should be exploiting schisms in the Iranian state.

And quite simply laid out for those who have little doubt, if you disapproved of the government and then a foreign government came and launched an attack on your country would you be more likely to coalesce around your country (via 9/11) or run into the arms of the foreign land that authorized the strike?

What Do You Call an Iranian Leader Who was Born Jewish, but Now denies tyhe Holocaust?

White Supremacist (Dave Chapelle) - watch more funny videos

The blind Black Klansman from the Dave Chapelle Show Suddenly Comes To Mind

I don't know how reliable this is, but evidently you call him Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yup, that's right the Iranian leader who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and has time and again denied the holocaust, may in fact have been born a Jew. Maybe his parents forgot to mention it.

This knowledge was obtained from a 2008 photograph of Ahmadinejad displaying his ID card in a photograph. According to the article in the London Telegraph, Ahmadinejad's real last name was Sabourjian, which translated is an old Jewish way of say 'cloth weaver'. The family converted to the Islamic faith and moved to Tehran sometime after Mahmoud's birth in 1956. The altering of ones name when they change faith is customary in Iran. Nonetheless it is said that his billingsgates against the Israeli state, the Jewish faith, and the atrocity of the holocaust could be his way of trying to conceal his roots.

According to his wiki (which is always a source that has to be taken with a grain of salt though) one biographer dispells the leader's alleged Jewish origins and that his last name was 'Sabaghian', which means 'dye masters' in Persian .

If this is true this is awkward to say the least. If many of his most ardent conservative supporters were not aware of this I wonder how they feel? Though this is not unheard of among forces hostile towards Jews. Hitler himself was believed to have Jewish blood in him, some say his Paternal grandfather was Jewish.

Another Reason to End the Iraq War

General Ray Odierno:

"I'm not sure we will ever see anyone declare victory in Iraq, because first off, I'm not sure we'll know for 10 years or five years," Army Gen. Ray Odierno told reporters at the Pentagon.

Odierno is in charge of military operations in Iraq. According to Odierno a load of Iranian weapons was supposedly discovered in Iraq. He goes on to say that what the U.S is doing now is laying the foundation for a "long term strategic partner of the United States" as well as function as a stabilizing force of sorts in the often volatile Middle East.

Given the past six years of often bungled strategy and the hardships we now face in Afghanistan, a stabilizing force may be the best we can hope for. But given all the sacrifice made in this invasion, it hardly seems worth it since Iraq, although headed by a barbarous dictator before was not in as precarious of a state as it is now, that all scarcely seems worth it, and the presence of Iraq being a functional stabilizing force is not exactly a given either. And the idea that we can stay forever occupying a land but never win makes this endeavor all the more senseless.

John Kyl (R-Arizona) Says Regime Change Should be Ultimate U.S Goal in Iran

This past week Iran was once again in the headlines. A Summer of violence inflicted on dissidents by the military and security forces following the Iranian Presidential "election" in June, as well as fears that the Islamic Republic could soon acquire nuclear weapons; have gained the country much attention and has created much concern.

Last week at the United Nations, the country's "President" faced protests by those denouncing his brutish tactics against Iranian protesters in his own country. His diatribes against Israel and denial of the holocaust caused many to walk out during his speech before the United Nations last week. And intelligence of a subterranean facility connected to the country's nuclear program; elicited rebukes and renewed talk of International sanctions by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and even Russia to a lesser degree.

Now, as the United States remains mired in two Middle Eastern conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq (both countries next to Iran), some of the neocons in the United States think maybe two millitary stalemates aren't enough.

It appears that Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) and outgoing Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) are mulling regime change in Iran. Kyl and Bond who each appeared on Sunday morning political talk shows, aren't yet urging an all out Iraq-style pre-emptive war just yet, nevertheless he says regime change should be the ultimate objective of the United States in its policy towards Iran.

"What we're trying to do here eventually is get a regime change," he said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"Get a group of people in there that are more representative of the Iranian people, that we really can talk with in a way that might end up with a good result. I think it's very difficult to do that with the current leadership and especially the elected president," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

My Pavlovian response to such rhetoric is usually a mix between a roll of the eyes, fear of another military adventure that ends in an outright fiasco, and anger that anyone could be stupid enough to be so cavalier after what we have endured with Iraq. But the so-called election this past Summer (and no Senator Kyl he isn't the "elected President" of Iran he stole the election at least as far as we can tell) shows that there is a reservoir of suspicion and resentment towards Amadinejad that has gone beyond him and was so audacious as to be aimed even at the Mullahs who hold the real power in the country.

