Two Killed in Explosion at Iranian Nuclear Factory

This is an interesting development. We'll have to see what happens in the next few days.

From The Washington Free Beacon:

A large explosion near a suspected nuclear site in Iran has reportedly killed two people and prompted speculation of sabotage at a military site long suspected of housing Tehran’s clandestine nuclear activities, according Iran’s Defense Industries Organization (DIO), which operates under the country’s Ministry of Defense. 

One explosion rocked a production plant late Sunday night in east Tehran, near the Parchin nuclear site, according to Farsi language reports in Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency. 

The explosion at a facility referred to as a “production plant” caused a fire that killed two workers, according to Fars, which cited information provided by Iran’s DIO. 

Fars first reported news of the explosion, claiming that it took place at an “explosive material factory” near Parchin. 

Iranian opposition groups claimed a higher death toll than reported, with some claiming that “at least four military personnel were wounded” in the blast.

This is probably just a standard accident. Yet, whenever I read about some accident in regard to the Iranian attempt to develop a nuclear weapon, I can never completely disregard the possibility of sabotage. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. Still, I'm frankly rather astonished that Iran hasn't developed a nuclear weapon under Obama's watch-- especially since Obama et al have basically resigned themselves to a nuclear Iran. The fact that this basically means that Islamic terrorists would then also have access to nuclear weapons seems somewhat overlooked by the Obama Administration. 

They still have two years, so I guess we'll see.

China and Iran to Engage in Joint Naval Exercises

I doubt this news will even garner a hashtag from our State Department

Great...

Well, I'm sure John Kerry will tell us that both China and Iran can fight ISIS. Won't that be great?

From The Washington Free Beacon:

Chinese warships have pulled up to docks at the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf as the countries prepare to conduct joint naval exercises. 

“The voyage of the Chinese Army’s fleet of warships for the first time in Persian Gulf waters is aimed at joint preparation of Iran and China for establishing peace, stability, tranquility, and multilateral and mutual cooperation,” Admiral Amir Hossein Azad, commander of Iran’s First Naval Zone, said Saturday.  

[...]  

The visit is just one example of growing ties between China and Iran. A Chinese fleet commander, Rear Adm. Huang Xinjian, said the visit was intended to “deepen mutual understanding, and to enhance exchanges between our two countries’ navies.” 

“I’m sure that this visit will encourage the constant advancement of friendly cooperation between our two countries’ navies,” Huang said.

Well, both countries have terrible records on human rights and have expressed a rather "enthusiastic" desire to expand their territories. I'm sure they'll have all sorts of things to talk about.

As distressing as this news is, it's hardly unexpected. China has been an ally of Iran for many years, and has helped Iran enormously with its nuclear program-- there are Chinese nuclear teams in Iran for many years.

Watching our enemies train while the US dithers and reduces its military capabilities is very difficult. It turns out that "smart" diplomacy doesn't replace military might.

U.S. to Give Iran $2.8 Billion in Return for... Pretty Much Nothing

"Hey, I know it looks like Iran is just extorting money from us and playing us for fools, but I assure you that's just not the case. Surely, you can trust me and my IRS, EPA, NSA, and other alphabet agencies that are far more important and smarter than you."

President Kick-The-Can is at it again. The Obama strategy has pretty much been-- after claiming that everything was the fault of Bush, the GOP, racists, ATMs, etc.-- to just throw money at the problem and then put it off for as long as possible. Even if that means conceding to Iran the ability to make nuclear weapons, and paying off a country that arms the terrorist foes that one or our allies (Israel) is currently fighting.

Smartest. President. Evah.

From The Washington Free Beacon:

The United States will give Iran access to another $2.8 billion over the next several months and appears to have conceded to Iran’s demand that it be permitted to domestically enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, according to senior Obama administration officials. 

In exchange for agreeing over the weekend to extend nuclear talks until late November, Iran will be given another $2.8 billion in unfrozen assets, the White House told reporters over the weekend, after President Barack Obama decided to extend the talks past their July 20 deadline.

Maybe Obama can extend the deadlines past the 2014 elections... just like ObamaCare!

The United States already returned to Iran $4.2 billion in unfrozen oil assets during the past six months of the interim nuclear deal and has now agreed to provide another $2.8 billion in exchange for an extension in the negotiations. 

White House officials also appeared to admit that U.S. negotiators have told Tehran that they will allow it to preserve some of its domestic enrichment capabilities, something that Congress has opposed. 

“As part of the JPOA [Joint Plan of Action] extension, Iran will be allowed access in tranches over the next four months to $2.8 billion from its restricted overseas assets,” a senior administration official told reporters on a conference call over the weekend. “Those assets, which are largely unavailable to Iran, are more than $100 billion.”

$2.8 billion for agreeing to extend talks that will result in nothing? Perfect! And maybe the U.S. can also pay the Iranians to promise not to be especially mean on slow news days and make the Light-bringer look bad.

Remember, it's a State Department whose competence cannot be questioned by anyone-- except for people who are racist...

"Moderate" Iranian President Presides Over Spree of Political Prisoners' Executions

Yeah, this is the guy Obama and his State Department wants us to believe is moderate. An immoderate guy would execute kittens and puppies as well as political prisoners, I guess.

From The Jerusalem Post (h/t Joel B. Pollak at Breitbart):

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani ordered the hangings last Monday of a poet and a human rights activist from Iran’s Arabic-speaking ethnic minority Ahvazis.

The internationally acclaimed Iranian journalist Amir Taheri first reported on Tuesday on the hangings of Hashem Shaabani and Hadi Rashedi.

According to Taheri’s report in Asharq al-Awsat, Shaabani, the poet, was arrested in February 2011, and subjected to torture.

Shaabani wrote in a prison letter to his family that he could not ignore the “hideous crimes against Ahvazis, perpetrated by the Iranian authorities, particularly arbitrary and unjust executions.”

He continued: “I have tried to defend the legitimate right that every people in this world should have, which is the right to live freely with full civil rights. With all these miseries and tragedies, I have never used a weapon to fight these atrocious crimes except the pen.”

Rouhani has presided over an execution spree. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed and the UN’s expert addressing executions Christof Heyns urged Iran last month to stop the surge in hangings since the start of 2014.

The UN experts said “at least 40 persons have been reportedly hanged in the first two weeks of January.”

In 2013, Iran executed 625 people, including 29 women and political prisoners. Iranians faced the death penalty for the crimes of Moharabeh – a catchall phrase for “enmity against God” – or the charge of threatening “national security.”

Well, I'm sure it's just part of Iran's political games. Nothing to be concerned about here. Clearly, they should be allowed to continue to develop nuclear weapons unmolested. After all, Obama and Kerry are on the case...

Iran Plans Attack on American Interests and Embassies if US Attacks Syria

"They best not interfere with the Light-bringer. Woe shall befall all who do not tremble in his presence."

Is this  a surprise to anyone?

What would be a surprise is if the Obama Administration had taken steps to prevent this sort of thing before announcing their goal to attack Syria.

From The Wall Street Journal (via Drudge):

The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria, officials said, amid an expanding array of reprisal threats across the region.  

Military officials have been trying to predict the range of possible responses from Syria, Iran and their allies. U.S. officials said they are on alert for Iran's fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf, where American warships are positioned. U.S. officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. 

