Transcript of Ahmadinejad's 2009 UN Speech

From payvand.com

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

"All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Universe, and peace and blessing be upon our Master and Prophet, Mohammad, and his pure Household, and his noble Companions"

"Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam Al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those who attest to his rightfulness"

Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen,

I thank the Almighty God for granting me, once more, this opportunity to address this important international meeting.

I wish to begin by congratulating you, Mr. President, for having assumed the presidency of the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly and wish you all the success. I also extend my thanks to H.E. Mr. Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, President of the 63rd Session of the General Assembly, for his excellent stewardship of the work of the General Assembly during his term.

Over the past four years I have talked to you concerning the main challenges facing our world. I have talked about the roots and underlying causes of these challenges and the need for the world powers to review their outlook and workout new mechanisms to address the pressing international problems. I have talked about the two conflicting outlooks prevailing in our world; one that is based on the predominance of its materialistic interests through spreading inequality and oppression, poverty and deprivation, aggression, occupation and deception, and tends to bring the entire world under its control and impose its will on other nations. This outlook has produced nothing but frustration, disappointment and a dark future for the entire humanity.

The other outlook is the one that spouses with the belief in the oneness of the Almighty God, follows the teaching of His messengers, respects human dignity and seeks to build a secure world for all members of the human community, in which everybody can equally enjoy the blessings of sustainable peace and spirituality. The latter is an outlook that respects all human beings, nations, and valuable cultures in defiance of all types of discrimination in the world, and commits itself into a constant fight to promote equality for all before the law on the basis of justice and fraternity, laying a solid foundation to guarantee equal access for all human beings in their quest to excel in knowledge and science.

I have laid emphasis time and again on the need to make fundamental changes in the current attitudes towards the world and the human being in order to be able to create a bright tomorrow.

Friends and Colleagues;

Today, I wish to share with you a few points about the changes that should take place.

First,

Clearly, continuation of the current circumstances in the world is impossible. The present inequitable and unfavorable conditions run counter to the very nature of human kind and move in a direction which contravenes the truth and the goal behind the creation of the world.

It is no longer possible to inject thousands of billions of dollars of unreal wealth to the world economy simply by printing worthless paper assets, or transfer inflation as well as social and economic problems to others through creating sever budget deficits. The engine of unbridled capitalism with its unfair system of thought has reached the end of road and is unable to move. The era of capitalist thinking and . imposition of one's thoughts on the international community, intended to predominate the world in the name of globalization and the age of setting up empires is over. It is no longer possible to humiliate nations and impose double standard policies on the world community.

Approaches in which realization of the interests of certain powers is considered as the only criteria to weigh democracy, and using the ugliest methods of intimidation and deceit under the mantle of freedom as a democratic practice, and approaches through which sometimes dictators are portrayed as democrats, lack legitimacy and must be totally rejected.

The time has come to an end for those who define democracy and freedom and set standards whilst they themselves are the first who violate its fundamental principles. They can no longer sit both the judge and the executor and challenge the real democratically- established governments.

The awakening of nations and the expansion of freedom worldwide will no longer allow them to continue their hypocrisy and vicious attitudes. Because of all these reasons most nations including the people of the Untied States are waiting for real and profound changes. They have welcomed and will continue to welcome changes.

How can one imagine that the inhuman policies in Palestine may continue; to force the entire population of a country out of their homeland for more than 60 years by resorting to force and coercion; to attack them with all types of arms and even prohibited weapons; to deny them of their legitimate right of self-defense, while much to the chagrin of the international community calling the occupiers as the peace lovers, and portraying the victims as terrorists.

How can the crimes of the occupiers against defenseless women and children and destruction of their homes, farms, hospitals and schools be supported unconditionally by certain governments, and at the same time, the oppressed men and women be subject to genocide and heaviest economic blockade being denied of their basic needs, food, water and medicine.

They are not even allowed to rebuild their homes which were destroyed during the 22-day barbaric attacks by the Zionist regime while the winter is approaching. Whereas the aggressors and their supporters deceitfully continue their rhetoric in defense of human rights in order to put others under pressure.

It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions.

It is not acceptable that some who are several thousands of kilometers away from the Middle East would send their troops for military intervention and for spreading war, bloodshed, aggression, terror and intimidation in the whole region while blaming the protests of nations in the region, that are concerned about their fate and their national security, as a move against peace and as interference in others' affairs. Look at the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is no longer possible to bring a country under military occupation in the name of fight against terrorism and drug trafficking while the production of illicit drugs has multiplied, terrorism has widened its dimensions and has tightened its grips, thousands of innocent people have been killed, injured or displaced, infrastructures have been destroyed and regional security has been seriously jeopardized; and those

who have created the current disastrous situation continue to blame others. How you can talk about friendship and solidarity with other nations while you expand your military bases in different parts of the world including in Latin America. This situation cannot continue. It is all the more impossible to advance expansionist and inhuman policies on the basis of militaristic logic. The logic of coercion and intimidation will produce dire consequences, exacerbating the present global problems.

It is not acceptable that the military budget of some governments exceeds far larger than those of the entire countries of the world. They export billions of dollars of arms every year, stockpile chemical and biological weapons, establish military bases or have military presence in other countries while accusing others of militarism, and mobilize all their resources in the world to impede scientific and technological progress of other nations under the pretext of countering arms proliferation. It is not acceptable that the United Nations and the Security Council, whose decisions must represent all nations and governments by the application of the most democratic methods in their decision making processes, be dominated by a few governments and serve their interests. In a world where cultures, thoughts and public opinions should be the determining factors, the continuation of the present situation is impossible, and fundamental changes seem to be unavoidable.

Second;

Any change must be structural and fundamental both in theory and practice, involving all domains of our life. The outdated mechanisms which themselves were instrumental in and the root cause for present problems in human societies can never be used to bring changes and create our desired world. Liberalism and capitalism that have alienated human beings from heavenly and moral values will never bring happiness for humanity because they are the main source of all misfortune wars, poverty and deprivation.

We have all seen that how the inequitable economic structures controlled by certain political interests have been used to plunder national wealth of countries for the benefit of a group of corrupt business giants. The present structures are incapable of reforming the present situation.

The political and economic structures created following the World War II that was based on intentions to dominate the world failed to promote justice and lasting security.

Rulers whose hearts do not beat for the love of humankind and who sacrificed the spirit of justice in their minds never offer the promise of peace and friendship to humanity. By the grace of God, Marxism is gone. It is now history. The expansionist Capitalism will certainly have the same fate. Because based on the divine traditions referred to as a principle in the Holy Quran, the wrong like the bubbles on the surface of water, will disappear. There remains only what that can be used forever towards the interest of human societies.