Action should be taken for sure, and as of now it appears that Obama is attempting to adopt the approach similar to that George HW Bush took in 1990 following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq; attempting to build legitimacy with the International community specifically within the UN membership to denounce and punish Iran, rather then the bungled neoconservative model of the Iraq war.

As Josh Marshall on TPM points out, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates even says that any sort of military action towards Iran would have limited results. After attacking any facilities what is to say that Iran won't immediately work to rebuild such capabilities? Would we once again be forced to militarily reconstructing the entire sociopolitical framework of a nation where we are viewed with suspicion and whose culture Americans by and large have little familiarity with? Such a move would further destabilize the global economy, driving further up the price of oil. Not all the weapons sites are likely known in Iran since U.S Intelligence in the country is scant at best if existent at all. It sits in a region where its two neighboring countries Iraq and Afghanistan have unstable, inept regimes that are seen as effective by much of their citizenry and are just possibly fragile enough to also be forced from power in reaction.

The international community would likely not stand alongside the United States and Israel in such an attack, and such talk would only cause Iran to expedite the development of a nuclear program and do something that this summer shows Ahmadinejad and the government were never able to do and that is make him legitimate in the eyes of the Iranian people. His tirades and fear mongering would be validated and any opening the U.S may have had with the Iran citizenry could be very well sealed shut if we are perceived as trigger happy. An attack on Iran could turn more of them against us and in the wake of such an attack we could see a flood of Iranians crossing into Iraq armed with a newly formed hatred in their hearts and thousands of U.S soldiers in their sights.

Finally, the government of Ahmadinejad is not the body that really hold the bulk of the decision making power is done by the mullahs and the Grand Ayatollah. In the larger configuration of things Ahmadinejad is a minute component in the more vast system of the Iranian elite.

If we have learned anything from nearly a decade of struggle and Afghanistan and our invasion of Iraq, its that War and regime change are something that is easy to spout off about, but violent, costly, and painstaking to carry out. We are already locked in two wars rebuilding two nations,to enter a third would be the most absurd and tragic of follies.

Tortured Iranian Prisoner Kills Himself

Though the situation in the past month or two has been eclipsed by other events, the graphic video above (H/T:Andrew Sullivan) as an ireport for CNN, shows the bloodied father in the aftermath of his young son's suicide who upon being released from prison leaped off a bridge to his death. Apparently the deceased had been jailed for participating in post-election protests and well in prison had endured rape and torture at the hands of his captors.

Free Maziar Bahari

Last night on the Rachel Maddow Show, I heard about Newsweek Iranian correspondent Maziar Bahari , who has been held prisoner by the government in Iran, in the wake of the intensity and disputes of that country's Presidential election.

In the past he his coverage has been praised by the Iranian government who has given him clearance to do his job. But since June 21, he has been held by the government, who has alleged he presented coverage aimed at undermining the government in a plot to remove the government there from power.

By all accounts, he sounds like a journalist who reported objectively and is now being held (and even forced to give a false confession) all because he was merely reporting the facts and doing his job.

Sign this petition that action be taken to free Maziar Bahari now.

Neocons Froth at the Release of Journalists from North Korea

The top story today was no doubt the return of former U.S President Bill Clinton and recently freed journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee who had been imprisoned in North Korea since earlier this March, when according to reports they had accidentally crossed from China into North Korean territory. Subsequently they were given a "trial" in North Korea and sentenced to twelve years imprisonment in a forced labor camp.

But on what is said to have been a "private" mission former U.S President Bill Clinton went over to the totalitarian country and was able to get the two journalists pardoned, returning them to the shores of America and the arms of relieved families and a grateful nation. In exchange for what? A few photographs with a despot.

To tell the truth I was surprised that this much was able to be accomplished over a forty-eight hour period; especially since the names and incident as unjust as it is had faded from the headlines. Obviously this was planned beforehand, but nonetheless the aim of this mission by the ex-President obviously was to come home with these two hostages and that was accomplished.

But despite achieving that objective many on the far right and the neocons bemoan that it is negotiating with terrorists and horrible regimes. That we should not be engaging in dialogue much less posing for photos with them. Ex-acting U.S Ambassador to the UN and noted neoconservative John Bolton says this was merely rewarding bad behavior and possibly emboldening our enemies. Sean Hannity, the whitehouses ambassador to the radio waves during the Bush/Cheney administration echoed that sentiment. Most have the decency and logic to at least preference their condemnations with "I am glad the girls are home". But ex-Clinton aide and neoconservative Dick Morris says the girls she be punished for what they did. They should remain stashed away in the tombal prisons of this Stalinist nation, toiling day and night for having accidentally stumbled into North Korean territory.

