Iran Affairs

What the unrest in Iran is really all about

Alaister Crooke pretty much sums up my views of how the recent events in Iran were misread (deliberately in many cases) abroad:

What we are witnessing is not a frustrated East European-style "color revolution"; nor is presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi's movement an uprising of liberal, Westernized sympathizers against the principles of the Iranian Revolution

It was Ahmadinejad who campaigned against the wealth and self-interest of some of the clerical elite. Mousavi was more closely allied to those interests.

Between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, I have to wonder who is really the "reformer".

Some exile groups saw an opportunity here to try to ride Mousavi's back, since they lack much popularity or legitimacy of their own. These were quick to say that the matter really isn't about Mousavi anymore, and tried to turn events into an attack on the regime itself (which fizzled out because of lack of popular support.) Also, some groups opposed to an improvement in US-Iran relations also saw an opportunity to try to undermine Obama's opening to Iran (such as it was) claiming that the regime in Iran now lacks sufficient credibility and legitimacy to be negotiated with.

Israel Project Propaganda Handbook exposed

Newsweek has published The Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary which makes for very fun reading because it purports to be a manual on how to "communicate effectively in support of Israel." (In case you're curious what The Israel Project is, remember this.)

Chapter 5 (starting on p. 38) on Iran's nuclear program is particularly entertaining, especially the part about how pro-Israeli advocates should try to portray Iran's nuclear program as a "global threat" and especially to Arab countries, rather than just an Israeli concern, and how you should advocate for sanctions "economic diplomacy" -- but only as part of a "step-by-step" approach to military confrontation.

The manual warns in several places about using excessive hype that makes the pro-Israeli claims unbelievable. I guess the Israel Project has learned from its past mistakes in making over-the-top claims (like about how Iran wants to nuke Denver) and is now instead toning down the hype so as to sound more believable.

Clock ticking on Iranian nukes... Or is it?

So one day Yukiya Amano, the new head of the International Atomic Energy Organization, states plainly that he has not seen any evidence that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and the very next day Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the US Chief of Staff declares that time is running out on trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes and Biden gives Israel the green light to bomb Iran (yes I know Obama later denied giving Israel a green light -- but that's  just CYA and "plausible deniability" at work.)

Amano:

The incoming head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms.

"I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this," Yukiya Amano told Reuters in his first direct comment on Iran's atomic program since his election, when asked whether he believed Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability."

Mullen:

The top U.S. military officer warned on Tuesday that time is running out for dialogue with Tehran to avoid either a nuclear-armed Iran or a possible military strike against the Islamic Republic.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it is critical for diplomatic efforts to reach a solution before Iran develops a nuclear weapon or faces an Israeli or U.S. strike to turn back its nuclear program.

Incidentally, note how Mullen frames this as a false choice: the only choices are to prevent Iran's nuclear program from progressing (whether by sanctions, "dialogue" or Israeli attack) or else Iran will obtain nuclear weapons. I have written about this way misframing the issue previously:

Basically, in presenting the matter as "either prevent Iran's enrichment or else Iran will obtain nuclear weapons", they're  conveniently limiting the range of choices and leaving out a significant option: accepting Iran's compromise proposals that would address any real concern that Iran's nuclear program could be used to make bombs.

But I suppose the real irony is how Biden claims that Israel has a "sovereign right" to attack Iran, whereas Iran supposedly doesn't have a sovereign right to have its own civilian, IAEA-monitored nuclear program. Since when? In fact, using force to resolve disputes is contrary to the UN Charter and constitutes a crime under international law. Israel has no such "sovereign right" and automatically labelling Israeli aggression as "pre-emptive" doesn't give it such a right either. In fact, such an attack would not meet the definition of "pre-emptive" since Israel faces no threat of attack from Iran which is instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. Rather, at best such an attack could be described as preventive -- and therefore illegal.

Addendum: Meanwhile, pro-Israeli lobbyists are pressing for a US-Iran confrontation.

Iran elections: fraud claims and counter-claims analyzed

Out of boredom, I thought it would be fun to keep track of the various claims about how the elections in Iran were supposedly stolen or fraudulent, versus their counter-arguments - please add to the list if you can, since I haven't been keeping track of all the claims and counter-claims.

