Who is funding CAIR? What implications does this have?

Here is a rather profoundly disturbing and important video on an organization which has become profoundly influential in The U.S.A. From Breitbart.com, a web site that seems to be doing more to preserve freedom and honesty in government than any actual government agency tasked for that sort of thing.

Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Thanks Iran For Its Financial Support

by Frank Gaffney

This Saturday, the Council on American Islamic Relations will hold its 15th Annual fundraiser in Arlington, Virginia.  Last year, our investigative teams went undercover to the November 23, 2008 CAIR 14th Annual Banquet fundraiser, and secretly videotaped the proceedings.  They were there to videotape the moment when Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR, was served court papers for a civil suit for fraud, now on appeal.  But to their surprise, our team discovered that  six of the tables at the fundraiser were identified with signs for foreign embassies officially attending the event: the embassies of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.  Those same embassies were listed in the CAIR 14th Annual Banquet’s printed program (see below) in a section titled  “Thanks To: ” on page 20, which appears to give credit to supporters for the fundraiser.

Two SITREPS on Iran:

From Stratfor:

Iran: Tehran Knows How To Build Atomic Bomb – IAEA Report
October 3, 2009
A confidential analysis of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran has acquired enough information to design and produce an atom bomb, The New York Times reported, citing excerpts from the report posted Oct. 2 on the website of the Institute for Science and International Security. IAEA experts stress that the “Possible Military Dimensions of Iran’s Nuclear Program” report’s conclusions are tentative and subject to further confirmation. The conclusions go beyond public statements by the United States and others. Iran has also researched and tested extensively how to make a weapon’s components, but the document does not say how far along the country is in that work.

Israel: Israelis Say Russian Scientists Helping Iran With Warhead – Russian Source
October 3, 2009
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu handed over in a secret meeting a list of Russian scientists he said are helping Iran develop a nuclear warhead, The Sunday Times reported Oct. 3 in its online edition, citing an unnamed source close to the Russian defense minister. Netanyahu and his national security adviser, Uzi Arad, traveled in September by private jet for a short, tense meeting, according to Israeli sources, kept secret to avoid embarrassing Moscow, but “to spur it into action,” the source said.

Stratfor: Obama’s foreign policy test

stratfor-logo
Obama’s Move: Iran and Afghanistan
September 28, 2009

By George Friedman

RELATED SPECIAL TOPIC PAGE
The Iranian Nuclear Game
During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, now-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said that like all U.S. presidents, Barack Obama would face a foreign policy test early in his presidency if elected. That test is now here.

His test comprises two apparently distinct challenges, one in Afghanistan and one in Iran. While different problems, they have three elements in common. First, they involve the question of his administration’s overarching strategy in the Islamic world. Second, the problems are approaching decision points (and making no decision represents a decision here). And third, they are playing out very differently than Obama expected during the 2008 campaign.

During the campaign, Obama portrayed the Iraq war as a massive mistake diverting the United States from Afghanistan, the true center of the “war on terror.” He accordingly promised to shift the focus away from Iraq and back to Afghanistan. Obama’s views on Iran were more amorphous. He supported the doctrine that Iran should not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons, while at the same time asserted that engaging Iran was both possible and desirable. Embedded in the famous argument over whether offering talks without preconditions was appropriate (something now-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attacked him for during the Democratic primary) was the idea that the problem with Iran stemmed from Washington’s refusal to engage in talks with Tehran.

We are never impressed with campaign positions, or with the failure of the victorious candidate to live up to them. That’s the way American politics work. But in this case, these promises have created a dual crisis that Obama must make decisions about now.

Iran
Back in April, in the midst of the financial crisis, Obama reached an agreement at the G-8 meeting that the Iranians would have until Sept. 24 and the G-20 meeting to engage in meaningful talks with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany (P-5+1) or face intensely increased sanctions. His administration was quite new at the time, so the amount of thought behind this remains unclear. On one level, the financial crisis was so intense and September so far away that Obama and his team probably saw this as a means to delay a secondary matter while more important fires were flaring up.