(H/T: Crooks and Liars)-

Carlson: How are we supposed to get the girls home, though, Dick? And I only have 30 seconds. How are we supposed to get them home?

Morris: I don't know. I don't know. Maybe they don't come home. Maybe they go to North Korea and live with the consequences of their decision to go there.

So much for that spreading of democracy across the world that Dick and the other neoconservatives were so hopped on back in the Bush/Cheney administration.

But aside from the post-rational reasoning of this clown, what is their alternative? So what if Kim Jung Ill has two or three photos of him with Bill Clinton? Kim Jung Ill has scant if any credibility anywhere in the world and is noted as despot. In doing this we as America show that we care about our people, which is more then can be said about the leader of North Korea? And does this really put us in a worse spot then before? What, now that a former president sat down with a dictator we can't shake our fists and talk about how much we want to bomb North Korea? How much we condemn their nuclear program and their atrocious human rights record? Please somebody tell me how sitting with a former U.S president can be seen as essentially surrendering to North Korea? We got two of our citizens back whose only crime was getting lost and being from our great land, and from what we can tell now all it took was a few photos? I might be insane but a few photos seems like a minor price for the world's most powerful country to pay for two of its citizens.

By the logic of these critics we shouldn't have gotten our Navy men back on the USS Pueblo in 1968, when it was captured by North Korea, and in order to get them back to the security and haven of our land we had to apologize for having one of our submarines off their shores. Or that during World War II we should have risked losing the war, and not formed an alliance with one of the twentieth century's most detestable tyrants Josef Stalin, because that involved us not only meeting and talking with him, but allying ourselves with him to exploit the weakness of our common enemy during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, which ended up loosening the once iron grip Hitler and the Nazis had in the Eastern European theater. Yeah, what a mistake that was. Or how about during the Cuban missile crisis, when in order to avert a nuclear holocaust we ended up gasp negotiating with the Soviet Union to stave off nuclear Armageddon.

Or how about 1972 when Richard Nixon, a Republican and at the time ally of many conservatives (such as Pat Buchanan) traveled to China and ended up opening relations with the communist nation, to exploit the divides between China and their communist rival the Soviet Union which ultimately was a crucial element in ending the cold war?

But the best comparison I heard was on the Political Animal, where reference is made to Michael Crowley who quipped After all, "even the right's cherished embodiment of American machismo, Ronald Reagan, was willing to trade arms for hostages." , referencing Reagan's arms for hostages deal in the 1980s, where Reagan actually sold U.S weapons to Iran, enemies of the United States, in order to secure the release of American hostages. But hey at least he didn't pose for a photo with the Ayatollah Khomeini. Just once I would like to hear someone bring up the arms for hostages deal when conservative commentators begin maligning this latest move by Clinton. I wonder if Dick Morris would then reply by saying that the hostages in the 1980s should have had to live with consequences of being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Iranian Wrap-Up: 7/31/09

Sorry for the lack of posts, especially regarding Iran. Been running around preoccupied with a lot of other matters this week, and unfortunately unlike bloggers who do so professionally or have a multitude of contributors.

One Iranian prison has been shut down earlier this week and 140 demonstrators released from prison, but both protester and government remain equally steadfast. Despite the Supreme Leader forcing Mahmoud Amadinejad to withdraw his choice for an Iranian Vice Presidential post because of comments that said Iranians and Israelis could be friends (talk about a mecca moment in Iranian politics), Ahmadinejad is adamantly denies there is a fissure between the leadership of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayidd Ali Khomeni and Ahmadinejad, saying the Supreme leader is like a father to him. Can we say covering ass? Obviously there are rifts here, after all unlike the Supreme leader Ahmadinejad's legitimacy is in question and he has much less power and his name is on the ballot every four years.

And over a month since the death of Neda Soltani who was gunned down by a stray bullet from security forces cracking down on protesters in the streets, and about a week following the global day of action last Saturday against the repressive conduct of the Iranian government and their Janissary's who won't stop defaming her even in death. When masses of people emerged yesterday at her grave site in silent protest, security forces were unleashed on the protesters and blocked opposition leader Mir Houssain Mousavi and other political leaders sympathetic to the dissidents from visiting Neda's grave.

Here by the way are some words by Neda's boyfriend of three months, describing his girlfriend who was slain by the government.