[As a side note: Before you automatically and unthinkingly assume that there was election fraud in Iran, ask yourself: WHY? was Mousavi, the opposition leader -- and a former Prime Minister and very much a supporter of the revolution -- such a threat to the system that they had to resort to election fraud? No, sorry, he isn't.]

CLAIM 1: MOUSAVI LOST IN HIS HOME DISTRICT - SUSPICIOUSLY.

"It is claimed that Ahmadinejad won the city of Tabriz with 57%. His main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is an Azeri from Azerbaijan province, of which Tabriz is the capital. Mousavi, according to such polls as exist in Iran and widespread anecdotal evidence, did better in cities and is popular in Azerbaijan. Certainly, his rallies there were very well attended. So for an Azeri urban center to go so heavily for Ahmadinejad just makes no sense." (Juan Cole)

COUNTER-CLAIM:

"But Ahmadinejad himself speaks Azeri quite fluently as a consequence of his eight years serving as a popular and successful official in two Azeri-majority provinces; during the campaign, he artfully quoted Azeri and Turkish poetry — in the original — in messages designed to appeal to Iran’s Azeri community. (And we should not forget that the supreme leader is Azeri.) The notion that Mousavi was somehow assured of victory in Azeri-majority provinces is simply not grounded in reality." (Leveretts)

CLAIM 2: AHMADINEJAD WON IN TEHRAN - SUSPICIOUSLY. 

"Ahmadinejad is claimed to have taken Tehran by over 50%. Again, he is not popular in the cities, even, as he claims, in the poor neighborhoods, in part because his policies have produced high inflation and high unemployment." (Juan Cole)

COUNTER-CLAIM:

Ahmadinejad won the province of Tehran, not the city of Tehran. Anyway, he was the mayor of Tehran and won there in 2005 too.

CLAIM 3: THE STRAIGHT-LINE GRAPH

"Ahmadinejad's numbers were fairly standard across Iran's provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations." (Juan Cole)

"Statistically and mathematically, it is impossible to maintain such perfect linear relations between the votes of any two candidates in any election — and at all stages of vote counting. This is particularly true about Iran, a large country with a variety of ethnic groups who usually vote for a candidate who is ethnically one of their own." (Tehran Bureau)

"They didn't even attempt to disguise the fraud. Which, to me, tells me they panicked. This graph is a red flag to Iran and the world." (Andrew SUllivan)

COUNTER-CLAIM

The apparently extremely strong relationship is mostly an artifact of the exceptionally simple fact that as you count more votes, both candidates' totals will tend to increase. (Fivethirtyeight.com)

 [T]hese figures, though they may seem eerily consistent at first glance, are actually just what we would expect. That's the nature of large batches of data, governed by what's called the Law of Large Numbers: Averages of widely varying quantities can, and usually do, yield results that look almost perfectly uniform. Given enough data, the outliers tend to cancel one another out. (Jordan Ellenberg)
 

CLAIM 4: SECURITY CRACK-DOWN

"If Ahmadinejad had really won, then why the crack down on dissidents, cutting off international communications and filtering Facebook? "

COUNTER-CLAIM:

This is more of a rhetorical question than an argument. Perfectly valid reasons exist for security measures following a hotly-disputed election especially when you add in the tense international situation, what with talk of "regime change" and all. Add rioting to the mix too.

CLAIM 5: AHMADINEJAD's BAD ECONOMIC POLICIES

Ahmadinejad is responsible for bad economic policies that have driven up inflation, increased unemployment, increased poverty, and so people could not have possibly voted for him.

COUNTER-CLAIM:

"The belief that Iran suffers from dire economic conditions is one of four myths circulating about Iran's macroeconomic performance. Iran's economy has actually performed well in aggregate terms, with a moderate rate of growth in the last ten to fifteen years, including healthy GDP and per capita growth in investment. In the last three years, Iran's actual growth rate has averaged 5.8 percent." (Kelly Campbell, U.S. Institute of Peace)

"Lucky for Mr. Ahmadinejad, there are good reasons to doubt that poverty has been on the rise...Another comparison, based on the absolute poverty lines defined on the basis of the $2 per day standard, shows the opposite: that poverty rates have declined slightly during 2005-06." (Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, Brookings Institute)

"There is no shortages of complaints one can have about Iran’s economy (high youth unemployment, high inflation, and stagnant productivity, to name a few) , but a low standard of living is not one of them. "(Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, Brookings Institute)