But there was more operating than that. Obama intended to try to bridge the gap between the Islamic world and the United States between April and September. In his speech to the Islamic world from Cairo, he planned to show a desire not only to find common ground, but also to acknowledge shortcomings in U.S. policy in the region. With the appointment of special envoys George Mitchell (for Israel and the Palestinian territories) and Richard Holbrooke (for Pakistan and Afghanistan), Obama sought to build on his opening to the Islamic world with intense diplomatic activity designed to reshape regional relationships.

It can be argued that the Islamic masses responded positively to Obama’s opening — it has been asserted to be so and we will accept this — but the diplomatic mission did not solve the core problem. Mitchell could not get the Israelis to move on the settlement issue, and while Holbrooke appears to have made some headway on increasing Pakistan’s aggressiveness toward the Taliban, no fundamental shift has occurred in the Afghan war.

Most important, no major shift has occurred in Iran’s attitude toward the United States and the P-5+1 negotiating group. In spite of Obama’s Persian New Year address to Iran, the Iranians did not change their attitude toward the United States. The unrest following Iran’s contested June presidential election actually hardened the Iranian position. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remained president with the support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while the so-called moderates seemed powerless to influence their position. Perceptions that the West supported the demonstrations have strengthened Ahmadinejad’s hand further, allowing him to paint his critics as pro-Western and himself as an Iranian nationalist.

But with September drawing to a close, talks have still not begun. Instead, they will begin Oct. 1. And last week, the Iranians chose to announce that not only will they continue work on their nuclear program (which they claim is not for military purposes), they have a second, hardened uranium enrichment facility near Qom. After that announcement, Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy held a press conference saying they have known about the tunnel for several months, and warned of stern consequences.

This, of course, raises the question of what consequences. Obama has three choices in this regard.

First, he can impose crippling sanctions against Iran. But that is possible only if the Russians cooperate. Moscow has the rolling stock and reserves to supply all of Iran’s fuel needs if it so chooses, and Beijing can also remedy any Iranian fuel shortages. Both Russia and China have said they don’t want sanctions; without them on board, sanctions are meaningless.

Second, Obama can take military action against Iran, something easier politically and diplomatically for the United States to do itself rather than rely on Israel. By itself, Israel cannot achieve air superiority, suppress air defenses, attack the necessary number of sites and attempt to neutralize Iranian mine-laying and anti-ship capability all along the Persian Gulf. Moreover, if Israel struck on its own and Iran responded by mining the Strait of Hormuz, the United States would be drawn into at least a naval war with Iran — and probably would have to complete the Israeli airstrikes, too.

And third, Obama could choose to do nothing (or engage in sanctions that would be the equivalent of doing nothing). Washington could see future Iranian nuclear weapons as an acceptable risk. But the Israelis don’t, meaning they would likely trigger the second scenario. It is possible that the United States could try to compel Israel not to strike — though it’s not clear whether Israel would comply — something that would leave Obama publicly accepting Iran’s nuclear program.

And this, of course, would jeopardize Obama’s credibility. It is possible for the French or Germans to waffle on this issue; no one is looking to them for leadership. But for Obama simply to acquiesce to Iranian nuclear weapons, especially at this point, would have significant diplomatic and domestic political ramifications. Simply put, Obama would look weak — and that, of course, is why the Iranians announced the second nuclear site. They read Obama as weak, and they want to demonstrate their own resolve. That way, if the Russians were thinking of cooperating with the United States on sanctions, Moscow would be seen as backing the weak player against the strong one. The third option, doing nothing, therefore actually represents a significant action.

Afghanistan
In a way, the same issue is at stake in Afghanistan. Having labeled Afghanistan as critical — indeed, having campaigned on the platform that the Bush administration was fighting the wrong war — it would be difficult for Obama to back down in Afghanistan. At the same time, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has reported that without a new strategy and a substantial increase in troop numbers, failure in Afghanistan is likely.