[TEHRAN BUREAU] Caspian Makan 37, boyfriend of Neda 27 (Q&A conducted 24 June 2009)

Neda was a very happy girl, she was, how can I put it, a simple person, innocent, sweet. She was the sort of girl that when we went somewhere together, everyone liked her, people were drawn to her. She was very kind with people, she had a really sweet personality, very sweet, innocent and open. People were drawn to her.

She was not at all into politics nor was she a protestor or part of this ‘green wave’ movement. She didn’t support any of the candidates. She just wanted democracy and a little freedom, a little freedom in a logical reasonable way, that was what she wanted — just the basic rights of the Iranian people which this regime wants to take away from them.

We knew each for just three months. It was not long enough…

Global Day of Action Against Iranian Regime

Today in nations around the globe, including various cities across the United States there have been activities and protests to mark an international day of action against the Iranian regime, for its voting irregularities in the June Presidential election and the subsequent harsh and inhuman treatment of dissidents and Iranians across the spectrum.

Some protesters are demanding a new election, to rectify the lopsided results of the June election, all are calling for the release of dissidents and political prisoners from the bowels of Iranian prisons.

I wish I could have participated, unfortunately I just heard about these demonstrations last night and the nearest event in Massachusetts is in Boston. But just the same I and I think it is safe to say the plurality of Americans and people around the globe who believe in peace, egalitarianism, justice, and freedom; at least march with those protesters(especially those in Iran who are in many cases literally risking their lives)to voice their opposition and chart their own course in the vast sea of destiny.

LONDON (AP) -- Protesters across the world called on Iran Saturday to end its clampdown on opposition activists, demanding the release of hundreds rounded up during demonstrations against the country's disputed election.

Groups including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International backed a global day of action, with protests planned in more than 80 cities.

The protesters want Iranian authorities to release what they say are hundreds, or even thousands, of people detained during protests that followed the presidential election last month that returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.

Inside Iran, as well, Iranian police and pro-government militia attacked and scattered hundreds of protesters who had gathered in Tehran in response to the global demonstrations of solidarity, witnesses said.

Demonstrators in Vanak and Mirdamad districts chanted "death to the dictator" and "we want our vote back" before they were attacked and beaten by police Saturday. The witnesses spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

Interestingly the internal politics, even amongst the established order is fissured to some degree. Even amongst Mahmoud Amadinejad and the conservative ayatollahs composing the "Supreme Leader" Sayyid Ali Khameni are divided. Ahmadinejad had mulled choosing an Iranian Vice President who allegedly made some positive remarks aboutIsrael(or ones that weren't threatening to Israel anyway). Apparently the established order didn't like that too much, and after digging in his heals; Ahmadinejad finally capitulated and will not choose that candidate to serve as the top Iranian Vice President.

Some musings are traveling around that Ahmadinejad, long a fervent conservative ally of the Ayatollah's and to their strict doctrine; was seeking a more conciliatory cabinet. Some may wonder why Ahmadinejad, someone who has been such a hardliner would seek to placate these factions? Well the answer is simple; despite the elections that have been rigged in his favor Ahmadinejad is still a politician. Ever few years he is up for re-election again, and even if the process is completely fixed in his favor his authority could be diminished in others ways and order completely disrupted. The Supreme Leader on the other hand is not up for election and his linked by the system to Shia Islam. He unlike Ahmadinejad who is accountable to the Ayatollah's and to some degree the people; the Supreme leader who has the true power of state resting in his palms and no end to his term is accountable to nobody.

Ahmadinejad may be reckless, but he is not totally stupid. He is well aware that if he doesn't sway or ameliorate the outrage in some at least slightly conciliatory way; if not at least cosmetically; the unrest and opposition towards him will blossom further; either forcing him from power or severely chocking any policies or actions his administration may want to take. In short the difference between the two is the old adage by Lord Acton that "absolute power, corrupts absolutely".

Audit Suggests U.S cut Embassy Staff, Costs at Embassy in Iraq

The Iraq war since 2003 has many have argued not only been a devastating loss of U.S soldiers and civilians for motives that are at best questionable, but also an endeavor rife with financial waste and corporate cronyism.

An article in the Washington Post an audit now suggests that there be cuts in the U.S embassy staffing in Iraq, that has cost $700 million to construct, consisting of 21 buildings and is the largest U.S embassy in the world with an astounding 1,873 employees. Yeah, and the Iraqi people are supposed to believe we have no long term ambitions in Iraq. Some would say that if the message an occupying power wants to send is self sufficiency and independence, building a wasteful and almost obscenely mascadonic embassy might not exactly be the most credible way. And as with much of what the Bush/Cheney administration did, it was a free for all for contractors.