While the U.S. has moved military resources in the region for a possible strike, it has other assets in the area that would be ready to respond to any reprisals by Syria, Iran or its allies.  

[...]  

The Iranian message, intercepted in recent days, came from Qasem Soleimani, the head of Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force, and went to Iranian-supported Shiite militia groups in Iraq, according to U.S. officials. 

In it, Mr. Soleimani said Shiite groups must be prepared to respond with force after a U.S. strike on Syria. Iranian officials didn't respond to requests for comment.   

Iraqi Shiites have been sympathetic to the Alawite-dominated government of Syria and oppose U.S. strikes against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. 

U.S. officials said the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was one likely target. The officials didn't describe the range of potential targets indicated by the intelligence. 

Attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad have fallen since American forces left Iraq. In the past, Iranian-trained Shiite groups have fired rockets and mortars at the embassy, at the urging of the Qods Force, a paramilitary arm of the IRGC. 

Militants also have used suicide bombers and IEDs to attack Americans leaving the embassy compound, one of the largest American diplomatic facilities in the world, located in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone.

You know, this sort of situation could get really out of control fast if a thin-skinned, arrogant and power obsessed fellow with a chip on his shoulder and with something to prove was president.

Uh oh.

Iran's Newly Elected "Reformer" Doesn't Have Much of a Reformer's Background

Hasan Rouhani

The American media is swooning over the idea that Iran's newly elected president Hassan Rouhani is a reformer. Anybody who has the faintest idea as to how Iran's elections are run, is not so quick to whip out the "reformer" title to anyone who's been elected.

It must be understood that Iran's current political system was set up following the Iranian Revolution, and is designed to prevent change and reform. Nobody runs for president in Iran without the permission of the Guardian Council (a council made up of six members appointed by the Supreme Leader and six members elected by their parliament from a list provided by the head of the judiciary-- a position that is filled by an appointee of the Supreme Leader). Indeed, the Guardian Council has even prevented parliamentary candidates from running for office.

So to recap, you don't run for president in Iran unless you get permission from the twelve person Guardian Council-- six of whom are directly appointed by the Supreme Leader and the other six are elected by Parliament from a list provided by an appointee of the Supreme Leader.

So to think that somehow a reformer slipped through this process is ludicrous. Anyone who's given permission to run for office clearly does so with the knowledge and permission of the Supreme Leader and his appointees.

It should also be made clear that the President of Iran is not in charge of the military. The Supreme Leader is the Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian military.

All of this should give you an inkling into how safely insulated the Supreme Leader of Iran is. He only answers to The Assembly of Experts-- a body of 80+ Islamic theologians-- who elect the Supreme Leader for his life term. The Assembly of Experts does have the legal power to remove the Supreme Leader, but has never attempted to exercise this power. Considering that the Supreme Leader has absolute control over the military, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the Experts actually tried to depose the Supreme Leader.

So what about  Hassan Rouhanni's background? The Tower provides a very quick rundown.

From The Tower piece by Avi Issacharoff  (h/t David Gerstman at Legal Insurrection):

The incoming president of Iran was never a reformist. It is doubtful that his achievement was even a victory for the moderate camp in Iran, which on the face of it wants to replace the regime and to stop the nuclear weapons race. Rouhani, as opposed to the image that has been fashioned, was until recently known as part of the conservative camp in Iran. He is not one of those challenging the Islamist regime, and certainly not challenging Khamenei’s rule. 

Rouhani’s win election should not be seen as a dramatic sign that Iran will change its line regarding either its nuclear policy or its involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts. Despite Rouhani’s declarations in the past that may suggest he seeks flexibility in the nuclear project, the reality in Iran is that these matters will remain in the hands of Khamenei and the men of the Revolutionary Guard. 

Politicall Rouhani’s victory reflects power struggles within the Iranian leadership. It marks a kind of political comeback for former president President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was Rouhani’s political godfather. Moreover, Rouhani is the breath of fresh air, a new face at the top of the Iranian leadership compared to the outgoing president, Muhamad Ahmedinejad. He was the only cleric allowed to run in the race, and will now try to bring the public, including the Tehran elites, closer to the regime of the Ayatollahs – of which he is one of the most outstanding products. 

So how did a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts and Supreme National Security Council – and a confidant of Khamenei – become the “great hope” of the moderate camp? It may be the embrace he received from the two former presidents, Khatami and Rafsanjani, rivals to Khamenei, that put him into the reformist category. 

“He never called himself a reformist,” explains Dr. Soli Shahvar, who heads the Ezri Center for Iran and Gulf Studies at Haifa University. “But he uses rhetoric that is less blustery than that of Ahmedinejad, and speaks more moderately, including on the subject of nuclear negotiations.” Shahvar’s conclusion with respect to Rouhani’s win is unambiguous. “I interpret his election in one way only: The regime wanted him to win. If they had wanted one of the conservatives to win, they would have gotten four of the five conservatives to drop out of the race, paving the way for [eventual runner-up, Tehran Mayor Mohammad-Bagher] Ghalibaf to win. But they didn’t do that. Moreover, it was the regime that approved the candidacy of Rouhani alongside only seven others. This is striking evidence that Khamenei wanted Rouhani to win, both internally and externally.” 

According to Shahvar, from the internal perspective, a victory for another candidate like Ahmedinejad risked provoking a renewal of the demonstrations like those of 2009. “Victory for a candidate who is perceived as more moderate yet still has the confidence of Khamenei, serves the regime in the best way. Externally, Iran today is in a very difficult situation with regard to sanctions and its international standing. A conservative president would only have increased Tehran’s isolation in the world. A victory for someone from the ‘moderate stream,’ however, will immediately bring certain countries in the international community to call for ‘giving a chance to dialogue with the Iranian moderates.’ They will ask for more time in order to encourage this stream, and it will take pressure off the regime. And so we see that in the non-disqualification of Rouhani and especially in the non-dropping-out of four of the five conservative candidates there is more than just an indication that this is the result the regime desired.”

Most likely this false face of friendly reform will fool the U.S. State Department who, in between engaging in and covering up various cases of sexual misconduct within their ranks, have a vested interest in attempting to show that Obama's weak-- I mean, open-minded policies toward Iran are effective.

Iranian Scientist Claims to have Invented "Time Machine"

Possible American version of Iranian Time Machine

Well, it's not so much a time machine as it is a "Psychic Friend Hotline" machine.

From The Telegraph article by Ahmed Vahdat:

Ali Razeghi, a Tehran scientist has registered "The Aryayek Time Traveling Machine" with the state-run Centre for Strategic Inventions.

The device can predict the future in a print out after taking readings from the touch of a user, he told the Fars state newsagency.
 

Razaeghi, 27, said the device worked by a set of complex algorithims to "predict five to eight years of the future life of any individual, with 98 percent accuracy".

As the managing director of Iran's Centre for Strategic Inventions, Razeghi is a serial inventor with 179 other inventions listed under his own name. "I have been working on this project for the last 10 years," he said.

 

"My invention easily fits into the size of a personal computer case and can predict details of the next 5-8 years of the life of its users. It will not take you into the future, it will bring the future to you."

Razeghi says Iran's government can predict the possibility of a military confrontation with a foreign country, and forecast the fluctuation in the value of foreign currencies and oil prices by using his new invention.