We must all remain vigilant to prevent the pursuit of colonialist, discriminatory and inhuman goals under the cover of the slogans for change and in new formats. The world needs to undergo fundamental changes and all must engage collectively to make them happen in the right direction, and through such efforts no one and no government would consider itself an exception to change or superior to others and try to impose its will on others by proclaiming world leadership.

Third;

All problems existing in our world today emanate from the fact that rulers have distanced themselves from human values, morality and the teachings of divine messengers. Regrettably, in the current international relations, selfishness and insatiable greed have taken the place of such humanitarian concepts as love, sacrifice, dignity, and justice. The belief in the One God has been replaced with selfishness. Some have taken the place of God and insist to impose their values and wishes on others. Lies have taken the place of honesty; hypocrisy has replaced integrity and selfishness has taken the place of sacrifice. Deception in interactions is called foresight and statesmanship; looting the wealth of other nations is called development efforts; occupation is introduced as a gift towards promotion of freedom and democracy, and defenseless nations are subjected to repression in the name of defending human rights.

Friends and Colleagues;

Settlement of global problems and administration of justice and maintenance of peace will only be materialized with collective determination and cooperation of all nations and states. The age of polarizing the world on the premises of the hegemony or domination of a few governments is over.

Today we must rise together in a collective commitment against the present challenges; we must take change seriously and help others through collective work to return to the basic moral and human values. Messengers were sent by God to show the light of the truth to human kind, they came to make people aware of their individual and social obligations. Piety, having faith to Allah and its judgment of human behavior or conduct in the next world, belief in the primacy of justice in both lives, seeking one's happiness, well being and security in the happiness, well-being and security of others, respecting human kind, making efforts to expand love and compassion against hostility were all on top of the teachings offered by the Messengers of God from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ and the last one Prophet Mohamamd (PUH). All of them came to do something to eliminate war and ignorance, to eradicate poverty and uproot discrimination in order to spread happiness in the entire world. They are the best gifts that God Almighty has granted to human beings.

If the belief in Entezar( A waiting patiently for the Imam to return) will turn into a common and we join hands to achieve prosperity for all, then there will be more real and increasing hopes for reform.

Fourth;

In my opinion, we have several important agendas in front of us. The Secretary- General and the UN General Assembly can take the lead by undertaking necessary measures for the fulfillment of our shared goals on the basis of:

1. Restructuring the United Nations in order to transform this world body to an efficient and fully democratic organization, capable of playing an impartial, equitable, and effective role in the international relations; reforming the structure of the Security Council, specially by abolishing the discriminatory privilege of veto right; restoration of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people by organizing a referendum and free elections in Palestine in order to prepare a conducive ground for all Palestinian populations, including Muslims, Christians and Jews to live together in peace and harmony; putting an end to all types of interferences in the affairs of Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East, and in all countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe.

As our great Prophet said, a government may survive with blasphemy, but never with oppression. Oppression against Palestinians and violation of their rights still continue; a new group of Palestinians who lived in al-Qod al-Sharif were again forced out of their homes as the destruction of their residential homes continues by the occupiers; bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan have not yet sopped; and Guantanamo Prison has not yet been shut down and there are still secret prisons in Europe.

Continuation of the present situation adds to hostilities and violence. Oppression and military aggression must be stopped. Regrettably, official reports concerning the brutalities of the Zionist regime in Gaza have not been completely published. The Secretary-General and the United Nations have crucial responsibilities in this respect and the international community is impatiently waiting for the punishment of the aggressors and the murderers of the defenseless people of Gaza.

2. Reforming the current economic structures and setting up a new international economic order based on human and moral values and obligations. A new course is needed that would help promote justice and progress worldwide by flourishing the potentials and talents of all nations thus bringing well-being for all and for future generations;

3. Reforming the international political relations based on the promotion of lasting peace and friendship, eradication of arms race and elimination of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons;

4. Reforming cultural structures , respect for diverse customs and traditions of all nations, fostering moral values and spirituality aimed at institution of family as the backbone of all human societies;

5. Worldwide efforts to protect the environment and full observance of the international agreements and arrangements to prevent the annihilation of nature's non-renewable resources.

Fifth;

Our nation has successfully gone through a glorious and fully- democratic election, opening a new chapter for our country in the march towards national progress and enhanced international interactions. They entrusted me once more with a large majority this heavy responsibility.

And now, I want to declare that our great nation that has made great contribution to the world civilization, and the Islamic Republic of Iran as one of the most democratic and progressive governments of the world is ready to mobilize all its cultural, political and economic capabilities to engage into constructive process aimed at addressing the international concerns and challenges. Our country has been a main victim of terrorism and the target of an all-out military aggression during the first decade of the revolution.

All through the past thirty years we have been subject to hostile attitudes of those who supported Saddam's military aggression and his use of chemical weapons against us, and then they took military action in Iraq to get rid of him. Today, our nation seeks to create a world in which justice and compassion prevail. We announce our commitment to participate in the process of building a durable peace and security worldwide for all nations based on justice, spirituality and human dignity, while being dedicated to strongly defending our legitimate and legal rights.

To materialize these goals, our nation is prepared to warmly shake all those hands which are honestly extended to us. No nation can claim to be free from the need to change and reform in this journey towards perfectness. We welcome real and humane changes and stand ready to actively engage in fundamental global reforms.

Therefore, we emphasize that:

The only path to remain safe is to return to Mmonotheism (believing in the Oneness of God) and justice, and this is the greatest hope and opportunity in all ages and generations. Without belief in God and commitment to the cause of justice and fight against injustice and discrimination, the world architect would not get right.

Man is at the center of the universe. The man's unique feature is his humanity. The same feature which seeks for justice, piety, love, knowledge, awareness and all other high values. These human values should be supported, and each and every fellow humans should be given the opportunity to acquire them. Neglecting any of them is tantamount to the omission of a constituting piece of humanity. These are common elements which connect all human communities and constitute the basis of peace, security and friendship.

The divine religions pay attention to all aspects of human life, including obedience to God, morality, justice, fighting oppression, and endeavor to establish just and good governance. Prophet Abraham called for Oneness of God against Nimrod, as Prophet Moses did the same against Pharaohs and the Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon them) did against the oppressors of their own time. They were all threatened to death and were forced out of their homelands. Without resistance and objection, the injustices would not be removed from the face of the earth.

Sixth;

Dear friends and colleagues;

The world is in continuous change and evolution. The promised destiny for the mankind is the establishment of the humane pure life. Will come a time when justice will prevail across the globe and every single human being will enjoy respect and dignity. That will be the time when the Mankind's path to moral and spiritual perfectness will be opened and his journey to God and the manifestation of the God's Divine Names will come true. The mankind should excel to represent the God's "knowledge and wisdom", His "compassion and benevolence", His "justice and fairness", His "power and art", and His "kindness and forgiveness".