For more than five years following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the embassy was housed in Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace inside the fortified Green Zone in central Baghdad. In the Bush administration, the audit said, normal staffing limits were not imposed, and cost "did not seem to be a factor."

Construction on a new embassy compound began in 2005 -- 21 buildings on 104 highly secured acres, costing more than $700 million.

Seriously, we have $700 million wasted on this palace and that is not counting the annual costs required to operate the embassy. We should sell it back to the Iraqi people, and use some of the money to build a much more humble and smaller embassy.That is if we truly do have no ambitions to indefinitely occupy the country.

Eric Cantor (R-VA) Calls for Judeo-Christian Values in the Middle East?

And they wonder why the Muslim world hates us. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) seems to be channeling Rudyard Kipling style jingoism for policy in the Middle East. Insisting that the best way to ease tensions in the Middle East is to make sure that our actions and policies are "firmly grounded in Juedo-Christian principles". I don't know which is more reckless and stupid; perhaps forgetting that p every nation with the exception of Israel has a Muslim majority or that he and other neoconservative zealots don't care.

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Christian Zionists that U.S. policies in the Middle East must be "firmly grounded" in Judeo-Christian principles.

"Reaching out to the Muslim world may help in creating an environment for peace in the Middle East, but we must insist as Americans that our policies be firmly grounded in the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this country was founded," said Cantor (R-Va.), the House minority whip and the only Jewish Republican in Congress, in a speech to the Christians United For Israel annual conference in Washington.

I have said said it before, if one thinks that a majority white christian country can with a bible in one hand and an M-16 in the other can go to a region of the world that you are culturally and historically unfamiliar with (and whose culture and language you are so dismissive of), whose language you don't speak, and view it as some opportunity to convert them to Christians and make thier countries into a region in the mold of United States, you are in the minds of many netural parties in the region validating the claims of Al-Queda that Europe, the United States, and Israel are imperialists seeking to desecrate Muslim and Arab culture, as well as sovereignty; thus allowing our enemies to make this an even more nationalistic holy war and rallying more support for the anti-western sentiment.

I just hope that this was merely political pandering to the nut job neocons and not something that Cantor and any serious policy maker believes in. Because we are already fighting an enemy who seeks to spread a perverted and distorted form of a religion with missionary zeal through a-symmetrical millita -style means. The last thing we need is to become a power that with arrogance goes around the globe using the twin elements of fanatic missionary zeal and violence to do the same by using a twisted version of Christianity or Judaism, with our millitary. It would be futile, horrific.

Besides just because our nation is built on a Juedo-Christian philosphy (that at least according to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796 is questionable in and of itself) doesn't mean that all nations are too. America is not the world. We have always espoused a principle of self-determination for peoples and lands throughout the globe, and those who actually believe we should exercise in Foreign policy a Judeo-Christian Foreign policy in a Muslim land, are not only ignorant but violate that principle of self-determination.

And another thing, if you want to be a religious evangelist that's fine. But don't do so in public office.

Iranian Wrap-up: 7/17/09

After a fairly subdued period at least from the vantage point of those of us outside Iran and the Middle Eastern region, tension between Iranian reform elements and the regime have picked up steam again.

On Thursday it was announced that the chief of Iran's atomic Energy operations and Vice President Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh, tendered and gave to President Mahmoud Amadinejad his resignation three weeks ago. Explanation has not been publicly given for his abdication. Meanwhile this Friday a Prayer meeting led by ex-Iranian Prime Minister Rafsinjani, excoriated the regime for its treatment of protesters and conduct following the election, and have demanded the release of those protesters imprisoned. It is said that the crowds have periodically broken out into chants of "freedom" and others calling for "death to the dictator" a statement directed at the Supreme Leader Sayid Ali Khomeni.

Security forces including elements of the pro government Baji militia have gassed and beaten demonstrators according to reports, and many have been arrested. Top reformist politicians are said to have been present at the sermons that have been broadcast uninterrupted on radio. One of Iran's televisions stations also for the first time is said to have aired some footage of the unrest in the Iranian capital city.

Also in a strange incident reminiscent of the 1979 Iranian Revolution when protesters, young bearded men of college background flooded the streets, setting flags ablaze and labeling America "the Great Satan" is said to have been occurring in Iran's Palestinian Square. There are some shouting from speakers "death to America" and "death to Isreal", but the shouters seem not to realize that the dynamics have shifted and the masses allegedly are returning those shouts with angry statements directed towards China and Russia, who have recognized the election of Ahmadinejad. Speaking of Ahmadinejad, the Iranian intelligence community has now emerged with a claim that the Israelis tried to assassinate him, a claim that doesn't seem to be as effective for him politically as it used to.