The number of troops being discussed, 30,000-40,000, would bring total U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan to just above the number of troops the Soviet Union deployed there in its war (just under 120,000) — a war that ended in failure. The new strategy being advocated would be one in which the focus would not be on the defeat of the Taliban by force of arms, but the creation of havens for the Afghan people and protecting those havens from the Taliban.

A move to the defensive when time is on your side is not an unreasonable strategy. But it is not clear that time is on Western forces’ side. Increased offensives are not weakening the Taliban. But halting attacks and assuming that the Taliban will oblige the West by moving to the offensive, thereby opening itself to air and artillery strikes, probably is not going to happen. And while assuming that the country will effectively rise against the Taliban out of the protected zones the United States has created is interesting, it does not strike us as likely. The Taliban is fighting the long war because it has nowhere else to go. Its ability to maintain military and political cohesion following the 2001 invasion has been remarkable. And betting that the Pakistanis will be effective enough to break the Taliban’s supply lines is hardly the most prudent bet.

In short, Obama’s commander on the ground has told him the current Afghan strategy is failing. He has said that unless that strategy changes, more troops won’t help, and that a change of strategy will require substantially more troops. But when we look at the proposed strategy and the force levels, it is far from obvious that even that level of commitment will stand a chance of achieving meaningful results quickly enough before the forces of Washington’s NATO allies begin to withdraw and U.S. domestic resolve erodes further.

Obama has three choices in Afghanistan. He can continue to current strategy and force level, hoping to prolong failure long enough for some undefined force to intervene. He can follow McChrystal’s advice and bet on the new strategy. Or he can withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Once again, doing nothing — the first option — is doing something quite significant.

The Two Challenges Come Together
The two crises intermingle in this way: Every president is tested in foreign policy, sometimes by design and sometimes by circumstance. Frequently, this happens at the beginning of his term as a result of some problem left by his predecessor, a strategy adopted in the campaign or a deliberate action by an antagonist. How this happens isn’t important. What is important is that Obama’s test is here. Obama at least publicly approached the presidency as if many of the problems the United States faced were due to misunderstandings about or the thoughtlessness of the United States. Whether this was correct is less important than that it left Obama appearing eager to accommodate his adversaries rather than confront them.

No one has a clear idea of Obama’s threshold for action.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban takes the view that the British and Russians left, and that the Americans will leave, too. We strongly doubt that the force level proposed by McChrystal will be enough to change their minds. Moreover, U.S. forces are limited, with many still engaged in Iraq. In any case, it isn’t clear what force level would suffice to force the Taliban to negotiate or capitulate — and we strongly doubt that there is a level practical to contemplate.

In Iran, Ahmadinejad clearly perceives that challenging Obama is low-risk and high reward. If he can finally demonstrate that the United States is unwilling to take military action regardless of provocations, his own domestic situation improves dramatically, his relationship with the Russians deepens, and most important, his regional influence — and menace — surges. If Obama accepts Iranian nukes without serious sanctions or military actions, the American position in the Islamic world will decline dramatically. The Arab states in the region rely on the United States to protect them from Iran, so U.S. acquiescence in the face of Iranian nuclear weapons would reshape U.S. relations in the region far more than a hundred Cairo speeches.

There are four permutations Obama might choose in response to the dual crisis. He could attack Iran and increase forces in Afghanistan, but he might well wind up stuck in a long-term war in Afghanistan. He could avoid that long-term war by withdrawing from Afghanistan and also ignore Iran’s program, but that would leave many regimes reliant on the United States for defense against Iran in the lurch. He could increase forces in Afghanistan and ignore Iran — probably yielding the worst of all possible outcomes, namely, a long-term Afghan war and an Iran with a nuclear program if not nuclear weapons.