These will all come true under the rule of the Perfect Man, the last Divine Source on earth, Hazrat Mahdi (Peace be upon him); an offspring of the Prophet of Islam, who will re-emerge, and Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him) and other noble men will accompany him in the accomplishment of this, grand universal mission. And this is the belief in Entezar (Awaiting patiently for the Imam to return). Waiting with patience for the rule of goodness and the governance of the Best which is a universal human notion and which is a source of nations' hope for the betterment of the world.

They will come, and with the help of righteous people and true believers will materialize the man's long-standing desires for freedom, perfectness, maturity, security and tranquility, peace and beauty. They will come to put an end to war and aggression and present the entire knowledge as well as spirituality and friendship to the whole world.

Yes; Indeed, the bright future for the mankind will come.

Dear friends,

In waiting for that brilliant time to come and in a collective commitment, let's make due contributions in paving the grounds and preparing the conditions for building that bright future.

Long live love and spirituality; long live peace and security; long live justice and freedom.

God's Peace and blessing be upon you all.

Bin Laden says the dispute between the West and the Islamic world is primarily over Israel

Several commentators have noticed the emphasis Osama Bin Laden placed on the conflict over Zionism in his most recent recording, and claimed it represents a change in strategy on his part. That claim is simply not true. I'll post some links further down, that were compiled by commenters at Matt Yglesias' blog earlier.

The idea that Israel is not central to the Western dispute with the Muslim world is very widespread, especially in the United States. It is an idea that is clearly and easily shown to be nonsense, so it is worth taking a look at how and why that idea is so widely held.

The first reason it is possible is that there is a strong information imbalance in the United States. Most people who care enough about the Middle East to become informed about it in the United States are Jewish and feel an ethnic connection with the project of Zionism and with Israel. Even non-Jews who become knowledgeable, in the course of careers or studies involving the Middle East, are disproportionately influenced by people who feel that ethnic connection.

Because of the information imbalance, it is possible for consensus views to form that are completely outside of the realm of plausibility.

The reason an outlandish consensus has formed that Bin Laden's and other Muslim antipathy towards the West are not fueled by Israel is that Israel depends on Western, and especially US support for survival. Israel could not survive as a Jewish state for 10 years without US support, not only directly, but also in propping up relatively pro-Zionist dictatorships especially in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan and also in organizing opposition to relatively anti-Zionist governments in the region, including Iran.

But while Israel depends on US support, US support for Israel depends strongly on two factors. The first factor is that most Americans do not understand how expensive it is for the US to prevent a one-state solution with a Muslim majority from prevailing over what is now Israel. The second factor is that most Americans do not understand that a peaceful solution like the one that came about in South Africa is acceptable to most Muslims even as it is unacceptable to most Jews.

So understating the cost the US must pay to ensure that a Jewish majority state is viable while at the same time exaggerating the risk of an outcome worse than that in South Africa is critical for the survival of Israel. People with emotional attachments to Israel - often subconsciously, maybe sometimes cynically - routinely and reflexively distort the US narrative regarding Israel in these two directions.

We can expect to constantly hear understatements of the price the US pays and must pay to ensure Israel can remain a Jewish-majority state. We can also expect to constantly expect exaggerations of the desire of Muslims to kill every Jewish person in the region, rather than live in a Muslim majority state as Black South Africans live in a Black majority state.

One example is that the goals the US was trying to accomplish by invading Iraq could have been accomplished vastly more effectively and vastly less expensively if the US wasn't publicly committed to defending Israel's Jewishness.

Anyway, here are some links about Bin Laden and Israel:

http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm

“The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians. The American Congress endorses all government measures and this proves that the entire America is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims. The entire America, because they elect the Congress.”

(Bin Laden’s Nov 2001 interview with DAWN)

http://www.anusha.com/osamaint.htm

“REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you’ve declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States’ troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?

BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet’s Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (in Lebanon). This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world. ”

(1997 interview Bin Laden gave to CNN’s Peter Arnett)

Text of Osama Bin Laden's 9/14/2009 Recording

Bin Ladin Says US Should Stop Supporting Israel or Face 'War of Attrition'
Jihadist Websites -- OSC Summary
Monday, September 14, 2009
Document Type: OSC Summary

On 14 September, a forum participant posted to a jihadist website numerous links to an 11-minute and 20-second audio statement by Al-Qa'ida leader Usama Bin Ladin titled "Address to the American People." The audio statement is produced by Al-Qa'ida's Al-Sahab Media and distributed through Al-Fajr Media Center. The statement is dated Ramadan 1430, corresponding to September 2009.

A translation of the statement follows:

"Praise be to God, Who created people to worship Him, ordered them to be just, and permitted the wronged to mete out fair punishment to the wrongdoer.

"American people: This address to you is a reminder of the causes of 11 (September) and the wars and consequences that followed and the way to settle it once and for all. I mention in particular the families of those who were hurt in these events and who have recently called for opening an investigation to know its causes. This is a first and important step in the right direction among many other steps that have deliberately gone in the wrong direction over eight barren years that you have experienced.

"The entire American people should follow suit, as the delay in knowing those reasons has cost you a lot without any noteworthy benefit.

"If the White House administration, which is one of the two parties to the dispute, has made it clear to you in the past years that war was necessary to maintain your security, then wise persons should be eager to listen to the two parties to the dispute to know the truth, so listen to what I am going to say.

"At the beginning, I say that we have made it clear and stated so many times for over two decades that the cause of the quarrel with you is your support for your Israeli allies, who have occupied our land, Palestine. This position of yours, along with some other grievances, is what prompted us to carry out the 11 September events. Had you known the magnitude of our suffering as a result of the injustice of the Jews against us, with the support of your administrations for them, you would have known that both our nations are victims of the policies of the White House, which is in fact a hostage in the hands of pressure groups, especially major corporations and the Israeli lobby.

"One of the best persons to explain to you the causes of the events of the 11th is one of your citizens, a former veteran CIA agent, whose conscience awoke in his eighth decade and decided to tell the truth despite the threats, and to explain to you the message of the 11th. So he carried out some activities for this purpose in particular, including his book "Apology of a Hired Assassin."

"As for explaining the suffering of our people in Palestine, Obama has recently acknowledged in his speech from Cairo the suffering of our kinfolk there, who are living under occupation and siege. Things will become clearer if you read what your former president, Carter, wrote about the racism of the Israelis against our kinfolk in Palestine, and also if you listened to his statement weeks ago during his visit to the destroyed and besieged Gaza Strip. He said in that statement that the people of Gaza are treated more as animals than human beings. For us God suffices, and He is the best disposer of affairs.