"The International Monetary Fund projects that Iran’s economy will actually grow modestly this year (when the economies of most Gulf Arab states are in recession). A significant number of Iranians — including the religiously pious, lower-income groups, civil servants and pensioners — appear to believe that Ahmadinejad’s policies have benefited them. And, while many Iranians complain about inflation, the TFT poll found that most Iranian voters do not hold Ahmadinejad responsible." (Leveretts)

(I would add to this: I'm no economist but I think inflation rates go up because of increased government spending under Ahmadinejad in part as a result of benefits and subsidies that went mostly to the poor -- something for which he was widely criticized by economists in Iran.)

CLAIM 6: COUNTING VOTES IMPOSSIBLE IN SHORT TIME

It is impossible to have counted all the votes in the short time between the closing of the polls and the announcement of Ahmadinejad's victory.

COUNTER-CLAIM:

"During the election, there were about 47,000 polling stations for voting. For each station, every candidate was allowed to have a representative present to oversee the process... When the voting ended at 11 pm, they immediately started counting. Once they had the final tallies at each station, the representatives were made to sign off on them, and the numbers were fed into a centrally computerized system where the tallies were collected.

Now, if you divide 39 million votes by 47,000 stations, it comes to 893 votes per station on average. This is a very small number of ballots that can easily be counted in a short period of time." (Huffington Post interview with Iranian cleric) 

"The counting mechanism is simple: Iran has 47,000 voting stations, plus 14,000 roaming stations that travel from tiny village to tiny village, staying there for a short time before moving on. That creates 61,000 ballot boxes designed to receive roughly the same number of votes. That would mean that each station would have been counting about 500 ballots, or about 70 votes per hour. With counting beginning at 10 p.m., concluding seven hours later does not necessarily indicate fraud or anything else." (Stratfor)

CLAIM 7: EXCESS VOTERS

A spokesman for Iran's authoritative Guardian Council has admitted that voter turnout in the country's July 12 presidential election exceed 100 percent in as many as 50 cities

COUNTER-CLAIM:

"Voter turnout of above 100% in some cities is a normal phenomenon because there is no legal limitation for people to vote for the presidential elections in another city or province to which people often travel or commute." (Press TV)

"In an interview with the special news section of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting's [state broadcaster] Channel II on Thursday night, [Iranian Interior Minister] Sadeq Mahsuli said that the increase in the votes in some of the country's cities against the limit of the eligible voters is quite natural and it has also happened in the past. He added: In 48 cities, the number of voters was higher than the number of those eligible to vote and this was due to employment or education related emigration and holiday trips.

He pointed out that in some of these cities where there were surplus votes, the votes for the rival candidate was higher than the elected candidate and added: The number of voters in Shemiranat [area in north Tehran] were thirteen times higher than the eligible voters in this region and one of the candidates achieved votes twice of the elected candidate and the figure of thirteen times higher participation by the people on holiday in this region appears quite normal. The interior minister stated that the number of eligible voters was announced based on the places in the country where birth certificates were issued and added: This is in spite of the fact that a great percentage of people have left their place of residence because of employment, education and holidays and even in the previous elections, we had up to 800 times the number of eligible voters in some cities. Mahsuli explained that on the whole, 184,734 people out of 100 per cent of the eligible voters have voted over the limit in 48 cities and specified: In a province such as Yazd, at least 30 per cent of the population, meaning more than 37,000 students and military garrison personnel, consists of non-native individuals whereas the surplus voters in this region only totalled 515." (Resalat, Tehran, in Persian, 27 Jun 09, p. 2, BBC Monitoring Service Jun 30 2009)

CLAIM 8: STATISTICAL EVIDENCE

A statistical analysis of province-by-province voting in Iran’s June 12 presidential election makes a compelling case for wide-spread fraud in the vote that returned conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power and touched off days of bloody protests in Iran. (Christian Science Monitor)

COUNTER-CLAIM:

"Recently, spot analyses by scholars from the University of Michigan and the Royal Institute of International Affairs suggested that this year’s election results are out of line with previous presidential elections. These analyses compare this year’s results with the first round of the 2005 presidential election, when Ahmadinejad and former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani outpolled other candidates to move into a runoff. Viewed through that prism, Ahmadinejad’s 2009 tally seems inflated.