On pure logic, history or politics aside, the best course is to strike Iran and withdraw from Afghanistan. That would demonstrate will in the face of a significant challenge while perhaps reshaping Iran and certainly avoiding a drawn-out war in Afghanistan. Of course, it is easy for those who lack power and responsibility — and the need to govern — to provide logical choices. But the forces closing in on Obama are substantial, and there are many competing considerations in play.

Presidents eventually arrive at the point where something must be done, and where doing nothing is very much doing something. At this point, decisions can no longer be postponed, and each choice involves significant risk. Obama has reached that point, and significantly, in his case, he faces a double choice. And any decision he makes will reverberate.

Iran’s nuclear program a direct challenge to international community

From The Ottawa Citizen.

Obama says Iran nuclear plant is “direct challenge”

Iran denies uranium enrichment plant is secret

By Matt Spetalnick and Mark Heinrich, ReutersSeptember 25, 2009 12:01 PM
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the 64th United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters in New York September 23, 2009.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the 64th United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters in New York September 23, 2009.

Photograph by: Mike Segar, Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama and other Western leaders accused Iran on Friday of building a secret nuclear fuel plant and demanded Tehran immediately halt what he called a “direct challenge” to the international community.

Obama went public with the charge in an appearance with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at a Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh, sharpening a standoff with Iran over its disputed nuclear program.

“It is time for Iran to act immediately to restore the confidence of the international community by fulfilling its international obligations,” Obama said, adding that Tehran had been building the plant in secret for years.

The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said earlier on Friday that Iran had just told it of a second uranium enrichment plant under construction. Continue Reading →

Ahmadinejad: Israel ‘will not last long’, Holocaust a ‘lie’

imadinnerjacketAt an annual anti-Israel rally, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated his belief that the Holocaust was a ‘lie’ and said that Israel ‘would not last long.’ His comments come ahead of a meeting with the U.S. on Iran’s nuclear program.
Ahead of an October 1 meeting with the U.S. to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, among other topics, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attended an annual anti-Israel rally in Tehran on Friday – vowing that Israel “will not last long.” Ahmadinejad also reiterated his long-standing belief Holocaust was not real – that it was more of a manipulation, or a “pretext,” to allow for the establishment of Israel as it is known today. “It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim,” he said, according to Reuters. Ahmadinejad has been making similar statements on the topic of the Holocaust since his election to office in 2005, and he has received significant international criticism for the remarks. His renewed comments come at a delicate time, as Western nations continue to suspect Iran of building nuclear weapons – and Israel openly demonstrates its willingness to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

EDITORIAL: Chavez goes for nukes

Below please find an editorial from The Washington Times about Chavez and his new Nuclear ambitions for Venezuela. What disturbs me at the personal level, is how quickly a question I have been asking of all my social and political circle has been answered.

‘What was Chavez really doing in Iran?’ No way this was about gasoline.

Eeyore. (Image not from the WT so much as it is TT and VTB)

Gay Moody and Chavey

The song remains the same. We heard it from North Korea; we heard it from Iran. Now another dictatorship with no love for the United States embarks on a path that leads to nuclear-armed missiles. Venezuelan autocrat Hugo Chavez has announced that he has agreed to purchase some “little rockets” from Russia and also will begin work on a nuclear program, which he insists is for peaceful purposes. Yeah, right.

“We’re not going to make an atomic bomb,” Mr. Chavez declared in his folksy way, “so don’t bother us like with Iran.” We would be surprised if Mr. Chavez announced his intention to build a nuclear weapon. Few countries ever have. But recent precedents have not inspired confidence. North Korea reportedly is planning a third nuclear test, and the world waits for Iran soon to conduct its first. If Venezuela can cope with the threat of a few strongly worded letters from an unconvincing State Department, it can have a nuclear weapon too. Continue Reading →

Hugo Chavez sees fit to attack Israel during Syria visit

The only explanation I can think of for this odd behavior from Chavez must be that Hugo and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are lovers.