"We should have a lengthy pause at this point. Any person with an iota of mercy in his heart cannot but sympathize with those oppressed elderly, women, and children living under the deadly siege. Above that, the Zionists pound them with US-made incendiary phosphorous bombs. Life there is tragic beyond limits, to the point that children die b etween the arms of their parents and doctors due to the lack of food and medicine and the power outages. It is indeed a disgrace for world politicians who are content with that, and their loyalists, who are behaving as such with prior knowledge and premeditation, and under the influence of the Israeli lobby in America. The details of that are explained by two of your fellow citizens. They are John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their book "The Israel Lobby" in the United States.

"After reading the suggested books, you will know the truth and you will be severely shocked at the magnitude of deception that has been practiced against you. You will also know that those who make statements from inside the White House today and claim that your wars against us are necessary for your security are in fact working along the same line of Cheney and Bush, and propagating the former policies of intimidation to market the interests of the relevant major corporations, at the expense of your blood and economy. Those in fact are the ones who are imposing wars on you, not the mujahidin. We are just defending our right to liberate our land.

"If you thoroughly consider your situation, you will know that the White House is occupied by pressure groups. You should have made efforts to liberate it rather than fight to liberate Iraq, as Bush claimed. The White House leader, under such circumstances, and regardless of who he is, is like a train driver who cannot but travel on the railways designed by these pressure groups. Otherwise, his way would be blocked and he would fear that his destiny would be like that of former President Kennedy and his brother.

"In a nutshell, it is time to free yourselves from fear and intellectual terrorism being practiced against you by the neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby. You should put the file of your alliance with the Israelis on the table of discussion. You should ask yourselves the following question so that you can determine your position: Do you like the Israelis' security, sons, and economy more than your security, blood, sons, money, jobs, houses, economy, and reputation? If you choose your security and stopping the wars -- and this has been shown by opinion polls -- then this requires that you act to stop those who are tampering with our security on your end. We are prepared to respond to this option on sound and fair foundations that have been mentioned before.

"Here is an important point that we should pay attention to with regard to war and stopping it. When Bush assumed power and appointed a defense secretary who had made the biggest contribution to killing more than two million persecuted villagers in Vietnam, sane people predicted that Bush was preparing for new massacres in his era. This was what took place in Iraq and Afghanistan. When Obama assumed power and kept the men of Cheney and Bush -- namely, the senior officials in the Defense Department, like Gates, Mullen, and Petraeus -- sane people knew that Obama is a weak person who will not be able to stop the war as he had promised and that he would procrastinate as much as possible. If he were to decide, then he would hand over command to the generals who oppose this aimless war, like the former commander of troops in Iraq, General Sanchez, and the commander of the Central Command who was forced by Bush to resign shortly before leaving the White House due to his opposition to the war. He appointed instead of him a person who would escalate the war. Under the cover of his readiness to cooperate with the Republicans, Obama made the biggest trick as he kept the most important and most dangerous secretary from Cheney's men to continue the war. The days will show you that you have changed only faces in the White House. The bitter truth is that the neoconservatives are still a heavy burden on you.

"Once again, if you stop the war, then that is fine. If you choose not to stop the war, then we have no other option but to continue the war of attrition against you on all possible axes, just as we did with the Soviet Union for 10 years until it disintegrated, with the grace of God. Continue the war for as long as you wish. You are fighting a desperate, losing war that is in favor of others. There seems to be no end in sight for this war.

"Russian generals, who learned lessons from the battles in Afghanistan, had anticipated the result of the war before its start, but you do not like those who give you advice. This is a losing war, God willing, as it is funded by money that is borrowed based on exorbitant usury and is fought by soldiers whose morale is down and who commit suicide on a daily basis to escape from this war.

"This war was prescribed to you by two doctors, Cheney and Bush, as a cure for the 11 September events. However, the bitterness and losses caused by this war are worse than the bitterness of the events themselves. The accumulated debts incurred as a result of this war have almost done away with the US economy as a whole. It has been said that disease could be less evil than some medicines.

"Praise be to God, we are carrying our weapon on our shoulders and have been fighting the two poles of evil in the East and the West for 30 years. Throughout this period, we have not seen any cases of suicide among us despite the international pursuit against us. We praise God for this. This proves the soundness of our belief and the justice of our cause. God willing, we will continue our way to liberate our land. Our weapon is patience. We seek victory from God. We will not give up the Al-Aqsa Mosque. We hold on to Palestine more than we hold on to our souls. Continue the war as long as you wish, we will never bargain over it (Palestine).

"Endless war will not tire me
"For I am now fully grown and strong
"For this, my mother begot me (lines of poetry)
"Peace be upon those who follow guidance."

Iran freezes expansion of enrichment and increases IAEA monitoring

Its becoming more difficult to get a sense of the interaction between the US and Iran about Iran's nuclear program because so much is obviously going on behind the scenes.

Iran has around 7,000 centrifuges in Natanz, about 5,000 operational and 2,000 in preparation. This is the same configuration in place since May and there can be no explanation other than that Iran has decided not to put in line the centrifuges that are in place and ready for vacuum testing or to install new centrifuges. One possible explanation for Iran not putting new centrifuges in line is that the US does not know how many centrifuges Iran has in reserve, that could be diverted to a different undeclared enrichment facility if, for example, the US bombed Natanz. But not activating already declared centrifuges is clearly a voluntary gesture on Iran's part. Another gesture is that Iran has expanded IAEA access to Natanz and allowed inspections of Arak had been suspended when the IAEA board reported Iran to the security council.

Possibly there is an agreement coming into view that will preserve Iran's right to enrich uranium and will not harm Iran's long term aspiration for a status of nuclear weapons capability comparable to those of Japan, Brazil or the Netherlands.

Once again, I'll point out that Iran having a nuclear weapons capability like that of Japan or Brazil is completely legal under the NPT. Iran sees the UNSC resolutions demanding Iran cede its rights as invalid just as Israel would see a UNSC resolution demanding it sign and ratify the NPT as another resolution to be ignored. In fact, for the UNSC under the pretext of protecting international peace and security, to demand Iran ratify the additional protocols and stop enriching uranium while not demanding that Israel ratify the NPT, dismantle its actual nuclear weapons, and stop military operations against neighboring civilian populations is reasonably seen in Iran as clear hypocrisy that decreases the legitimacy of the security council more than it decreases the legitimacy of Iran's nuclear program.

Hossein Askari and Trita Parsi wrote an interesting article for the New York Times that gasoline sanctions may actually benefit Iran from Iran's perspective by giving an excuse for ending expensive subsidies on gasoline and increasing the incentives for conversion to natural gas-run automobiles.

Even assuming that a gasoline embargo would be effective, what would be its result? Consumption would decline by 40 percent and government revenues would go up, because no payment would be needed for gasoline imports.