"Naturally a government that can see five years into the future would be able to prepare itself for challenges that might destabilise it," he said. "As such we expect to market this invention among states as well as individuals once we reach a mass production stage."

Razeghi said his latest project has been criticised by friends and relatives for "trying to play God" with ordinary lives and history. "This project is not against our religious values at all. The Americans are trying to make this invention by spending millions of dollars on it where I have already achieved it by a fraction of the cost," he said. "The reason that we are not launching our prototype at this stage is that the Chinese will steal the idea and produce it in millions overnight."

As much as I would like to dispute Razeghi's claim that the Americans have been working on own their Psychic Friends Hotline machine, he's very likely correct. Somewhere there's probably some university professor or a team working on future prediction algorithms for a $1,000,000+ grant. Untouched by the sequester cuts, no doubt.

Priorities.

Is Obama Visiting Israel to Warn Them to Not Attack Iran?



Kinda funny how Obama reserves his tough talk for the GOP and American allies

Well, the Jerusalem Post thinks so.

From the article by JPost staff:

The main purpose of US President Barack Obama's visit to Israel in the spring is to warn Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu against attacking Iran, unnamed officials told Army Radio on Sunday.

According to the officials, the urgency of the trip is because in his speech to the United Nations in September, Netanyahu had flagged the spring of 2013 as a significant time in the context of the Iranian nuclear threat.

Therefore, they said, Obama is concerned that the prime minister will decide to attack Iran now when he is backed by a new government and can establish a new security cabinet, without Dan Meridor and Benny Begin, two Likud MKs and alleged opponents of such a strike who lost their Knesset seats in the recent elections.

The officials told Army Radio that the US president subsequently decided to transmit a direct message to Netanyahu: "Don't attack Iran, let me handle matters with the Iranians according to my understanding, and if necessary I will take action, we have capabilities that you do not."

At the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday morning, Netanyahu said that he and Obama, when they spoke last month about the visit, agreed that it would focus on three central issues: Iran's race toward nuclear weapons; the instability in Syria and how that impacts on regional security, and both Israeli and US interests; and efforts to move forward the diplomatic process with the Palestinians.

Obama hates Israel about as much as he hates Republicans... and for much the same reason. You see Republicans are evil white (of course) people who get in the way of his fundamental transformation of America into his progressive paradise based on racial identity and federal supremacy. Israel is a bunch of evil white (of course) people who get in the way of his strategy of bringing peace to the Middle East by its inconvenient existence.

The American Left truly believes that: (a) Israel is made up of "white" people who stole land from the indigenous "brown" people, (b) that the United States' unpopularity in the Middle East is caused by both the existence and the U.S.'s support of Israel. Therefore the American Left believes that it is both a moral imperative (based on a uniquely American version of racial identity politics and plain old white guilt) and good international policy that Israel should cease to be, or at least be put into such a strategically adverse position that it will likely be overrun.

Don't believe me? Merely pay attention in a few college classes in almost any subject. I was an English major and I was repeatedly exposed to this, not merely in core classes or political science classes, but in narrative theory (often in there), narrative writing and even linguistic classes.

I would be very surprised if the meeting consists of anything more than Obama warning Netanyahu that attacking Iran would net some unspecified but dire sounding "consequences" from the U.S., heaped upon some arrogant crud about the U.S. knowing what's best for Israel.

And they say Bush was an international embarrassment...

US Foes Encouraged by Middle East Turmoil and Sense Opportunity

While many in America romantically laud the Egyptian uprising, American foes have been encouraging such uprisings for many years. Israel is being squeezed into a more and more precarious position as radical Islamic groups successfully jockey for political control and Western legitimacy amidst the chaos.

From The Wall Street Journal article by Jay Soloman:

"The so-called resistance bloc of nations and Islamist movements, led by Iran and Syria, believes it is increasingly on the ascent as unrest seethes in the Middle East.

"United in its opposition to the U.S. and Israel, this coalition is seeing many of its chief regional adversaries weakened—particularly Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah II.

"Tehran and Damascus have also been buoyed by last month's toppling of Beirut's pro-Western government at the hands of Hezbollah, the Lebanese political party and militia the two countries fund and arm.

"'[The unrest] proved that the global arrogance's era of domination and control of the region has come to an end,' Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said on Tehran's state television this week, using Iran's catch-phrase for the U.S."

But what about the contention that this unrest is part of a popular revolt against oppressive regimes? Well, few Middle Eastern regimes are more repressive than Syria and Iran. Personally I'll buy the hype when Syria begins to feel the heat. Iran won't since it weathered the Green Revolution following the sham elections.

The article continues:

"Syria is emerging as a bellwether to gauge the shifting power balance in the region.

"Damascus technically remains at war with Israel and, along with Tehran, is the principal financier and arms supplier for Hezbollah and the Palestinian organization Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip in the Palestinian territories. Hamas's leadership, headed by political director Khaled Meshaal, is headquartered in Syria.

"Organizations opposing the rule of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have pledged to launch their own protest movement this week and have cited Saturday as a 'day of rage.' Any sustainable movement against the Syrian leadership would buttress the argument that the protest wave is a broad-based effort driven by economics and concerns about lack of political freedoms, Western diplomats said.

"Mr. Assad on Sunday told The Wall Street Journal that his regime remains stable and that the true targets of the unrest are Washington's allies who have supported the war in Iraq and the Arab-Israeli peace process. He said Iran, Turkey and Syria will likely emerge with greater influence as the political transformation of the region continues.

"'As long as the people have a major say in the future [of the Middle East], then you are going to have the minor say in the United States,' Mr. Assad said.

[...]

"Iran has been particularly vocal in calling for Mr. Mubarak's overthrow in Egypt. Iranian leaders have drawn similarities between the events in Cairo and the 1979 Islamic revolution that deposed the U.S.-backed shah in Tehran. Iran has also voiced support for the Muslim Brotherhood, a Cairo-based group banned in Egypt that hopes to meld the Islamic religion with Egypt's legal system. The movement is expected to gain significant influence in any post-Mubarak government in Cairo.

"'With [the region] assuming a new shape and the developments under way, [we hope] we would be able to see a Middle East that is Islamic and powerful,' Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters in Tehran on Monday.

"Mr. Meshaal, the Hamas chief, has kept his silence in Damascus since the uprising against Arab governments broke out. Mr. Mubarak has closely cooperated with Israel in imposing an economic siege on the Gaza strip since Hamas took power in the Palestinian territory in 2007.
However, Hamas officials said in interviews this week that what's happening could be to the Islamist movement's advantage. They expect the changes in Egypt and Jordan, in particular, to give them more room to operate.

"'We like what's happening,' a senior Hamas official said.

"Two other countries that could emerge more powerful are Qatar and Turkey.

"The tiny emirate of Qatar is home to the Pentagon's Central Command in Doha and provided logistical support to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it also funds the Arab television channel, al-Jazeera, which has been a major voice calling for political changes in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. Qatar has also increasingly provided financial and diplomatic support for Hamas and Hezbollah."

When the American media and Hamas are both pleased with what they see in the Middle East, it's time to worry a little.

Jordan Warming Relationship with Iran, After Warning of Iran's Growing Influence Ignored by US

I missed this story from December 12...

From the Associated Press:

"Jordan's King Abdullah II on Sunday said he is seeking 'practical steps' for improving his country's frosty relations with Iran.