But the comparison is structurally flawed. It is tantamount to arguing that, because Barack Obama won 38 percent of the vote in a competitive, multicandidate caucus in Iowa in January 2008, it is implausible that he could have won 54 percent of that state’s vote in the two-person general election in November. A more appropriate comparison for this year’s results in Iran would be the second round of the 2005 presidential election, when Ahmadinejad trounced Rafsanjani." (Leveretts) 

The University of Michigan study relies on Benford's Law but according to the Carter Center which has monitored more than 70 elections around the world:

 

In short, Benford's Law does not generally apply to electoral data and even in cases where we suspect that it might apply, we find that it does not. All in all, Benford's Law seems like a very weak instrument for detecting voting fraud. There are many reasons to believe that it does not apply to electoral data, and empirical tests suggest that deviations from the law are not necessarily indicative of fraud.

CLAIM 9: KARROUBI's LOW VOTES

Karroubi, one of the candidates, scored very low in the polls -- lower than expected.

COUNTER-CLAIM:

He also admitted on TV during his debates with Ahmadinejad to accepting $300,000 payment from Shahram Jazayeri, a shadowy figure involved in a number of recent financial scandals in Iran. (PressTV)

CLAIM 9: BALLOT BOXES WERE CLOSED, NOT ENOUGH BALLOT PAPERS PRINTED, ETC.

"In his letter released on Saturday [20 June], Musavi had cited seven accounts of abnormalities in the election process and asked the Guardian Council, the body tasked with overseeing the election, to "cancel the election nationwide."

Musavi said the "sealing of ballot boxes before the voting in most polling stations, shortage of ballot papers and limited voting time" were among the reasons he objected to the results of the election." (Press TV website, Tehran, in English 1807 23 Jun 09)

COUNTER-CLAIM:

"The Interior Ministry however rejected the claims, saying that his letter 'contains apparent contradictions' and includes general cases which 'lack concrete and legal evidence.'

The ministry added that according to the election law, the ballot boxes have to be sealed in the presence of the representatives of the supervisory board before the voting officially starts.

It added that the ministry, however, invited Mr Musavi's representatives to be present and almost all of them were present when the ballot boxes were sealed.

On the shortage of the ballot papers, the ministry argued that it was 'impossible to estimate the exact and correct number of voters in a town or a polling station.' " (Press TV website, Tehran, in English 1807 23 Jun 09)

IRanian soccer players support Mousavi with green wristbands?

The Telegraph (home to the famous Con Coughlin) has an article (that matches his writing style: dramatic title, a single poorly-sourced paragraph to back it up, followed by a lot of irrelevant & unrelated information) which claims that the Iranian soccer players who were competing against S Korea were wearing green wristbands as evidence of their support for Mousavi.

As many as eight players wore green wristbands and the captain, Ali Karimi, wore a green armband, symbolising support for Mir Hossein Mousavi, the opposition challenger, at the high-profile game, which was broadcast live on Iranian state television.

Leaving aside the incredible foresight that the soccer players would have had to bring green wristbands along with themselves to the games in order to make this alleged political statement, I have to wonder: could they be wearing green wristbands simply because it matches the green in the rest of their uniforms as clearly seen in the photo accompanying the article?

you know the Iranian flag has a green bar on it -- does that mean that the Iranian flag supports Mousavi? My old Honda was green...probably a Mousavi supporter too...

Developing nations reject "uranium fuel bank" pretext

I have long said that the conflict between the US and Iran over its nuclear program has nothing really to do with nuclear weapons, but is in fact part of a broader conflict between the developing and developed nations over the attempt by the latter to monopolize nuclear fuel production (albeit under the guise of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation.)  Developing nations have again turned down the US effort to monopolize nuclear fuel:

Obama-backed nuclear fuel bank plan stalls at IAEA
Thu Jun 18, 2009

By Sylvia Westall

VIENNA (Reuters) - A uranium fuel supply plan hailed by U.S. President Barack Obama as a way to stem the spread of nuclear arms stalled in talks at the U.N. atomic watchdog on Thursday after resistance from developing nations.

The International Atomic Energy Agency and industrialized nations argue that a multilateral uranium-enrichment center would best meet growing global nuclear energy demand while dissuading nations from building proliferation-prone enrichment plants themselves.