If Tehran allowed the reduced supply of gasoline to be sold at a price that would equate demand to supply, the price would increase to a level that would eliminate the subsidy, meaning no subsidy for imported gasoline and no subsidy for domestically refined gasoline. The government would have more revenue to spend elsewhere. The sanctions would have done what Tehran has wanted to do for years and the government would not be held responsible!

Anyway, Iran maintains the option of putting more centrifuges into production and increasing the rate of enrichment. That it has not is an indication that contrary to reports, Iran believes progress is being made on resolving the nuclear issue in a way acceptable to Iran's leadership. I wish I understood better what form any progress is taking, but nothing is being published.

Kaveh L. Afrasiabi deals with election fraud allegations

A consensus is forming now, there never had been evidence of massive result-changing election fraud in the 2009 election. This hasn't been in serious doubt since maybe a week after the results were announced in June. Anyone who wants a point by point refutation of the claims of vote fraud should read this.

Why won't Iran just suspend enrichment? Iran's and the US plans for Iran's nuclear program

Iran believes that the generation of Iranian leaders that is in power 30 years from now will, because of the sacrifices, work and planning of todays leaders, find themselves with a nuclear stature comparable to Japan's.

Iran likely will not have actually produced a weapon, but will be able to. If other Muslim countries want assistance in also achieving that stature, Iran will be willing and able to offer it and for all intents and purposes, if Israel is still a Jewish-majority state, and the Palestinians are still dispossessed, then it will not have a monopoly of either nuclear power or the ability if necessary to produce a nuclear weapon in its region.

This is not a vision of hopeful thinking. Iran is headed in this direction today and an Israeli or US attack on Iran's nuclear program today likely will have no impact at all on the question of will Iran have Japan's nuclear stature in 30 years.

For Iran to trade this position for trade incentives, even if those trade incentives were real, would be the height of foolishness, because in any scenario those incentives will be a memory in the medium-term, but if Iran commits to give the US a veto over its nuclear program, that veto will be permanent.

But there is every reason to believe there are no serious incentives on offer just by the structure of the US negotiating position. The US position is that once Iran stops enriching, the US will tell Iran specifically what it can offer for making the stop permanent. If there were incentives that the US believes the Iranians would accept, it could just name those incentives publicly, and allow the Iranians to pressure their leaders to accept it. A structure of "first you commit, then we can tell you our offer" only makes sense for an offer that the US knows is unacceptable.

Iran has also taken an interesting position that if the US increases sanctions, Iran will not only accelerate its enrichment, but it will consider its increased capacity non-negotiable, as if it has already "paid" for this capacity with the sanctions already imposed and will not give it away.

The US could have frozen the Iranian program at a few dozen centrifuges for a prolonged period of time in 2006. Now it will have to accept 7000 centrifuges, likely the number will increase if another round of sanctions is imposed. But even if the US had accepted a very small number of centrifuges, Iran intended and still intends to be fully nuclear capable in the medium term, in 20 or 30 years. Iran would not have accepted that the US could impose limits on its long-term program in 2006 and will not accept that now.

From the Iranian perspective, there will be no US veto, in any form, over Iran's nuclear program. That will make the situation difficult for Israel. So what. Israel will have to deal with it.

The US is really not able to come to terms with exactly how little leverage it has over Iran.

David Albright's plan is to impose on Iran a siege loose enough not to escalate to war, but tight enough to force Iran to give up a policy that has a very strong national consensus.

Long before Iran begins considering suspending its enrichment program, it will suspend its cooperation with the US in Iraq and Afganistan. US military losses will begin increasing and from there either the US will retreat or go to war.

The fact of the matter is that Iran can claim, and will for a long time continue to be able to claim that the IAEA is able to verify that there is no imminent danger of Iran building a weapon. If the US goes to war, there is no hiding that instead of going to war to prevent a weapon, it is going to war to prevent Iran from having Japan or Brazil's ability to create a weapon in theory.

The US will not be able to hide that it is going to war to prevent Iranian enrichment, and it will not be able to hide the fact that Argentina can tolerate nuclear-capable neighbors but Israel cannot. More than Iraq, which actually invaded Kuwait, it will be difficult to hide that the US soldiers who die and the US resources that are being wasted in that case would be openly being wasted for Israel. And while mid-2007 levels of US deaths were enough to cause popular revulsion against that war, Iran will be able to get much higher US death rates for a war that will be harder to initially sell to the American people.

The Albright plan, impose whatever sanctions the US can and wait, will see Iran reorient its economy away from any countries that ally with the US in this program, but continue to grow and find itself a generation from now still nuclear capable, and still with a manageable economy. Many countries do not have oil and are able to produce good standards of living. Iran's oil helps buttress it against US economic hostility, but the sanctions may have the benefit of preventing Iran from getting the resource-producer's curse - which is that commodity exporters have a very difficult time industrializing under any circumstances.

Bolton's plan is to bomb Iran and hope that in a few years the US is able to successfully get a pro-US regime in place. I'm not sure if he just hasn't thought this through, if he's very unintelligent or if he's making a statement he knows is false because it serves some other purpose.

He's never even given a bad rationale explaining how bombing could lead to a pro-US administration in Iran, given that he acknowledges that the US is not able to invade and occupy the country. He's said it's possible Iran will give up enrichment after a regime change because after a regime change South Africa disavowed nuclear weapons. South Africa though has never disavowed having Japan or Brazil's nuclear stature. He cannot explain what would make regime change happen and he cannot explain why after regime change Iran would change its nuclear policy.

Bolton is advocating bombing Iran with no reason at all to believe it would further any US interest, even significantly slowing Iran's reaching a stature of nuclear capability. Bolton would guarantee a large number of dead US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. In theory he should care about that, but I don't understand what motivates his position.

The best the US can hope for is a face-saving way to accept Iranian domestic enrichment. Possibly with Iran voluntarily agreeing on a slower pace for the growth of its program in exchange for some relief of the unilateral sanctions the US had in place before the nuclear controversy.

Iran responded to US offer for talks

The most recent US offer for talks with Iran, the terms of which have not been released to the public, most likely are very similar to the Bush era 2008 Freeze for Freeze proposal, which envisioned talks beginning in phases, with the third phase including an Iranian suspension of enrichment.

Phase III, “Formal Negotiations,” were envisioned as starting with a meeting of Foreign Ministers of all involved countries, provided that 1) The IAEA had verified that Iran had suspended all enrichment‐related and reprocessing activities; and 2) the U.N. Security Council had suspended discussion of Iran’s nuclear program and the implementation of measures adapted under UNSCR 173, 1747, and 1803.

Iran has said it would reject any talks contingent on suspension of enrichment since 2005. Roger Cohen says that the US found the Iranian response to its most recent proposal disappointing.