Many including myself thought that the brute force of the Iranian state would have been too much for the resistance movement to surmount at this point. After all it is Ahmadinejad, the Grand leader, and others entrenched in power have the armaments, the media, and many other instruments of the nation at their disposal. Yet the combination of the youthful; protesters, their outrage at the election and desires for a new vision for the Iranian state, and the encouragement they now receive from powerful figures in the councils the country's political and religious communities have allowed the reformist movement and anti-Ahmadinejad elements to be more resilent then in the past.

Here are some of the chants being recited by Iranian protesters:

* “Down with this people-fooling government!” (Marg bar in dolat-e mardom-farib)
* “Coup d’etat government, step down!” (Dolat-e kudeta, estefa, estefa!)
* “As long as it’s Ahmadinejad, every day shall be thus!” (Ta Ahmadinejad-e, har rooz hamin basat-e!)
* “Die Mojtaba, before you see the Leadership!” (Mojtaba bemiri, rahbari o nabini!) [in ref. to Khamenei's son]
* “We are not chaff — we are the nation!” (Ma khashak nistim, mellat hastim!) [in ref. to Ahmadinejad labeling protesters 'chaff']
* “Political prisoners must be freed!” (Zendani siasi, azad bayad gardad!)

Before Rafsanjani began his sermon, a chant addressed to him warned:

* “If you maintain silence, you commit treason!” (Agar sokut koni, khaeni!)

Little Hitler?

In Germany there is now an investigation of an artist to determine whether a garden gnome whose right hand is being held out in a Nazi salute violates German law. Could it be that Bernie Eccelstone is into lawn ornaments?

Do as I Say Not as I Do?

The hypocrisy here is so wonderful yet so disturbing I just had to post this separate from the usual Iran Wrap up that I do once every few days.

Though the Iranian government has showcased their brutality, have allegedly rigged an election, and are a theocratic state that has always sought to curb rights of expression, and political activism of its citizens. They are suddenly disturbed by the repression of the Chinese against the Uigher Muslims and the violence between Uighers and the Chinese government backed Han in the northwestern area of China.

Iran has voiced concern over the recent clashes in China's northwestern province of Xinjiang where up to 150 people have been killed.

The policies of the government in Beijing have encouraged an increase in the Han population in the northwestern Chinese territory of Xinjiang.

As a result of the policies, the balance of the population in the region has been upset and acts of violence have emerged against the Muslim Uighurs.

In a telephone conversation with Secretary General of the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki voiced Iran's support for “the rights of Chinese Muslims”.

Iran Wrap-up- July 9

(H/T: Average American Patriot)

Been days since the last wrap-up , but over this past weekend Vice President Biden hinted that the U.S might allow Israel to launch an attack against possible nuclear sites in Iran, an assertion that President Obama later denied. If done it would give U.S Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen much pause. Though Biden also remarked that the U.S is still open to constructing a dialogue with Iran.

President Ahmadinejad also asserted in a public address to Iranians on Tuesday, the first since the controversial election last month, that the elections and their astounding turnout were "the freest elections", the freest ever in the history of the world times a million. And despite, the controversy surrounding his "re-election", the autocratic Conservative populist President still believes he has a mandate. His rivals, especially Mir Houssain Mousavi seem to disagree and opposition elements in Iran are urging the European Union not to recognize Ahmadinejad as the legitimate leader of the country. The plea isn't being made to the United States presumably because the U.S has not officially recognized any Iranian government since the overthrow of the Shah and seizure of the U.S embassy in Tehran in 1979.

An envoy has also visited a French teacher who has said to be detained, and there have been other native Iranian opposition elements (known to the autocratic government there as "counter revolutionaries") detained,including a prominent human rights lawyer, who works for a Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi and legal scholar

Meanwhile out on the streets, protests seem to have been revived for a time, after nearly two weeks of relative inactivity due to the harsh reprisals and measures of government security forces. But as many as hundreds of thousands are said to have defied the government and taken to the streets of Tehran towards a university where a decade ago a student protest erupted and was eventually quashed by the Iranian hardliners. So far protesters have encured beatings, assaults, and plumes of tear gas from security forces and the Basij militia, as some protesters are setting trashcans ablaze to counter the noxious affect of the tear gas and shouting chants of "Death to the Dictator".

The Governor of Tehran meanwhile is urging residents to leave the affects, due to the heavy air pollution, and insists that those who demonstrate and support such protests will "be smashed".