But emerging nations, who fear "multinationalizing" control over the fuel cycle would curb their right to home-grown atomic energy for electricity, rejected a request by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to develop a detailed plan for approval in September.

While developing states agreed to let talks go on, they warned others on the IAEA's 35-nation governing board against "attempts meant to discourage the pursuit of any peaceful nuclear technology on grounds of its alleged 'sensitivity'."

As the oil runs out, nuclear fuel will be the only real energy source of the future, and whoever controls the process of manufacturing/distributing nuclear fuel will enjoy immense strategic as well as economic benefits.

The media in the US of course steadfastly refuse to see this and instead follow along with the agenda set by the government, with the incessant and hyperbolic claims about "Iranian nukes", thus helping frame the issue as one of "non-proliferation" rather than monopolization.

(Meanwhile, Egypt -- which was caught conducting undeclared nuclear experiments that should have been reported to the IAEA -- has started building its nuclear infrastructure. Note the absence of speculation about how Egypt "intends to obtain the capacity" to build nukes.)

Another "Iran soon to have nukes" prediction by Israel

So, yet again, Israel has issued one of their regular sky-is-falling "Iran soon to have nukes" scaremongering predictions.

Here's a quick look back on some past predictions about Iran's nuclear "weapons":

"The Iranians may have an atom bomb within two years, the authoritative Jane’s Defence Weekly warned. That was in 1984, two decades ago. Four years later, the world was again put on notice, this time by Iraq, that Tehran was at the nuclear threshold, and in 1992 the CIA foresaw atomic arms in Iranian hands by 2000. Then U.S. officials pushed that back to 2003. And in 1997 the Israelis confidently predicted a new date - 2005."

- Ever a "threat," never an atomic power, Iran points up challenges of nuclear technology by Charles Hanley, The Associated Press, Monday, February 27, 2006]

Ahmadinejad did win the elections

I tend to agree with the Leveretts:

The shock of the “Iran experts” over Friday’s results is entirely self-generated, based on their preferred assumptions and wishful thinking... 

Like much of the Western media, most American “Iran experts” overstated Mir Hossein Mousavi’s “surge” over the campaign’s final weeks. More important, they were oblivious — as in 2005 — to Ahmadinejad’s effectiveness as a populist politician and campaigner. American “Iran experts” missed how Ahmadinejad was perceived by most Iranians as having won the nationally televised debates with his three opponents — especially his debate with Mousavi...

The Islamic Republic is a system with multiple power centers; within that system, there is a strong and enduring consensus about core issues of national security and foreign policy, including Iran’s nuclear program and relations with the United States. Any of the four candidates in Friday’s election would have continued the nuclear program as Iran’s president; none would agree to its suspension.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745_Page2.html#ixzz0IbYnQFTK&C

Dennis Ross to be ousted from State Department?

Haaretz reports that Dennis Ross, the pro-Israeli agent working in Obama's administration as the alleged point-man on Iran policy, will be ousted soon:

Dennis Ross, who most recently served as a special State Department envoy to Iran, will abruptly be relieved of his duties, sources in Washington told Haaretz. An official announcement is expected in the coming days.

The Obama administration will announce that Ross has been reassigned to another position in the White House. In his new post, the former Mideast peace envoy under President Bill Clinton will deal primarily with regional issues related to the peace process.

What does this mean? It is a promotion or demotion? Could it be that the administration has decided to give priority to the "peace process" (aka euphemism for legtimization of occupation) over Iran --- OR that the administration has belatedly discovered a that Ross was pushing an agenda that differed from Obama's on Iran. Who knows? who cares. I'm hungry.....

Neocon Spinning Iran's election mess

So the Neocons have wasted little time in putting their own spin on the Iranian election mess. Ari Fleischer, former White House spokesman under Bush and current head of the Iran-bashing Freedom Watch, has declared that "Bush's tough policies have helped give rise to the reformists and I think we're witnessing that today."

I suppose we'll see more of the neocons claiming that the election results are proof that the US should not engage Iran.

Ironically, had Mousavi been elected president, the same people would have again argued that the US should not engage Iran since obviously the election of a "reformist" is proof that hardline policies were bearing fruit and so there should be no policy change. 