In early May, Obama sent Khamenei a secret personal letter, as The Washington Times reported. The letter proposed a framework for talks on the nuclear issue (which Khamenei is believed to control) and regional security. I was reliably informed by more than one knowledgeable American that Khamenei had answered in writing, but the reply was disappointing.

I'm sure the answer was more than just disappointing. The answer was "no." But if the requirement for a suspension has been lifted, there is a good chance that progress is being made as we speak.

NIE 2: FOIA report that Iran is four years away

When the 2007 NIE came out, saying that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapon program in 2003, this was a clear indication that progress was being made in the secret talks between Iran and the US.

The effect of the report, which was immediately apparent to everyone, was that the United States deliberately gave up any pretext for any military attack. By doing that, it also reduced any pressure on Russia and China to cooperate with sanctions.

How this effect was accomplished was that the NIE used a definition of weapons program that had never been used by the US before. The US had never said that Iran's enrichment program was a civilian program, separate from its ability to create weapons, but is said that here.

The recent release of the state department report that Iran cannot produce enough highly enriched uranium for four years strikes me as similar. And makes me suspect that there has been movement in discussions behind the scenes. It seems that this conclusion is possible because the report assumes Iran will not use Natanz to make HEU.

Here is Jacqueline Shire discussing it:

INR believes that for a variety of reasons, Iran will not have the means to produce enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a bomb until mid-this decade (or 2013).

The reason for that is that they believe Iran would not use the facility at Natanz to produce HEU, that they would pursue a covert program - that they would do it in secret. So if you build a secret enrichment facility you need more equipment, you need a location, you need time, and INR concludes, for reasons that kind of escape me, that it would take Iran a long time to build this covert enrichment facility.

Shire believes that people are misreading the report to say Iran does not have breakout capability. I suspect the point of the report, the reason the report was produced and released, is so that people will "misread" it exactly that way.

The NIE was implausibly presented as something that went against Bush's wishes. Actually, the President has every right to order his intelligence subordinates to revert to the US standard position that Iran's enrichment is inherently nuclear which would have made the NIE's conclusion unreachable. The Bush administration wanted that conclusion and after the NIE was released, Iran's clients in Iraq quieted down and US killed in action in Iraq reached historic lows.

If US/Iran talks had reached that point year earlier, there likely would have been far less of an anti-war backlash in US politics and Republicans would be in a stronger position today. There would also be hundreds of US servicemen and thousands of Iraqis alive who unfortunately died because the US was late to see the value of cooperation with Iran.

We have not seen yet what agreements the US' most recent gesture may be an indicator of. The impact of the report is that the US is at least willing to define Iran's nuclear program as four years away from being nuclear capable continuously.

I think there is a fairly good chance that there will be a breakthrough this year in which the US commits to accepting Iranian domestic enrichment and an Iranian nuclear capability.

Nuclear capability vs having a nuclear weapon: What is really the problem?

When Iran has the capability to produce nuclear weapons, it is legally in the same category as Japan, the Netherlands and many other countries. Iran would get strategic benefits from this, but these are legal benefits that Iran expected to have access to when it ratified the NPT.

Israel's strategists believe Iran will hold "all the cards" if it has enough material to make several weapons even it it upholds its NPT obligation to refrain from actually building weapons.

The question whether Iran will have nuclear weapons in 2012 or 2014 is simplistic. If Iran really wants to, it will have nuclear weapons next summer. But Iran is aware that running helter-skelter to the nuclear bomb is very risky. So it is building its nuclear potential gradually. When the number of centrifuges in Natanz is not 7,000 but 30,000, Iran will be unstoppable. When it has enough fissile material for a dozen bombs, it will hold all the cards.

If this causes Egypt to build a comparable program, and Turkey and some Gulf princelets to follow that path, this is not, except because of Israel's special needs, more provocative than the many countries of Europe each capable of building weapons, or of the situation in South America where many countries could build weapons.

Israel imposes a unique strategic burden on the United States. Israel could not survive if instead of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, its neighbors were more like Brazil, Argentina and Chile. So the United States, in order to keep the region safe for Israel, must make increasingly desperate attempts to prevent Iran from taking the role of Brazil in its region.

Iran becoming nuclear capable likely would trigger an arms race, if by "arms race" you mean a move to a new equilibrium where NPT non-weapon states in the region each gain the capability to produce nuclear material, but each does not. Kind of an "arms race" minus the "arms". In this new equilibrium the nuclear capable nations would not be a threat to each other, but would mark an important strategic loss for Israel which currently has a monopoly of nuclear weapons and of nuclear capability.

Nearly every non-Jewish person in the region believes that the creation of Israel was an injustice and while Israel has been fortunate to have weak and corrupt immediate neighbors, Iran becoming nuclear capable is the first step towards Israel losing the luxury of being surrounded by impotent neighbors.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have recently said that regional trends are very negative for Israel's prospects of long term survival. This is one of the things they were talking about.

Barack Obama, NPR interview - June 1, 2009:

I believe that, strategically, the status quo is unsustainable when it comes to Israeli security; that, over time, in the absence of peace with the Palestinians, Israel will continue to be threatened militarily and will have enormous problems along its borders.

Hillary Clinton, CNN interview - June 7, 2009:

We see historical, demographic, political, technological trends that are very troubling as to Israel's future. At the same time, there is a legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people that needs to be addressed.

John Bolton: We couldn't have gotten regime change in Serbia if Serbia had been nuclear

John Bolton in an interview on the Daily Show (6:15)

I don't think it necessarily follows that it's only the use of the nuclear weapon that really gives them the advantage. In the struggle within the Islamic world between Shia and Sunni many of the Arab states in the region fear not only Iran's continuing quest for nuclear weapons but their terrorist attacks against other Islamic regimes. Having that nuclear weapon would make a big difference. For example if Milosevic had had nuclear weapons as Yugoslavia was disintegrating Bosnia, Kosovo could have turned out very differently simply from the threat or the risk that he would use them

Stewart: (Interrupting) That we would not intervene if they had them

Exactly. That's why it's so critical to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Once it actually has the capability the equation changes dramatically.

Now, moving from "nuclear weapons" to "capability" from one sentence to the next is standard for the US foreign policy community. Jon Stewart, of course, didn't catch it.

More important, Bolton says that a nuclear capability may have prevented the airstrikes and eventual regime change in Serbia. Bolton believes this would have been a terrible outcome. Avoiding US airstrikes and regime change probably does not strike the Iranians as such a nightmare scenario.

Bolton's admission that if Iran reaches the nuclear stature that Japan has, where it can credibly claim that in a crisis it has the ability to build a weapon, the US will not be able to accomplish or threaten with regime change is, by itself, reason enough to expect that Iran will not suspend enrichment or subject its nuclear capabilities in any way to any form of effective US veto.