(Image courtesy of Tundra tabloid)

Gay Moody and Chavey

From Google News:

Venezuelan president bashes Israel in Syria trip

By ALBERT AJI (AP) – 6 hours ago

DAMASCUS, Syria — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez attacked Israel Thursday during his visit to Syria, calling it an imperialist nation that annihilates other people.

Chavez comments came during a news conference with his Syrian counterpart Bashar Assad after a one-hour meeting at the hilltop presidential palace.

“Israel has become a country that annihilates people and is hostile to peace,” he said, according to the Arabic translation of his remarks to reporters.

In comments carried by Venezuelan state television, he also accused Israel of being part of imperialist efforts to divide the Middle East.

“The entire world knows it. Why was the state of Israel created? … To divide. To impede the unity of the Arab world. To assure the presence of the North American empire in all these lands,” he said.

Chavez is on an 11-day trip to Libya, Algeria, Syria, Iran, Belarus and Russia in his bid to build a multi-polar world and decrease U.S. influence in the region.

“I believe it is a fateful battle. It’s either now or never in order to liberate the world from imperialism and change the world from a unipolar into a multi-polar world,” Chavez told reporters in Damascus.

On Tuesday he attended Libya’s celebration of the 40th anniversary of the coup that brought Moammar Gadhafi to power before heading to Algeria.

The firebrand Latin American leader has built close ties with Iran, Syria, Cuba and other countries while his relations have grown tense with Israel.

Chavez strongly criticized Israel’s war against Gaza in December and January and said the Jewish state should return to Syria the strategic Golan Heights that it captured in 1967 Mideast war.

For his part, Assad said that he does not think Israel is ready to make peace, while Damascus is serious about the matter.

Last year, Turkey mediated several rounds of indirect peace negotiations between Israel and Syria. But Syria suspended them in December over Israel’s military offensive in Gaza.

Assad said in a newspaper interview in March that the Turkish-mediated talks failed because Israel would not make a clear commitment to return all of the Golan up to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.

Associated Press Writer Christopher Toothaker in Caracas contributed to this report.

Bombing mastermind appointed to Iran’s parliament

From The Guardian U.K.

Iran appoints bombing suspect as defence minister

General Ahmad Vahidi wanted by Interpol in connection with attack on Jewish centre in Argentina that killed 85

General Ahmad Vahidi delivers a speech to the Iranian parliament.General Ahmad Vahidi delivers a speech to the Iranian parliament after being nominated as defence minister. Photograph: Vahid Salemi/AP

The Iranian parliament has approved the controversial nomination for defence secretary of a man wanted in connection with the murder of 85 people at a Jewish centre in Argentina. Continue Reading →

Obama White House: Ahmadinejad elected leader of Iran

From the Ottawa Citizen

————-

White House calls Ahmadinejad elected leader of Iran

Iran opposition to keep pressure on

By Parisa Hafezi, Reuters

The White House called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the 'elected leader' of Iran on Tuesday when asked whether President Barack Obama recognized the Iranian president after the country's disputed election.

The White House called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the ‘elected leader’ of Iran on Tuesday when asked whether President Barack Obama recognized the Iranian president after the country’s disputed election.

Photograph by: Behrouz Mehri, Getty Images

The White House called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the “elected leader” of Iran on Tuesday when asked whether President Barack Obama recognized the Iranian president after the country’s disputed election.

“This was a decision and a debate ongoing in Iran by Iranians, they were going to choose their leadership,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. “He’s the elected leader.”

The White House has been careful not to comment on the legitimacy of the Iranian election and has condemned the government for its crackdown on opposition demonstrators.

Meanwhile, two prominent defeated Iranian presidential candidates said they would maintain their campaign against Ahmadinejad’s re-election, which has sparked Iran’s worst unrest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Ahmadinejad will be sworn in by parliament on Wednesday, and the authorities will want to avoid any repeat of the street unrest after the disputed June 12 poll in which at least 20 people were killed and hundreds were detained.