Incidentally I find it funny how the labels are being tossed around -- Mousavi is a "reformist" whilst Ahmadinejad had the balls to name and shame corruption at the highest levels of government is .... what?

Middle East Reality Blog by Arnold Evans

I heartily recommend reading Arnold Evan's blog, Middle East Reality. He's perhaps one of the best informed bloggers on Iran I know.

Iran's elections -- my sober views

People have been asking me why I don't write more about the presidential elections in Iran. The answer is that I prefer to keep my mouth shut about things that I don't know about. And the fact is that no one can predict the outcome nor its effects such as relations with the USA. Remember, not one of the many self-important talking heads that are being widely quoted in the Western press foresaw the election of Ahmadinejad in the first place (nor the election of Khatami before him...nor the 1979 Islamic Revolution!)

Nor am I sure that the election will make a real difference in foreign affairs, especially around the nuclear issue. Remember, despite the Western media's attempt scaremonger about Iran's nuclear program by connecting the program to the "crazy" Ahmadinejad (something that Ahmadinejad himself encouraged too) the fact is that Iran's nuclear program is not controlled by Iran's presidents. It didn't begin with Ahmadinejad, and it won't end when he leaves office. The program started under the previous regime, under the Shah, and will continue even if there is another revolution in Iran, because it is driven by strategic and economic factors that are independent of the identity of individual politicians.

Note also that most of what passes as analysis of the election is really wishful thinking of the pundits themselves. Mousavi has become a media darling in the West supposedly because he is a "reformist" and represents a constituency who is relatively secular, wealthy and upper-class ... but I can't help remember that US analysts were not able to forsee the 1979 Islamic Revolution specifically because they too were limited in interacting with the Westernized elites in Iran, and never bothered to go to "the street" to see what was really going on. So, with this emphasis on Mousavi, are we making the same mistake again?

Finally, some have suggested that all the talk about corruption has brought the very legitimacy of the IRI itself into question. They find it ironic that Ahmadinejad, a creature of the Islamic regime, would criticize the same regime. Well, its not ironic -- it is normal. Rather than delegitimizing the revolution, the fact that someone like Ahmadinejad can raise these issues can also be viewed as a indicator of the legitimacy of the regime. How you interpret it really depends on your own preconceptions. Naturally, people who have been waiting for the fall of the IRI view every event there through a particular lens and rush to conclude from it that the IRI has been delegitimized and will fall. But that's wishful thinking more than objective analysis.

El Baradei: Iranians are not "fanatics"

I recommend reading the June 1st Newsweek interview with El Baradei

Q: Had the Bush administration been more flexible, do you think it could have had a deal to freeze the Iranian enrichment program in its experimental phases?

El Baradei: There is no way you are able to deny them the knowledge. But if they do not have the industrial capacity, they do not have weapons. It is as simple as that. I have seen the Iranians ready to accept putting a cap on their enrichment [program] in terms of tens of centrifuges, and then in terms of hundreds of centrifuges. But nobody even tried to engage them on these offers. Now Iran has 5,000 centrifuges. The line was, "Iran will buckle under pressure." But this issue has become so ingrained in the Iranian soul as a matter of national pride.

...

Q: You focus on actual nuclear material. But the Americans have supplied the IAEA with the documents in question. The Iranians insist they are fake and refuse to talk about them.

El Baradei: A lot is in documents which we cannot share with the Iranians because of the need to protect sources and methods. Iran says, how can I tell you if it is fake or authentic if I am not getting a copy? So in many ways it's like a merry-go-round.

 

Herodotus on the Persians

"There is no nation which so readily adopts foreign customs as the Persians. Thus, they have taken the dress of the Medes, considering it superior to their own; and in war they wear the Egyptian breastplate. As soon as they hear of any luxury, they instantly make it their own. . . ."

Obama's Mideast speech -- yet another doomed attempt to reach out to the Mideast

Lots of people are asking me what I thought about Obama's speech. Truth is I didn't bother listening to it, nor do I plan to. Practically every US administration has endorsed a policy of "reaching out the Middle East" for as long as I have been alive. All of these efforts fizzled out when it came time to actually back up the fancy words with real, substantive actions. Speeches are written by speech writers, professional hacks whose job is to string together pretty words. That's all speeches are. Substantive acts, that's what would interest me. Speeches? Not so much.