South Africa and Pakistan are bad comparisons for an NPT member like Iran

At the time of its nuclear program, South Africa was a non-signatory of the NPT as were Pakistan, India and Israel. There is no objective basis to compare Iran, an NPT signatory that has not diverted any nuclear material to a weapons program so far to any of the non-NPT signatories. If you must describe two cases among the non-signatories, South Africa, Pakistan, India and Israel all actually developed weapons. In no case was the nuclear program successfully stopped against an NPT non-signatory.

South Africa built nuclear weapons while facing no effective pressure from the West because just as the West favors Israel today, essentially for racist reasons the West favored South Africa during the Apartheid era. DeKlerk made the decision that since the regime of white rule was ending, he preferred that the next regime not have nuclear weapons. This is no example for any regime that actually continues in place.

The case of South Africa might be analoguous to the US successfully installing a new Shah in Iran, who might, after that regime change, follow US orders to disarm his country to restore Israel's nuclear monopoly. The best analogy for South Africa's dismantling of its nuclear program would be that if Israel realizes it will be forced to accept the Palestinian refugees and realizes that it can not continue as a Jewish-majority state but will soon have a Muslim political majority, its leadership will likely make the same calculation DeKlerk did.

A better analogy for Iran would be Japan and Brazil, or Canada and Romania, or Argentina and Taiwan. North Korea actually developed most of its nuclear capability before signing the NPT but even it would be a better example for Iran's case than any of South Africa, Pakistan, India or Israel who during the relevant periods in their nuclear weapons histories were not NPT signatories.

David Albright insults South Africa

It is not very often that I am offended by members of the US foreign policy community. My priorities and sensibilities are different from most of theirs, and interacting mostly with each other they've developed ways of evading uncomfortable facts that strike outsiders such as myself as deceptive, but usually harmlessly so. For example they love elliding the very big and important distinction between Iran being capable of producing a nuclear weapon in theory and Iran having an actual nuclear weapon. And that works well when they are interacting with people who are either uninformed or who share their point of view. But when an informed opponent points out that there of course is a huge difference, they do clumsily retreat from that point and all is well.

But I was actually stunned when I read David Albright's paper "Nuclear Iran: Not Inevitable" when he discusses South Africa.

In 1989, newly elected President F.W. De Klerk decided that in order for South Africa to end its international isolation it must give up both its oppressive system of apartheid and its nuclear arsenal.

... ... ...

Propelled jointly by worldwide opposition to its nuclear weapons and revulsion to apartheid policies, the de Klerk regime had little choice but to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

How dare he?

The struggle against Apartheid was a struggle against Apartheid. The people who died, who went to prison, who gave their lives, whose families suffered as they fought - they were applying pressure to end South Africa's system of racial discrimination. South Africa's nuclear program, (just as legal as its co-developer Israel's program was) was not even an afterthought in the international pressure.

Albright knows that there was no South Africa anti-nuclear movement. His lie that there was worldwide opposition to its nuclear program that operated jointly with the opposition to apartheid is an insult to all of the people involved in the actual struggle against Apartheid.

Nelson Mandela or any of the freedom fighters would smack Albright across his mouth if in their presence he tried to appropriate the struggle they gave so much for to fit his weird anti-Iran analogy.

He even went so far as to put the nuclear issue first the second time he mentioned these supposed two joint crimes of Apartheid South Africa. It's just ridiculous. Just proof that people in his community only interact with each other and have formed a bubble that grows more and more detached from the reality the rest of the world lives in.

The US' performance on Iran's election was very disappointing

The Obama administration is likely perceived in Iran, with some justification, as having acted outrageously regarding the election. Far worse than the latter part of the Bush administration would have been expected to act. The Bush administration showed that in the final analysis it could constrain its most rabid supporters of Israel's regional interests. The Obama administration has shown that on practical matters, so far it cannot.

The example of the Bush administration demonstrating independence from Israel's agenda that I'm thinking about is that Congress was openly advocating breaking up Iraq which would have furthered Israeli objectives while infuriating Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Bush abruptly changed direction, began talks with Iran and released the 2007 NIE declaring that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program (by newly defining enrichment as outside of a weapons program). These actions demonstrated that his administration at least had the capacity to tangibly pursue an agenda in the region independent of Israel's objectives.

Obama is retreating on his signature settlements issue and acquiescing to Israel's policy of starvation of the people of Gaza, neither of which is particularly surprising for any US president, but from the Iranian perspective the US behavior during the aftermath of the elections has been breathtakingly provocative. Far worse than could have been reasonably expected.

It is well known that Obama did not forcefully speak in favor of the protesters, openly explaining that his rationale was his correct assessment that forcefully favoring them in public would hurt their cause. It is also well known that at the same time the US State Department publicly requested that Twitter remain on line to enable the protesters to more effectively organize demonstrations! The only impact of that step was symbolic, but as a symbolic gesture, it was an outrageous one.

Also publicly known is that Hillary Clinton, in her ongoing quest to prove it is possible to be a worse secretary of state than Condoleeza Rice, claims openly that the US was supporting the protesters behind the scenes.

"Now, behind the scenes, we were doing a lot," Clinton said. "We were doing a lot to really empower the protestors without getting in the way. And we're continuing to speak out and support the opposition."

Which brings us to Dennis Ross. The less said about him the better, but unfortunately Obama put him in a position from which he can more than plausibly claim to oversee all US policy regarding Iran. So of course there are rumors, spread by parties sympathetic to the US, that Ross' office has been coordinating efforts to destabilize Iran.

[I]n the build-up to the Iranian elections [Ross] sponsored and organized a program to "electronically invade" Iran with destabilizing messages trying, more subtly to be sure than the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup, to "regime change" it. Whatever else could be said about the "Iran-Syria Operations Group" , it played right into the hands of Ahmadinejad and the rightwing of the ulama and the military, giving them a proof text for American interference in the elections and thus may have backfired since no issue in Iranian politics is as sensitive as the fear of foreign espionage.

The thing is that even if the rumors are not true, these types of rumors are the very best possible outcome of any scenario in which a rabid Israel-first ideologue is charged with making Iran policy. We can consider the US fortunate if Ross, in his anti-Iranian zeal, hasn't clumsily left conclusive proof of an ineffective program to harm Iran's interests.

I also have to note here that massive electoral fraud, in a country with active and resourceful rival political factions, is implausible without tangible evidence, while a secret US program to destabilize Iran - given that funds have openly been allocated for for democracy promotion in a country the US does not consider a democracy - is plausible and even likely given what is known about the US' outlook on Iran and its capabilities. I am going to need to see tangible evidence before I believe Ahmadinejad really got fewer votes than Mousavi and was put into office by fraud. It takes less tangible evidence to make it plausible that the known US covert intelligence apparatus has been active in Iran in ways that reflect the US' historical hostility towards that country. I consider this position fair and hold this position without any bias towards Ahmadinejad's political faction in Iran. In fact, I would have preferred to see Mousavi win.