"The monarch's appeal contrasted with his regime's frequent criticism of Iran's policies.

"Abdullah made the appeal for better ties during a meeting with Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, the director of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's office, according to an official Jordanian statement. It said Abdullah was invited to visit Teheran.

"As early as 2004, Abdullah warned of Iran's growing influence in Iraq and the rest of the region.

"In US cables released by WikiLeaks, US diplomats were quoted as saying Jordan warned that Iranian influence could undermine American interests and moderate nations like Jordan, an ally of the US."

That last paragraph is the especially annoying part for me. The US has been repeatedly warned of the growing threat of Iran and Islamic extremism. The response has been to either ignore the problem, or to bleat out that all Muslims are extremist. These absolutely ineffective responses have made the world in general, and the Middle East in particular, a far more unstable and dangerous place in the past six years or so.

Caroline Glick has an excellent analysis, and I highly recommend you read it in its entirety.

From Glick's op-ed "Slouching Toward Tehran":

"Abdullah was one of the first world leaders to sound the alarm on Iran. In 2004 Abdullah warned of a 'Shiite crescent' extending from Iran to Iraq, through Syria to Lebanon. His words were well reported at the time. But his warning went unheeded.

"In the intervening six years, reality has surpassed Abdullah's worst fears. Not only Lebanon and Syria have fallen under Iranian control. Iraq, Turkey, Qatar, Gaza and increasingly Oman, Yemen and Afghanistan are also either willing or unwilling members of the axis.

"In the face of Iran's expanding web of influence and the mullahs' steady progress towards nuclear capability, Washington behaves as though there is no cause for concern. And the likes of Jordan are beside themselves.

"In a WikiLeaks leaked cable from April 2009 written by US Ambassador to Jordan R. Stephen Beecroft, Jordan's frustration and concern over the Obama administration's incompetence in handling the Iranian threat was clear.

"Beecroft wrote, 'Jordan's leaders are careful not to be seen as dictating toward the US, but their comments betray a powerful undercurrent of doubt that the United States knows how to deal effectively with Iran.'

"On the one hand, Jordanian Senator Zaid Rifai beseeched US to bomb Iran's nuclear installations. Rifai said, 'Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb. Sanctions, carrots, incentives won't matter.'

"But on the other hand, the Jordanians recognized that the Obama administration was committed to appeasing Iran and so tried to convince the Americans to ensure that their appeasement drive didn't come at the Arabs' expense.

"Beecroft reported a clear warning from Abdullah. Abdullah cautioned that if the Arabs believe that the US was appeasing Iran at their expense, 'that engagement will set off a stampede of Arab states looking to get ahead of the curve and reach their own separate peace with Teheran.'

[...]

"And since then, the Obama administration did nothing after Ahmadinejad and his henchmen stole the presidential election. It did nothing as they repressed the tens of millions of Iranians who demonstrated against the election fraud. The Obama administration did nothing as Iran conducted repeated war games along the Straits of Hormuz, progressed in its nuclear program, deepened its military alliances with Turkey and Venezuela and escalated its proxy war against the US and its allies in Afghanistan.

"The Americans said nothing as Iran prevented the pro-US faction that won the Iraqi election from forming a government. They did nothing as Iran forced the reinstallation of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki despite his electoral defeat.

"As Washington stood idly by in the face of Iran's aggression, Jordan and the other US-allied Arab states watched as Obama harassed Israel, announced his plan to withdraw all US forces from Iraq next year, appointed a new ambassador to Syria and approved more military aid to the Iranian-controlled Lebanese army. And Abdullah and the other Arabs watch now as the US is poised to begin yet a new round of appeasement talks with Iran next month.

"Unlike the previous failed rounds of talks, the next failed round of talks will take place in Turkey. Iranian officials are already exulting that Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan will act as Iran's protector in those talks, and so officially end any semblance of Iranian diplomatic isolation on the nuclear issue.

"And so, just as Abdullah warned would happen, today he is leading Jordan into the ranks of 'countries without a backbone,' and making a separate peace with Ahmadinejad.

"Jordan is a weak country. Its minority Hashemite regime has failed to dominate its Palestinian majority. And since its inception by the British in 1946, Jordan has depended on Western powers and Israel for its survival.

"In acting as he is, Abdullah is following in his father's footsteps. The late King Hussein survived by watching the prevailing winds closely and always siding with the side he believed was strongest at any given time."

So many Americans simply do not understand the intricacies of Middle East politics, writing off Muslims as a single monolithic group (often intent on the destruction of the Western world), and write off the Israelis as a single monolithic group from whom all American troubles in the Mid-East extend.

The world is filled of political pragmatists. That's one of the first bits of knowledge that needs to be understood in international relations. It's not a universal rule, but it should be the default until proven otherwise.

It was ridiculous to believe that Obama's incessant and inauthentic apologies, fawning bows, and promises that the US will not act unilaterally would result into anything but significant (and needless) pressure on American allies, or countries sympathetic to the West. It fixed nothing except for the American Left's fragile egos.

All this so Obama and the Left can feel better about themselves... American narcissism like that is expensive, and comes at far too high a price for the rest of the world.

German Daily Claims Iran Plans to Place Medium Range Missiles in Venezuela; Can Reach U.S.

According to Hudson New York (via Drudge) the German daily Die Welt (site is in German) Venezuela and Iran have cut a deal in which Iranian medium range, ground-to-ground missiles would be placed in Venezuela. The military base would be manned jointly by Iranian officers, members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and Venezuelan officers.

From the Hudson New York piece by Anna Mahjar-Barducci:

"Iran is planning to place medium-range missiles on Venezuelan soil, based on western information sources, according to an article in the German daily, Die Welt, of November 25, 2010. According to the article, an agreement between the two countries was signed during the last visit o Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Tehran on October19, 2010. The previously undisclosed contract provides for the establishment of a jointly operated military base in Venezuela, and the joint development of ground-to-ground missiles.

"At a moment when NATO members found an agreement, in the recent Lisbon summit (19-20 November 2010), to develop a Missile Defence capability to protect NATO's populations and territories in Europe against ballistic missile attacks from the East (namely, Iran), Iran's counter-move consists in establishing a strategic base in the South American continent - in the United States's soft underbelly.

"According to Die Welt, Venezuela has agreed to allow Iran to establish a military base manned by Iranian missile officers, soldiers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Venezuelan missile officers. In addition, Iran has given permission for the missiles to be used in case of an 'emergency'. In return, the agreement states that Venezuela can use these facilities for 'national needs' – radically increasing the threat to neighbors like Colombia. The German daily claims that according to the agreement, Iranian Shahab 3 (range 1300-1500 km), Scud-B (285-330 km) and Scud-C (300, 500 and 700 km) will be deployed in the proposed base. It says that Iran also pledged to help Venezuela in rocket technology expertise, including intensive training of officers

"Venezuela has also become the country through which Iran intends to bypass UN sanctions. Following a new round of UN sanctions against the Islamic Republic, for example, Russia decided not to sell five battalions of S-300PMU-1 air defence systems to Iran. These weapons, along with a number of other weapons, were part of a deal, signed in 2007, worth $800 million. Now that these weapons cannot be delivered to Iran, Russia is looking for new customers; according to the Russian press agency Novosti, it found one: Venezuela.

[...]