Leading moderates have accused the government of electoral fraud and have branded the next Ahmadinejad administration as “illegal”.

The wife of Iran’s opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi said on Tuesday he would continue to contest the election result.

“Despite all the hardship, we will continue our path to fight against the result (of the election),” Zahra Rahnavard was quoted as saying by the reformist website Mowjcamp.

Mehdi Karoubi, the most liberal of the presidential candidates, was quoted by the Spanish El Pais daily as saying he too would continue to oppose the government.

“Neither Mousavi nor I have withdrawn. We will continue to protest and we will never collaborate with this government. We will not harm it, but we will criticize what it does,” Karoubi said in an interview.

“Quite honestly, if the authorities had acted in a different way, we would never have had these problems, because the majority of those protesting only did so for that reason.”

U.S. President Barack Obama and the leaders of France, Britain and Germany have all decided not to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his re-election.

“In view of the circumstances of the controversial re-election, the chancellor will not, as usual, write the normal letter of congratulation,” said a German government spokesman.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: “I don’t have any reason to believe we will send any letter.” The Iranian government says the presidential election was fair and transparent and has accused Western nations, especially Britain and the United States, of being complicit in the bloody post-election unrest, a charge they deny.

Two former presidents, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, who backed Mousavi’s failed presidential bid, boycotted Monday’s endorsement of the president by the Supreme Leader although they were present at such events in the past.

After the ceremony a witness said hundreds of Mousavi supporters, some of them honking car horns, gathered near a central Tehran square, where riot police and Basij militia were assembled to prevent any demonstration.

Mousavi’s credentials as a loyal servant of Iran’s revolution may help explain why he has escaped arrest for leading protests against an election he says was stolen to keep Ahmadinejad in power.

The 68-year-old moderate may lack charisma, but he has not hesitated from speaking out, castigating authorities for their handling of the election and its tumultuous aftermath. He has even defied his relative, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who backed Ahmadinejad.

“What has endeared him to the public is the fact that, contrary to former President (Mohammad) Khatami who would be reluctant to stand up to Khamenei and others, Mousavi has stuck to his guns,” said Mehrzad Boroujerdi, an Iran scholar at New York’s Syracuse University.

Mousavi has previously demanded the elections in the world’s fifth biggest oil exporter be annulled, but may need a new goal once Ahmadinejad is reinstalled.

“The plan should be to call into question the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad’s administration at every turn, through civil disobedience, and also to press for some revisions to the constitution,” Boroujerdi said.

The president now faces the difficult task of assembling a cabinet which is acceptable to the mostly conservative parliament, which may object if he just picks members of his inner circle. Parliament has in the past rejected some of Ahmadinejad’s cabinet choices.

Mousavi has yet to unveil a promised new political front with his reformist and pragmatist allies, perhaps partly because so many leading figures are in jail, including 100 whose trial for inciting unrest began on Saturday and resumes on Thursday.

Karoubi backs talks with the United States and other Western governments to attempt to open up the channels of communication with Iran, which is locked in dispute over its nuclear program that it says is for energy and the West suspects is for arms.

“The most beneficial thing for the Iranians is negotiations. Nobody benefits from our ongoing problems with the United States,” said Karoubi, highlighting one of the fissures in the clerical leadership that the election has exposed.

Another potential source of friction with the United States arose on Saturday when Iran arrested three American hikers who an Iraqi Kurdish official said had strayed across the border and who were being questioned by the Iranians.

“They are definitely Americans. They were detained four days ago. We don’t know whether they are tourists or not. We are questioning them,” security official Iraj Hassanzadeh told al-Alam state television on Tuesday.

© Copyright (c) Reuters

Iran’s show trial and Iranian police tear gas, arrest Neda mourners

More on Iran from the National Post.