US public commentators on Iran policy, notably but not only Juan Cole, Trita Parsi and Roger Cohen have seemed disturbingly comfortable with the idea that even without any evidence they can assert as a fact that Iran's election was fraudulent. One might think from reading some of their columns that they believe that if they use the phrase "rigged election" enough times, their use of the phrase itself will serve as sufficient evidence of fraud. (Cole's recent columns have been more careful than those in the immediate aftermath of the election.)

When US policy-makers are not speaking publicly, non-governmental commentators who, as far as is known, share the ideological inclinations of the people in government and who are known to be in communication with policymakers offer something of a window into the administration's attitudes and orientation. What we've seen from these commentators suggests there is a widespread, visceral but irrational bias on the part of the US foreign policy community against Ahmadinejad. If Iran's voters chose Ahmadinejad then sadly Iranian policy-makers will have to factor an expectation of some additional amount of irrational hostility from the US toward their country and plan accordingly.

The United States has not been neutral regarding Iran's internal political situation. It is reasonable to assume that the resources allocated towards removing Iran's current regime from power were actually used, but it is not clear in public exactly how. Beyond the Nowruz greeting Obama sent to Iran, the administration has displayed a troubling degree of hostility towards Iran, and specifically towards Iran's president as an individual which, if it continues will have a real impact on events in the region, to the detriment of both Iran and the US.

My verdict so far on Obama's performance in the Middle East, especially but not only regarding Iran is better rhetoric but worse policy than late-term Bush, better policy than Bush's policy between 2002 and 2007. I guess it is possible that Obama's policy will improve by changing direction as Bush's did, but unfortunately it is possible that it will not. Iran's strategists are likely working from the assumption that US decision-making in their region under Obama is nearly completely dominated by Israel's agenda and therefore cooperation and easing of tensions will be minimal unless something changes.

What was Mousavi thinking?

Mousavi, ever since his announcement that if he lost it was because of fraud just as Iran's polls were closing has been difficult for me to figure out. His actions have been more difficult to understand because they have been coordinated at least with Khatami's if not with Rafsanjani's which makes it difficult to hypothesize that the actions are the result of a personal decision to commit treason against the country. On the other hand, his actions are exactly those that he'd be expected to take if he had been enlisted in a program to harm Iran.

My current guess is that Mousavi, Khatami and Rafsanjani have concluded, most likely with some urging from the Obama administration, that it is a matter of historic national urgency that Ahmadinejad be removed from office. With this belief they may, possibly, even be or have been open to the idea of taking guidance from the Americans or other parties foreign to Iran in accomplishing their shared objective of removing Ahmadinejad.

The nugget of truth upon which the idea that it is especially critical to remove Ahmadinejad from power is built is that Obama seems very unusually willing to make peace with Muslims. The next US president will not have a Muslim name or father. So if the Rafsanjani faction has been made to believe that rapprochement will not be possible with Ahmadinejad in office, then their own personal ambitions for power come in line with this historic opportunity for Iran itself. Iran does not necessarily have to be defined in opposition to the United States, but breaking from that role can only, or at least best, be done, by this way of thinking, during this Obama term in office, with a president other than Ahmadinejad.

If it was just a matter of personal ambition, the Rafsanjani faction would just wait. Ahmadinejad obviously has a great deal of political appeal but cannot run in 2013. Rafsanjani and his faction could spend these years rebuilding their image and making their arguments to the Iranian people. But because by their calculations, removing Ahmadinejad right now has historic significance, they have been willing to take the most desperate gambles in hopes of getting a slight possibility that Ahmadinejad may be pushed out.

It didn't work. Mousavi and Khatami sacrificed their careers. Rafsanjani lost a tremendous amount of political standing and is saved only by his lifetime terms in his political positions. But any dreams of his succeeding Khamenei have been turned to fantasies. I think they truly believe they made noble sacrifices: they were working to save Iran from permanent hostility with America.

While I do believe their private talks with representatives of the Americans encouraged them to believe removing Ahmadinejad is of crucial importance, I do not believe it is true that Ahmadinejad ever posed a singular obstacle to engagement between the US and Iran. The idea that Ahmadinejad stands in the way of important long-term benefits to Iran is also not the kind of idea that would have needed a huge amount of foreign pushing since it is in line with each member of the Rafsanjani faction's political ambitions. But I find it difficult to believe that the Rafsanjani faction is willing to take the desperate actions we've seen at least since June 12 without some form of confirmation, that they believe ultimately comes from Obama's office, that they are correct in their assessment of the urgency of removing Ahmadinejad in order to engage the US.

The US is currently militarily deterred from attacking Iran (or even stupider, from allowing Israel to attack Iran which would have the all of the same costs - or more - but Israel has fewer resources to actually get any results). Iran knows the US is deterred. Russia knows, China knows, Europe knows, Israel knows, the Arabs know. Everyone knows the US has been militarily deterred from striking Iran except the stupid US press corps that hears "all options are on the table" and gets titillated by the idea of US destructive power and begins screaming "please, please Mr. Obama, don't bomb the poor Iranians". It's a stupid dance that makes Americans feel virile so none ask the question: "when did Bush become such a humanitarian and what would have to change to make the Obama administration less 'humanitarian'?"

Actually, there is a balance of power in Iran's region in which Iran can do a lot to hurt the US just as the US could hurt Iran. An attack on IAEA supervised installations would be far more likely to result in the US being ejected from Iraq and Afghanistan and Obama being disgraced and losing reelection than a positive result from the US point of view. Israel is less concerned with the lives of US soldiers in the region or Obama's political fortunes, but even for Israel, a backlash against the US prioritzation of Israeli interests would likely follow an attack, which is the most imminent 'existential threat' Israel faces in real life.

So given that the US does not have a credible way to compel Iranian behavior but has objectives that Iran can help it reach, any US administration has to engage on some level any Iranian administration. The Obama administration has not and cannot offer Iran much more than the Bush administration did. In fact if Mousavi's desperate post election actions were ultimately aimed at improving relations with the US, that is where those actions failed most decisively. US demands on Iran have become more, not less unreasonable and probably more importantly, Iran's leadership perceives the involvement of the US in a regime change attempt - which already has completely nullified the good will Obama gained with the Nowruz greeting and claims that discussions would from now on be held on the basis of mutual respect.

My take is that the behavior of the Rafsanjani faction has had nearly disasterous consequences for its members and also for the US and Iran, despite the fact that the faction was motivated, in a misguided way - likely encouraged in this by sources they believed spoke for Obama - by the belief that what they were doing was critically important for Iran's future.

Jonathon Cook on one state solution

http://monthlyreview.org/mrzine/cook120308.html

Leaving without comment for now.