"If Iran, therefore, cannot get the S-300 missiles directly from Russia, it can still have them through its proxy, Venezuela, and deploy them against its staunchest enemy, the U.S..

"But that is not all. According to Reuters, Iran has developed a version of the Russian S-300 missile and will test-fire it soon, as declared by the official news agency IRNA, two months after Moscow cancelled the delivery to comply with United Nations sanctions. Iran, in fact, has its own capabilities for constructing missiles that could carry atomic warheads. According to a study recently released by the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, Iran is presently aiming to perfect the already existing solid-fuel, medium-range missile that can carry a nuke to hit regional targets, such as Israel. If a missile base can be opened in Venezuela, many US cities will be able to be reached from there even with short-medium range missiles."

Hey, but don't worry... Remember Obama declared (right here in Oregon) that Iran and Venezuela are tiny countries that could never harm us? (video here)

After all, Obama said "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. [...] "Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Well, I know I feel better knowing of Obama's assessment of the situation back in 2008. So hey, this isn't a serious threat to the US, because Obama said it wasn't.

Iranian Govt. Displeased to Find Star of David on Roof of Iran Air HQ

Uh oh.

From The Jerusalem Post article by Ben Hartman (h/t Anne Leary at Backyard Conservative):

"Regardless of whether it was happenstance or an act of architectural subterfuge, government officials in Iran were incensed this week when they discovered the outline of a Star of David atop the roof of the headquarters of Iran Air, Al- Arabiya reported on Monday.

"The six-pointed star was discovered by an eagle-eyed Google Earth user recently, over three decades after the building that houses the national airline of the Islamic Republic was constructed by Israeli engineers.

"Israel and the Shah’s Iran maintained good ties until the Islamic Revolution of 1979 ended the relationship. Before 1979, Israel brokered arms deals with Iran, and there were regular flights between Teheran and Tel Aviv.

"Once the existence of the Star of David was reported in Iranian media, government officials called for the immediate removal of the apparently offensive Jewish symbol.

"The discovery of the symbol came three months after the Iranian public learned of the existence of a Star of David on the roof of a building in Teheran’s Revolution Square."

Looks like they're surrounded by Stars of David in Tehran. Is it time to panic yet?

Is the Mossad or CIA Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientists? Or Someone Else?

From The Telegraph article by Richard Spencer: (also at BigPeace.com)

"Men riding motorcycles stuck magnet-bombs on the two men's car windscreens, police said.

"The interior ministry blamed 'agents of the global arrogance', a regular term for the United States.

"Iran's state media drew a link with a speech by the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, last month in which he said 'intelligence-led operations' had to be used to disrupt Iran's nuclear programme.

"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: 'One can undoubtedly see the hands of Israel and Western governments in the assassination.'

"The scientist who died was named as Majid Shahriyari. The head of Iran's atomic energy organisation, Ali Akbar Salehi, confirmed Dr Shahriyari was involved in a 'major project'.

"The other, scientist who was injured was named as Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani. Both men taught at the school of nuclear engineering at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran but their precise roles in its alleged nuclear weapons programme are not known.

"Dr Abbasi-Davani is a specialist in preparing nuclear isotopes, on which uranium enrichment depends. He was also said to be a member of the elite Revolutionary Guard.

"He was listed as 'involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities' in a 2007 United Nations sanctions resolution.

"In January, another nuclear scientist, Masoud Ali Mohammadi, was killed in a similar attack. Again on that occasion Iran blamed Israel and the West, though it was also revealed Mr Mohammadi had expressed support for the opposition Green Movement.

"The senior regime links of the latest two targets would on the face of it make an opposition allegiance seem unlikely. But Meir Javedanfar, an Israeli-Iranian analyst, said even in their case an internal regime assassination could not be ruled out.

"He said dissatisfaction with the regime among nuclear scientists was a 'major concern' for the leadership."

Well, the CIA is much of the world's bogeyman, but I wouldn't count too much on the CIA (or any American intelligence agency) acting this way under the Obama administration. And I strongly doubt that the Iranians were behind the assassinations-- although Javedanfar is correct and you can't just rule out the possibility. That leaves pretty much the rest of the Western World, Israel and the rest of the Middle East as suspects. If nothing else, Wikileaks has proven that Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East aren't too secure with the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

These scientists were really unpopular and dangerous to many different people throughout the world. In a way, this situation reminds me of Canadian super-gun engineer Gerald Bull (he was the guy building the Project Babylon super-gun for Saddam Hussein in the late 80s). It's no guarantee that the Mossad shot Bull. Lots of people were real unhappy with that particular project.

Iranian Woman Raped and Murdered by Basij Forces in Tabriz

From Persian2English.com ((h/t Anne Leary at Backyard Conservative):

"According to HRANA, Elnaz Babazadeh, a 26 year old woman was raped and murdered by Basij forces in the city of Tabriz (northwestern Iran) last week. According to the reports, Basij forces stopped Babazadeh in her car for not following the Iranian regime’s dress code. Elnaz resisted and ignored orders given by the Basij forces.

"Then the Basij forces who had initially stopped her jumped into her car and threatened her with a gun. Two other Basij members joined in and all together they beat and raped her. They murdered Babazadeh and dumped her body close to Emamiyeh cemetery.

"After local investigation was conducted by HRANA members in Tabriz, it was confirmed at Babazadeh’s funeral that the person who killed her was the son of a high-ranking Revolutionary Guards member.

"The intentions of the savage Basij members was to put a stop to the 'improper' way women in society dressed. Basij members believe this is their duty to God."

And Iran is a member of the UN's Women's Commission...

Background on the Basij can be found here:

"The Pasdaran was given the mandate of organizing a large people's militia, the Basij, in 1980. Islamic Revolution Guards (Vezarat-e Sepah Pasdaran-e Enqelab-e Islamic) is in charge of the paramilitary national Mobilization of the Oppressed (Baseej-e Mostazafan) Organisation. It is from Basij ranks that volunteers were drawn to launch "human wave" attacks against the Iraqis, particularly around Basra.

"The precise size of the Basij is an open question. Basij membership comprises mainly boys, old men, and those who recently finished their military service. Article 151 of the Constitution says the government is obligated to provide military-training facilities for everyone in the country, in accordance with the precepts of Islam under which all individuals should have the ability to take up arms in defense of their country

"Iranian officials frequently cite a figure of 20 million, but this appears to be an exaggeration based on revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's November 1979 decree creating the Basij. Khomeini said at the time that 'a country with 20 million youths must have 20 million riflemen or a military with 20 million soldiers; such a country will never be destroyed.' In a 1985 Iranian News Agency report, Hojjatoleslam Rahmani, head of the Basij forces of the Pasdaran, was quoted as stating that there were close to 3 million volunteers in the paramilitary force receiving training in some 11,000 centers.

[...]

"The Niruyeh Moghavemat Basij - the Mobilisation Resistance Force - was the strong right arm of Ayatollah Khomeini. Its volunteers were martyred in their tens of thousands in the Iran-Iraq war, and were given the role of moral police at home. The supreme leader's equally conservative successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been careful not to let any of Iran's overlapping security forces fall under the control of his elected rival.

"Ashura Brigades were reportedly created in 1993 after anti-government riots erupted in various Iranian cities. In 1998 they consisted of 17,000 Islamic militia men and women, and were composed of elements of the Revolutionary Guards and the Baseej volunteer militia.