Khatami denounces ‘show trial’ of Iran protesters

Parisa Hafezi, Reuters Published: Sunday, August 02, 2009

Iranian cleric Mohammad Ali Abtahi (C), a member of the Assembly of Combatant Clerics, gives testimony at a revolutionary court in Tehran on Aug. 1, 2009 during the first hearing in the trial of 100 people accused of rioting. FARS NEWS/STR/AFP/Getty Images Iranian cleric Mohammad Ali Abtahi (C), a member of the Assembly of Combatant Clerics, gives testimony at a revolutionary court in Tehran on Aug. 1, 2009 during the first hearing in the trial of 100 …

TEHRAN – Iranian authorities have tightened pressure on their opponents by staging what former president Mohammad Khatami condemned on Sunday as a “show trial” of 100 reformists accused of trying to instigate a “velvet revolution”. Continue Reading →

Iran vows to strike Israel’s nuclear instalations if attacked:

Iran vows to hit Israel’s atomic sites if attacked. Reuters – Tiscali

An image for the news story Iran vows to hit Israel's atomic sites if attacked


By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) – The Revolutionary Guards said on Saturday that Iran would strike Israel’s nuclear facilities if the Jewish state attacked it, state television reported.

“If the Zionist Regime (Israel) attacks Iran, we will surely strike its nuclear facilities with our missile capabilities,” Mohammad Ali Jafari, Guards commander-in-chief, told Iran’s Arabic language al-Alam television.

The Revolutionary Guards are the ideologically driven wing of Iran’s military with air, sea and land capabilities, and a separate command structure to regular units.

Iranian leaders often dismiss talk of a possible strike by Israel, saying it is not in a position to threaten Iran, the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter. They say Iran would respond to any attack by targeting U.S. interests and Israel.”We are not responsible for this regime and other enemies’ foolishness … If they strike Iran, our answer will be firm and precise,” state television quoted Jafari as saying.

The United States, Israel and their Western allies fear that Iran is enriching uranium with the aim of producing nuclear weapons and have not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the row.

Iran says it is pursuing only a nuclear power generation programme.

Israel, widely believed to be the Middle East’s only nuclear power, has repeatedly described Iran’s nuclear programme as a threat to its existence. Iran refuses to recognise Israel.

“NOT SCARED”

Jafari said Israel was entirely within the reach of Iran.

“Our missile capability puts all of the Zionist regime (Israel) within Iran’s reach to attack,” Jafari said. “The Zionist regime is too small to threaten Iran.”

Military experts say Iran rarely reveals enough detail about its new military equipment to determine its military capabilities.

Israel has so far quietly acceded to Washington’s strategy of talking to Tehran about curtailing its sensitive nuclear work.

Israel believes that a multi-level missile shield underwritten by the United States would protect the country against possible missile attacks.

Jafari said such a shield could only protect Israel “in a limited way.” Continue Reading →

Iran Tries to Charge Slain Man’s Family $3,000 for Bullet That Killed Him

Because shooting your son was not punishment enough. Allah u Akbar.

ahmadinejad

FOX NEWS  An Iranian couple who lost their only son amid violent protests in Tehran say they were told they would have to pay $3,000 to recover his body — a “bullet fee,” they were told, to cover the cost of the bullet that killed him — the Wall Street Journal reported.

The victim, Kaveh Alipour, 19, was just a week shy of his wedding when he was shot in the head as he stood at an intersection while returning from acting class Saturday, his family told the Wall Street Journal.

After searching for Alipour through the night, his father eventually learned of his death at the morgue the following day. Relatives said he was told the family would have to pay the equivalent of $3,000 before taking his body, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The elder Alipour eventually convinced morgue officials that he couldn’t afford the fee and that they should waive it due to his service in the Iran-Iraq war. But was told that the family was forbidden from having a funeral or burial in Tehran, relatives told the Journal.