From the Rooftops: Iran Wrap Up for 7/1 and 7/2

In a show of defiance of the government, protesters shout Allah Akhbar "God is Great" from thier rooftops at night.

Here is the latest on Iran for the first two days of July.

Iranian state television outlet Press TV states that eight of the nine British embassy staff taken prisoner by the Iranian government, for what is alleged to have been participating in the bedlam that has followed the disputed results of the June 12th Presidential elections in the Islamic state, have been released. However the British Foreign office says they have only heard of the release of two of the staff and are investigating the possible release of a third.

Despite the move though, relations between the Iranian government and much of the European Union member countries, especially Britain remain tense. A prolific military chief aligned with the regime has opined that he believes that the supposed role Britain and the European Union had in the post election demonstrations, mean that the EU has no legitimate role in any talks on the nation's nuclear program.

Meanwhile European Union states are pondering rather or not to pull their ambassadors out of Iran, a move that Germany and Italy are opposed to.

Some allied with the regime are calling for an investigation of opposition candidate Mir Houssain Moussavi, and ex- Iranian President Muhammad Khatamei has called government actions in the wake of the controversial election "a coup against democracy".

And although the levers of power and armaments of state remain at his disposal, President Ahmadinejad has without explanation canceled a scheduled visit to Africa. One has to wonder if he is worried that any absence could cause support for him to lessen in the counsels of power and his grip on power to loosen if he is out of the country for a period of time.

Speaking of desperate moves, some in Iran are now reversing course from blaming the death of Neda Soltani on protesters, the media, and foreign elements; and are now saying that her death was staged. You might want to tell that to her family. The U.S government rightfully slammed such absurdities in a statement.

Following the confirmation of Ahmadinejad's win of the election by the Guardian council, there is more suspicion (as if more was needed) that the election results were rigged. Pictures from none other then Iranian state television of members of the council tallying the ballots of 10% of the Iranian districts, that show that the ballots being counted are unfolded and uncreased (it is common practice to fold a ballot before dropping it into a ballot box) and that Ahmadinejad's name is written on several ballots where the name of the voter's candidate of choice should be written, with the same handwriting and according to at least one person, the same pen. A spokesperson also in a fleeting moment of candor admitted that biases of members of the Guardian Council could have influenced their final verdict.

The candidate that came in third place in the Iranian elections has called the partial recount illegitimate.

Here is an interview on Rooz online, (H/T: Andrew Sullivan) with the sister of an 18 year old boy shot three times in the chest in the protests by Iranian government elements.

Rooz: Tell us about Ashkan.

Elham Sohrabi (Sohrabi): He was my younger brother, born in 1989, very smart and full of potential for education and sports. He was extremely kind and compassionate. Despite his young age, he made very wise decisions.

Rooz: Where were you on the day of the event?

Sohrabi: My mother and I were at our house. Ashkan had just returned from the gym. He told us people were protesting on the streets and that fires were burning everywhere. He said he had trouble getting home as anti-riot guards had closed off all surrounding streets and were dispersing people. My mother asked me not to let Ashkan return to the streets. I tried my best to distract Ashkan with things other than the street, but the crowds on our streets (Azadi) continued to get bigger. People sought refuge in alleys and homes. We heard different chants and the sound of bullets and smell of tear gas were everywhere. I asked Ashkan not to go to the street. But he said his last words to me and left the house: "Don't worry, I'll come back."

Rooz: And that is the last time you saw Ashkan?

Sohrabi: Yes. The last time I saw him was when he left the house.

Rooz: When was he martyred?

Sohrabi: I don't exactly know, but two hours later they brought the news of his death to us.

Rooz: Where was he shot?

Sohrabi: They had shot our Ashkan three times in the chest.

Rooz: Who was shooting at Ashkan?

Sohrabi: I did not see Ashkan's killer but the protesters didn't have any weapons. They just threw rocks.

Rooz: Were you easily able to retrieve Ashkan's body from the hospital?

Sohrabi: It's better not to talk about that.

Rooz: Were security forces present at the memorial service?

Sohrabi: Yes, two police cars [were there].

Another bit from Sullivan was brought up, a tweet that the Iranian regime has been water boarding some dissidents and demonstrators that it believes are responsible for the post election situation in the streets. Well I guess as long as the government says it is being used to gather intelligence vital to the security of their country I guess its ok with us, right Dick Cheney?

Related Item: (H/T: Watergate Summer)- The UK Guardian has a feature that shows the faces of those who have died in Iran since the Election.