"The Basij, or Baseej paramilitary volunteer forces, come under the control of the Revolutionary Guards. They have been active in monitoring the activities of citizens, enforcing the hijab and arresting women for violating the dress code, and seizing 'indecent' material and satellite dish antennae. In May 1999 the Minister of Islamic Culture and Guidance stated in public remarks that the Government might support an easing of the satellite ban. However, Supreme Leader Khamenei, who makes the ultimate determination on issues that involve radio and television broadcasting, quickly criticised any potential change as amounting to 'surrender' to Western culture, effectively ending any further debate of the idea. The 'Special Basijis' are not permitted to participate in political parties or groups, although other members of the Basij can belong to political associations if they are not on a Basij mission and do not use the name or resources of the Basij for the association. Basijis can participate in specialist or trade associations.

"Hezbollahi 'partisans of God' consist of religious zealots who consider themselves as preservers of the Revolution. They have been active in harassing government critics and intellectuals, have firebombed bookstores and disrupted meetings. They are said to gather at the invitation of the state-affiliated media and generally act without meaningful police restraint or fear of persecution."

Iran Announces It is Now a Nuclear Power

According to multiple sources, Iran has marked the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution by announcing Iran is now a "nuclear power."

Reuters has reported it, but oddly that's not even the headline of the story: "Clashes reported as Iran marks Revolution Day."

From Reuters:

"Iranian opposition websites said security forces clashed with protesters and arrested at least 30 as huge crowds flocked to central Tehran on Thursday to mark the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

"Official media made no mention of clashes or arrests and state television said "tens of millions of people" attended rallies in support of the revolution across the country of 70 million.

"The Islamic state is facing its worst domestic crisis in three decades as opposition supporters have rallied round the reformists who lost to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a disputed election last June.

"Ahmadinejad told a vast, flag-waving crowd of government supporters that Iran was now able to enrich uranium to more than 80 percent purity, coming close to levels experts say would be needed for a nuclear bomb, although he again denied it had any such intention.

"'The Iranian nation is brave enough that if one day we wanted to build nuclear bombs we would announce it publicly without being afraid of you,' Ahmadinejad said, addressing Iran's Western enemies.

"But he told the crowd in Azadi (Freedom) Square: 'When we say that we don't build nuclear bombs, it means that we won't do that because we don't believe in having it.'"

The Daily Mail has taken a different approach to the story.

"Iran is now a 'nuclear state', President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced this morning.
He spoke as tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Tehran to mark the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

"There are fears of violence as opposition and pro-government supporters are expected to meet at rallies in a show of popular strength unmatched since the revolution itself.

"Today Ahmadinejad told scores of cheering Iranians that the Islamic Republic is capable of producing weapons-grade uranium.

"'When we say we do not manufacture the bomb, we mean it, and we do not believe in manufacturing a bomb,' he told the crowd. 'If we wanted to manufacture a bomb we would announce it.'

"Thousands of supporters had been brought in on buses to hear Ahmadinejad speak.
Security forces have threatened to crush any opposition protests as Iran marks the anniversary of the revolution today.

"Witnesses say security forces fired paint balls to disperse anti-government protesters in one of the first clashes during today’s ceremonies.

"The unrest began after protesters began to chant opposition slogans in Sadeqieh Square, which is about a half-mile (one kilometer) from a huge pro-government gathering where President Ahmadinejad delivered a speech."

Doesn't Ahmadinejad realize we have bigger fish to fry in the US? I mean Sarah Palin wasn't wearing a black bracelet but the Left blogs thought she was!

Well, I'm sure Obama's "Happy Nowruz" message will bring about a peaceful resolution to all this. I mean just look at that picture from the Iranian protests at the top of this post...

Obviously Iran is running scared, indicated by the way Ahmadinejad issued the message. I mean, he's saying "we could make nuclear weapon-- but we just don't want to." It's like an elementary school yard taunt. However, I'm also pretty sure that this is not an idle boast.

Whether Obama likes it or not, he is going to have to address the Iranian issue soon. This could mean more toothless diplomacy that elicits only meaningless promises from Iranian negotiators. I hope not, but that's my prediction. I wonder how many days Obama will let pass before he condemns the violent crackdown on Iranian protesters...

Sect. of State Clinton Agrees to Delay Sanctions Against Iran: Smart Diplomacy in Action

In news that should surprise no one, Hillary Clinton has agreed that neither Russia nor the US should currently impose sanctions against Iran.

From an article in Ria Novosti; "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said after talks with Russia's foreign minister on Tuesday that neither country is seeking to impose sanctions against Iran under the current circumstances.

"Clinton said sanctions over Iran’s controversial uranium enrichment program would be premature, and that Russia was being 'extremely cooperative in the work we have done together' on the issue.

"Lavrov said Russia is 'in principle very reserved on sanctions, as they rarely produce results.'

"He said sanctions should only be used when all diplomatic means have been exhausted, and that 'in the situation with Iran, this is far from the case.'

"Lavrov also said the U.S. and Russia had identical positions on the issue.

"'We are not asking anything of each other on Iran, because it would be ridiculous to make requests on an issue where our positions coincide,' he said.

"However, Clinton said that sanctions over North Korea's nuclear program would remain in place.

"'We have absolutely no intention of relaxing or offering to relax North Korean sanctions at this point whatsoever,' she said.

"Clinton will later meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Before her arrival in Russia as part of a European tour, Clinton had visited Switzerland, the U.K., and Ireland."

So, one is left to wonder exactly what does warrant ineffective sanctions against Iran? Perhaps a nuclear strike against Tel Aviv, or providing a safe haven for Hamas and Fatah with a nuclear threat?

Smart diplomacy apparently means push government run health care, increase domestic spending, and save those ineffective sanctions for when we really need them.

I wonder if the US media will pick this story up... Any bets?

Iranian Police Beats Mourners at Neda's Memorial

While the US has been focused on Gates-gate and Obamacare, Iran has been experiencing severe political unrest since the election June 12th. Whether it was the reformers flooding the streets claiming rigged elections, the subsequent violent crackdown by riot police, the killing of Neda, "elected" president Ahmadinejad's choice of softer Esfandiar Rahim Mashai (who had the audacity to have made friendly comments toward Israel) for vice-president and Ahmadinejad's subsequent cave-in to hardliners' demand that Mashai be sacked, Iran is in turmoil.

Today police beat mourners at the memorial of Neda Agha-Soltan. According to the Telegraph "Witnesses said police used batons and sticks to beat mourners at Behesht-e Zahra cemetery where opposition leaders are planning a memorial visit to the cemetery south of Tehran to mark the 40th day since the death of Neda Agha-Soltan."

This in spite of attempts by the government to appease Iranian protesters with the appointment (and subsequent rejection) of Mashai as vice-president and the closure of a notorious detention center.

Again according to the Telegraph: "The Iranian authorities freed 140 protesters this week and announced the closure of a detention centre amid opposition allegations of prisoner abuse. The reformist Khatami, who was succeeded by Ahmadinejad in 2005, said a declaration that illegal holding centres must be closed was inadequate. 'It is not enough to say that a detention centre was not up to the required standards and so closed. Does it mean the ventilation system was malfunctioning or the toilets were unclean?' he said on his Baran foundation website. 'No. Crimes have been committed. Lives have been lost.'"