Alipour’s body was instead sent to the city of Rasht, where he has extended family, they said.

Why Alipour was shot remains unclear, but neighbors and relatives said he wasn’t politically active and suspect he was caught in crossfire, the Journal reported.

Deafening silence from Muslim groups in west: Tarek Fatah

From The National Post:

Now that the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned ordinary Iranians not to stage street protests, the risks these demonstrators face at the hands of the state security machinery and the Islamist Basiji militia, cannot be underestimated. However, as the courageous Iranian people defy state oppression to demand democracy and freedom, the Islamic organizations of North America have been conspicuous by their silence.

There has been not one word of support for the Iranian people from CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), MSA (Muslim Society of America) and MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council).

The only exception has been the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) that issued an early statement denouncing the rigging of the elections and demanded that so-called supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei step down. Continue Reading →

More evidence the Iranian dictators use Arab thugs as enforcers

Protesters to ‘Post’: Hamas helping Iran crush dissent: from Jpost

(Hat tip Tundra Tabloids)

Palestinian Hamas members are helping the Iranian authorities crush street protests in support of reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, two protesters told The Jerusalem Post On Tuesday.

They made their allegations as rioting on a scale unseen in Iran for nearly a decade continued in the wake of the elections and the allegations that the results were falsified. The protests have now spread from Teheran to other major cities.

Mousavi insisted on Tuesday that he would “protect” his supporters’ votes “at all cost, even if I am at risk.”

Shouting from a car roof to a roaring crowd of supporters, he declared: “The pillars of the revolution have been shaken… We must not be silent.”

Hamas formally welcomed incumbent Ahmadinejad’s ostensible reelection victory on Saturday. The Palestinian Islamist movement receives arms and funding from Iran, and its members have often received training there, including in terror tactics and weapons manufacture.

Despite a massive crackdown on dissent, thousands of protesters rallied again in Teheran on Tuesday night in

support of Mousavi, following reports that up to 20 people had been killed by security forces at rallies across Iran against the disputed results of last week’s presidential elections.

Pro-government gunmen, reportedly opening fire on protesters, killed at least seven people on Monday night and others have been wounded.

State radio reports claimed that the victims were trying to loot weapons and to vandalize public property, and were shot by unidentified gunmen.

People claiming to have witnessed the shootings, however, insist that the victims were peaceful demonstrators, including students from Teheran university. “There are so many crimes, beatings and killings that have yet to be reported. When we fight back, it is for our own protection,” said a young man passing out flyers with the names of those he said were murdered Teheran University students.

Among those named were Fatima Brahati, Kasra Sharafi, Kambiz Shahi, Mohsen Emani and Mina Ahtrami. Their bodies are said to have been secretly buried by government loyalists.

Amid the violence, confusion and government restrictions on communication, the accuracy of conflicting accounts is hard to ascertain.

“The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of,” the young man went on, “is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots.”

Another protester, who spoke as he carried a kitchen knife in one hand and a stone in the other, also cited the presence of Hamas in Teheran. Continue Reading →

BNP vindicated by BBC documentary on rape and forced prostitution of British children by Muslims

Say what you want about the BNP. I’ll even listen with a sympathetic ear. There may even be a smattering of truth to some of the worst allegations against them. But let’s be perfectly clear here. The BNP have NOT been making wild public statements about killing all the Jews or any group at all like for instance, oh I dunno the president of Iran for example. The BNP has NOT threatened to nuke a civilized nation because it contains a group he doesn’t like as has, well for instance the president of Iran.

Yet it was that same president of Iran who was asked to deliver the annual Christmas message to the people of England by the BBC instead of the Queen in 2008 and the BNP who are being charged with hate crimes, accused of racism and maligned without any hard proof and certainly no national televised speeches with the leader demanding nuclear annihilation of a friendly state.

So I think for the moment Ill pitch in with the BNP. Sooner or later one has to trust the evidence over allegations.