Iran Wrap up 7/1/09

Sorry for the lack of posts on Iran, but it appears that time, the Michael Jackson death, and the repositioning of U.S forces in Iraq have begun to overshadow what is occurring in Iran. Also more and more it appears that the elite in power have been reasserting themselves through harsh reprisal against those who openly dissent in the streets. The lack of appearance by Mousavvi could also be contributing to this.

Nevertheless it continues in some ways. On Monday the ' Guardian Council', a dozen or so religious leaders and politicos appointed by the Supreme leader Sayyid Ali Khomeini (an Ahmadinejad supporter) certified the Presidential election results as expected, following a recount of 10% of the ballots cast. The Supreme leader has vowed that the government will not yield to pressure exerted onto them by foreign elements nor by the demonstrators in their streets.

Nevertheless despite his lack of appearance, Mousavvi remains adamant about not ceding to the demands of the government. The Iranian government and their allies continue scapegoating and disseminating conspiracy theories, as state television in the Islamic state has released a supposed confession of a reporter who admits that his election coverage was bias and is involved in activities against the regime and several staff at the British embassy in Iran have been detained, due to what the regime all edges are participation in the demonstrations and against the state.

Regarding the death of Neda, Ahmadinejad alleges that there are many out there pretending to be members of the Baji militia and calls her death "suspicious". And in doing his best imitation of OJ Simpson, Ahmadinejad promises to find the real killer (how much you wanna bet he like OJ just spends all his time on the golf course instead).

And the "Supreme Leader" Sayid Ali Khamanei appears to have sold out his revolution. Before he ascended to power and became a cleric, he made a statement in earlier days, probably around the time of the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution.

Quoting then (not-yet-Ayatollah) Hojatol-Islam Seyed Ali Khamanei, the current Supreme Leader at a speech in Qom: When illiteracy, poverty, hunger, injustice, and inequality have been uprooted, the Revolution has borne fruit.

The Shah’s sin was that he used to say whatever I say [goes], not what the nation says. Today anyone who repeats this behavior, it not acceptable; he is condemnable.”

“Once illiteracy, poverty, hunger, oppression and inequality are wiped away from society, the revolution will have been successful.”

As with so many revolutionary's who eventually become leaders, reform is something to be heralded until they gain power. The term "Meet the new boss, same as the old Boss comes to mind". So much for promises.

Dick Cheney Expresses Anxieties about Possible Waste of Sacrifices

Today is the date for the bulk of U.S forces to cede control of security operations to Iraqi forces. But Think Progress.org reports former Vice President Dick Cheney says he is worried that the U.S might end up "wasting" the ample time, energy, money, and lives that we have injected into Iraq.

“But what he says concerns me: That there is still a continuing problem. One might speculate that insurgents are waiting as soon as they get an opportunity to launch more attacks.

“I hope Iraqis can deal with it. At some point they have to stand on their own. But I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point.“

Just because at some point the security situation there might crumble, is not a logical or desirable reason to remain occupying that nation and managing its affairs in perpetuity. Ultimately Iraq is the country not of the United States or the neoconservatives who view this as a hybrid of both a revolutionary movement and an academic exercise, but of the Iraqis who are natives of that very young country.

But U.S Generals and commanders on the ground are expressing greater optimism as the deadline approaches.

Concerning the point about the possibility that we will "waste all the tremendous sacrifice that us gotten us to this point", it is a bit late for that anxiety to arise. Six years and 4,316 U.S Casualties later, with thousands of others wounded and mangled by warfare, countless Iraqi casualties, U.S global credibility shaken, and a reservoir of wealth and energy spent, the Vice President nor anyone else can articulate a tangible gain for the U.S that comports with the facts that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, no Iraq connections to 9/11, and no tangible Iraq-Al-Queda links; as the security situation still remains volatile and the U.S backed government remains one of the most corrupt governments on the planet.

Much has already been wasted and much has been lost. But it wasn't done by the people of the U.S nor our gallant fighting forces, but by the Vice President and his small circle in and allied with the Bush/Cheney administration.

Besides, though U.S and allied forces are set to pull back from the city a large amount of troops will remain in the country as "advisers" if the Iraqis are in need of aid. And there are some reports that some U.S forces may remain stationed in the cities even after the deadline.

Update: (4:27PM/ET)- The fact that the Iraqis are having celebrations regarding tomorrows' anticipated change of mission of the U.S to a more advisory role suggests that unlike with Dick Cheney, the Iraqi people and the American people alike are relieved to cede control of Iraqi people to the country men and women who live on them and own them. Lets just hope that with this new "advisory" role we don't get sucked back into to fighting the Iraqi people's battles for them. Its time to have Iraq for the Iraqis.