All of this raises the question of just how powerful the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei truly is and how much authority President Ahmadinejad will actually wield. Breaks in the hardliners' ranks are evident, as is a growing popular dissatisfaction with the Ayatollah and other hardline clerics.

This all seems to be of little interest to Obama however as he engages in a beer drinking "can't-we-all-just-get-drunk-and-get-along" photo-op with Gates and Sgt. Crowley in an attempt to get his ill-fated Obamacare back on the front pages. Maybe it's unfair of me to bring this up now, but seriously when was the last time Obama even mentioned Iran? The giant gulf between what's needed right now and what Obama is pushing (Obamacare, Cap & Trade, his racial authenticity) is astonishing to me. I guess astonishment is all I'm going to get with Obama's foreign policy.

The Reduction of Roxana Saberi to a Symbol of a Moderate Iran

Roxana Saberi: a human being

Anxious to prove Obama's diplomatic naivety is more effective than statecraft, the media is now portraying the freeing of reporter Roxana Saberi, convicted in a one hour trial, as an opening for the opportunity (tenuous sounding, isn't it?) to improve US relations with Iran. The LA Times is following the predicted line admirably. Article here by way of freeroxana.net.

From the article:

"[A] letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for a careful review of the case helped secure her swift release Monday, another of her lawyers said, in an appellate court ruling that surprised Iran watchers and removed a stumbling block in the effort to improve U.S.-Iranian relations."

And later:

"Analysts say Saberi's case carries implications for the Obama administration as it seeks to improve relations with Tehran and resolve long-standing grievances over Iran's nuclear program and support for militant anti-Israeli organizations.

"Saberi's arrest demonstrated the unpredictability of Iran's fragmented, multilayered political and security system, where dissidents, politicians and journalists are sometimes arrested for transgressing undefined ideological and national security rules, such as by having contact with the West.

"But Saberi's release also showed a system capable of flexibility, pragmatism and even damage control. Calls by some senior Iranian officials to review the case suggest that at least some of them were well aware of the harm Saberi's continued imprisonment was doing to the country's image and opted to do away with the distraction rather than satisfy hard-liners.

"'If we assume that this was due to infighting in the government between those who wanted to undermine diplomacy and those who want to give it a chance, I would conclude that the latter group has been able to succeed in a rather swift and impressive way,' said Trita Parsi, president of the Washington-based National Iranian American Council and author of 'Treacherous Alliances,' about relations between Iran, the United States and Israel.

"'The amount of political will and maneuvering it takes to reduce an eight-year sentence to two years and then commute the last two years and release her on the spot is far greater than having a one-day kangaroo court and sentencing her in the first place,' he said."

I love the language employed in this article. "militant anti-Israel organizations." Cute. You may know these "militant anti-Israel organizations" as Hamas and Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations.

The word militant is defined in my Oxford American Dictionary as "1. prepared to take aggressive action in support of a cause." I'm sorry but I think that organizations that target civilian populations for the purpose of causing panic, who use suicide bombers that target crowded areas such as public buses and restaurants, exceed the term militant. You know you're dealing with quite a group when the term "militant" is a euphemism.

Nowhere in the article is there any reference to the upcoming Iranian elections (less than one month away now on June 12), nor any mention of hardliner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's desire to appeal to more moderate voting elements in Iran. There is however repeated credit heaped upon Ahmadinejad: "But a letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for a careful review of the case helped secure her swift release Monday, another of her lawyers said, in an appellate court ruling that surprised Iran watchers and removed a stumbling block in the effort to improve U.S.-Iranian relations." And later restated: "Khorramshahi told the Islamic Republic News Agency that Ahmadinejad's letter helped secure Saberi's release. " I hope the LA Times understands their backing of Ahmadinejad's reelection campaign.

Good job LA Times! Oh, how their crackerjack reporting makes me pine for my earlier days in Southern California...

The NY Times has a string of opinions that can be found here in the aptly titled piece "Why Iran Freed Roxana Saberi." (these op-eds also through freeroxana.net)

Robin Wright, a policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars writes, "Roxana Saberi’s release may remove a major obstacle to U.S. efforts at rapprochement with Iran after 30 years of diplomatic tensions. If her eight-year sentence had been upheld by the appeals court, President Obama would surely have faced serious questions about whether Washington can really deal with Tehran."

Hmm. Saberi's imprisonment was a major obstacle? Yes, the imprisonment of Saberi was wrong and given, at best, cool Western media attention (that was until she was released-- now the media is breaking their arms patting themselves on the back as these op-eds amply demonstrate), but there are plenty more political prisoners languishing in Evin prison. Perhaps there could be even more obstacles that Wright doesn't bother to bring up.

Once again, I must restate that the government of Iran regularly hangs men for the crime of homosexuality, regularly stones men and women to death for the crime of adultery, regularly beats hundreds of government protesters, regularly arrests and beats members of the press and bloggers. Recently Iranian aircraft attacked Iraqi villages. Iran is blatantly anti-Semitic and president Ahmadinejad has famously and publicly denied the Nazi holocaust (this same article mentions the often stated official Iranian conviction that "Israel should be 'wiped off the map'"). Or are these no longer obstacles to the US normalizing relations with Iran? How deep are willing to sink the term moderate?

To be fair, Wright, after making this nonsensical removing major obstacle statement, goes on to say that the chances for changing foreign relations with Iran are dim. Amazingly (for the NYT, not for her), the blame is not levelled exclusively against the US and actually touches upon the complexity of the factors involved in the Iran/US relationship.

She writes, "But Ms. Saberi’s arrest on 'espionage' charges and her one-day trial [one hour actually] –- without legal defense — also underscore Iran’s ongoing suspicions about U.S. policy and the intense internal differences concerning the new U.S. administration. The election of Barack Hussein Obama –- Hussein is one of two central figures in Shiite Islam –- has not eased the fears of many hard-line theocrats in predominantly Shiite Iran.

"For the past two years, Iran has detained several Iranian-American dual nationals because of suspected links to a U.S.-orchestrated velvet revolution' to undermine theocratic rule. The detentions signaled anger about American policy. None of the detainees is believed to have acted against the regime. One scholar advised a government ministry; others were visiting family.

"But Ms. Saberi’s arrest went further than any previous case. And the espionage charges and trial happened after President Obama’s overture to Iran on its new year, March 21.

"In the end, the Iranian-Americans were released after apparent intervention from higher up, in some cases including the office of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The regime, in the end, understands the broader stakes.

"Yet neither side appears ready to take the big steps -– in tangible ways, beyond words –- to forge a different relationship. Washington’s Iran policy is based on carrots-and-sticks, an approach Iranians disdain as a way to treat donkeys. And Iran’s stick-and-carrot approach in turn alienates Americans who see it as an unacceptable way to treat humans."

I understand that Wright is trying to be neutral in her language but characterizing the stoning and and beating, and the levelling of death contracts on authors (Salman Rushdie author of The Satanic Verses), and the hanging homosexuals as an Iranian "stick and carrot" approach is a little much. Is open support for Hezbollah terrorists and the conviction that Israel should be "wiped off the map" part of the stick?

Parnaz Azima, a reporter for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, writes, "Roxanna Saberi’s release from prison comes as a relief to those of us who have been following her case and hoping for a thaw in relations between Iran and the United States. The fact that her appeal and release happened so quickly reinforces my belief that this was a political case and not a legal one.

"I credit the pressure the international community brought on Iran for the decision to reduce her eight-year prison sentence to a two-year suspended sentence. Iran’s leaders realized that the case was escalating tensions with the U.S. at the very moment that President Obama was showing a willingness to engage with Tehran and begin a process of rapprochement. Radio Farda listeners in Iran are echoing this, saying that Ms. Saberi’s release is an attempt to reduce strain with Washington.

"Iran has a history of trying to use Iranian-Americans like me and Ms. Saberi to put pressure on the United States. In almost every case, however, the strategy backfires. It’s a wonder they keep trying it."

I'm rather interested in the last paragraph of Azima's opinion. She presupposes that the purpose of "trying to use" Iranian-Americans is to "put pressure on the United States." Is that really true? Could there not be a domestic purpose for such uses? The government of Iran has consistently asserted its official position that the US is the devil (or its agent). By harassing, arresting, and placing a sampling of people remotely affiliated with their enemy in either public display showcases or private kangaroo trials, Iran's government is sending a very loud and clear warning to those considering any association with their enemies in the West. Harassing Iranian-Americans may be an attempt to put pressure on the US, but it also serves as a tool for domestic control-- and it is effective. I don't wonder why they keep doing it.

Pretty much every time I wrote a sizable post about Roxana Saberi, I tried to mention the fact that Saberi's case was not an isolated one. I did this for two reasons. First, while Roxana Saberi's case was unjust and wrong, I did not want to suggest that a person who is an American, a woman, a beauty queen, and a reporter was somehow deserving of greater attention than other nameless political prisoners (almost all of whom are completely Iranian) incarcerated by the government of Iran. While I am personally happy (and a bit surprised) that Saberi is free, I do not believe that the rest of these prisoners should now be written off and forgotten by everyone except Amnesty International.

Secondly, I did not want to reduce the woman that is Roxana Saberi into being merely a symbol. She is a living person who was unjustly jailed by the Iranian government. We should not allow her to become an emblem, a face of the victims of Iran's tyranny. It is unfair and dehumanizing to her. It is likewise unfair to those who suffered even greater loss of life, property, and freedom under the Iranian government's yoke. Saberi's release, though a cause for joyful celebration to her family and friends, is meaningless to them. Her release is not symbolic of a major change in Iranian policy. A change in Iranian policy must be demonstrated, not merely symbolized by token actions of political expediency.

Given the notoriety the Saberi case generated (especially her release), I realize that it is impossible for her case to not take on undue meaning. Appeals to stop this symbolizing are largely pointless. The media, grasping desperately at the hope to normalize relations with a racist, sexist, aggressively expansionist, terrorist sponsoring, tyrannical theocracy, have cut out pictures of Roxana Saberi's attractive face and then pasted it onto that hope. Arguing against this practice would be as futile as arguing against an earthquake.

So the loud speculations begin. The hopes that a moderate Iran will magically emerge from beneath the current oppressive theocracy start. America will be both blamed and credited. Obama supporters will lavish praise upon him and his happy nowruz speech. Ahmadinejad will present himself as a moderate for a short time, while the government he presides over sends money and arms to Hamas, Hezbollah, Somali pirates and warlords, and terrorist organizations in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and others Middle Eastern countries Iran wishes to destabilize.

But in a few weeks from now, when the speculations will have died down, the media will have hooked onto another story, the bloggers will have moved onto the next fad, Roxana Saberi will be largely forgotten-- but home safe with her family and her loved ones. Scores more of Iran's political prisoners will not be enjoying these simple comforts.

Iran's Government is not Moderate

And so it begins...

Check out this article from the AP: "Analysis: Hint of moderation in American's release."

From the article:

"The judicial reversal that led to the release of an Iranian-American from prison in Tehran on Monday could now offer hints of moderation by Iran's ruling Islamic clerics — making room for possible overtures by the Obama administration."

And later:

"It [Roxana Saberi's release] appears to signal to Washington a sense of stability and willingness to move forward on possible exchanges after the elections — and perhaps seek ways to ease Iran's standoff with the West over its nuclear program.

"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the Obama administration insists that Saberi was wrongly accused, 'but we welcome this humanitarian gesture.'

"The decision also gives Ahmadinejad a chance to soften his image before facing reformist challengers at the polls."

Fortunately the article does mention some of Ahmadinejad's pragmatic reasons for releasing Saberi. "The release of Roxana Saberi may also seek to boost hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's goodwill credentials before next month's re-election challenge from reformers." But that's not what the headline says, nor is it what the Obama Administration wants to hear. So we're going to hear a lot about the beginnings of openness and trust with Iran, while of course giving all the credit possible to Obama.

As I've said previously, before we start talking about our newest and bestest friends in the government of Iran, let's not forget a few facts. The government of Iran regularly hangs men for the crime of homosexuality, regularly stones men and women to death for the crime of adultery, regularly beats hundreds of government protesters, regularly arrests and beats members of the press and bloggers. Recently Iranian aircraft attacked Iraqi villages. The government of Iran has vowed to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, actively supports terrorist organizations (including, but not limited to, Hizbullah and the pirates of Somalia) and is currently developing nuclear weapons.

The pressures brought to bear (with little mainstream enthusiasm by the Western media) to release Saberi coincided with Iranian government's desire to seek concessions from the West. Want to lay odds on if that was coincidence or opportunism?

While we are relieved at the release of Roxana Saberi, but the fact remains that she was unjustly arrested, accused, and convicted in a kangaroo court to begin all this. And the fact remains that Evin prison continues to be populated by political prisoners, almost all of whom are not fortunate enough to be recognized by the international press.

The release of Roxana Saberi should garner the Iranian government nothing. The release of Saberi is nothing more than the hollow atonement of one, solitary trespass-- a drop in the literal ocean of misdeeds the government of Iran has committed in the past and continues to perpetrate now. It should gain them no concessions, and should earn them no credibility. Only when the Iranian government ceases to bully and undermine both its Islamic neighbors and the country of Israel, only when the government of Iran stops the repression of its own people, will it deserve cooperation and recognition.

Yes, every journey begins with one step, but the release of Roxana Saberi is not the first step of Iran's reformation.

Roxana Saberi Free

BBC News is reporting that Roxana Saberi has been released from prison. Story here.

From the article:

"The US-Iranian journalist jailed in Iran, Roxana Saberi, has been freed from prison after having her sentence for spying reduced.

"Lawyers for the 31-year-old, whose imprisoning sparked a global outcry, said she left Tehran's Evin jail hours after her eight-year term was cut.

"She will be able to leave the country but has been banned from working as a journalist in Iran for five years."

And later:

"The BBC's Jon Leyne, outside Evin prison, says no-one has seen Ms Saberi leave the jail. However, she is thought to be heading with her father to an undisclosed location in Tehran.

"The AFP news agency quoted Ms Saberi as saying: 'I'm OK. I don't want to make any comments but I am OK.'"

This is great news, but before we begin to swoon about how "fair and open" Iran is, let's not forget that Saberi was convicted in a one hour, closed-door trial and that the appeals court's ruling has only reduced her sentence and, perhaps, changed the charge that she was unjustly convicted of. Most importantly let us not forget those others who still languish in Evin prison, convicted of standing against Iran's oppressive and violent government.

UPDATE: CNN article here.