The problem is that we live in a media-spectacle driven world in which these sorts of manufactured events substitute for real, substantive news -- so people assume that they should care what some guy said in some speech because by golly the speech will be discussed in the news a lot. But it is just showbiz, folks - a lot of talk about a talk, razzle dazzle and nothing more -- unless it is backed up by substantive acts. 

And I don't believe that any substantive acts will follow this speech.  The mere fact that Obama chose Egypt to deliver the speech is proof enough for me -- Egypt, where a kleptocratic authoritarian regime headed by a petty tin-pot US-financed "President for Life" is struggling to stay in power by resorting to shooting voters in the street every few years to keep them away from ballot boxes. The choice of Egypt as the venue for the speech tells me clearly that we're just going to have more of usual bullshit.

Color me unimpressed. 

Israel source of "alleged studies" on nuclear weapons in Iran

I recommend investigative journalist Gareth Porter's article in Antiwar.com entitled "Report Ties Dubious Iran Nuclear Docs to Israel" regarding the documents about Iran's "alleged studies" into making nukes contained in the so-called "Laptop of Death" computer which was supposedly smuggled out of Iran. (This laptop computer is the only actual evidence of a nuclear weapons program ever existing in Iran - and has never been verified to be legitimate)

The unnamed Israeli intelligence officer’s statement that the "blueprints for a nuclear warhead" — meaning specifications for a missile reentry vehicle - were identical to "designs his agency had obtained from other sources in Iran" suggests that the documents collection which the IAEA has called "alleged studies" actually originated in Israel...

 The anonymous Israeli intelligence official’s claim, cited in the Committee report, that the "blueprints" in the "alleged studies" collection matched documents his agency had gotten from its own source seems to confirm the analyst’s finding that Israeli intelligence assembled the documents.

I would only add that the Bush administration shopped the "alleged studies" documents from the "Laptop of Death" around for many years, and has only provided the IAEA limited access to some selected documents from the laptop at the last minute in order to prevent the IAEA from issuing a report on Iran's nuclear program that was essentially totally favorable to Iran. The United States has never made the laptop itself and the documents it supposedly contains available to the IAEA for independent analysis and verification.

The fall of the dollar & US sovereign credit downrating

I dabble in arbitrage and currency speculation. So this came as no news to me. When all is said and done about this decade, including the war in Iraq, the recession and the various financial scandals, I suspect the overall narrative will be about the the decline and fall of the dollar as the international reserve currency as countries who hold dollar reserves start to dump the dollar in favor of more diversified holdings.

Obama says Iran has right to nukes...and so did Bush

The Rightwing blogosphere is throwing a fit over the fact that Obama has apparently said that Iran has a legitimate interest in nuclear power:

President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.

One far right blog for example spins it thusly:

In other words, he's legitimizing Iran's excuse for developing nuclear weapons, Obama's naivety never ceases to amaze me....

Well the problem is that Bush said essentially the same thing in a2002 ABC interview with Charles Gibson:

Matter of fact, I said this in a press conference, that it's the sovereign right of Iran to have civilian nuclear power, and I agree, and I believe that.

Arguably, Bush's statement is more sweeping that Obamas too --- compare "may have some right" to "has a sovereign right".

In any case, Iran's absolute and unqualified and unquestionable right to access the full nuclear fuel cycle is based on international law and not for Obama or Bush to decide. Iran has the same rights to nuclear technology (or any other technology) as Japan, Argentina, Brazil, the USA...

Nor is it up to Iran to "prove that its aspirations are peaceful" (code words for "must give up enrichment and forever rely on us to power their economy".) Iran has signed the NPT and after years of inspections, no evidence has been found of any weapons program. The burden is therefore on Iran's accusers to prove their allegations, and not vice versa.

To catch a pro-Israeli propagandist

Philip Weiss catches a pro-Israeli "journalist" in a lie

So, Johnson self identifies here as a "supporter" of Netanyahu and the Likud - did that not raise any red flags back at The Hill when she was asked to write about the Obama Administration's engagement in the Middle East peace process?

Juvenile executions in Iran

An article by Farnaz Fassihi in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Debate over child executions roils Iran's presidential elections" has elicited some of the usual comments and posts especially on right-wing blogs about how bloodthirsty and barbaric those Iranians must be ... which is very ironic, because until 2005 the deplorable distinction of "leading the world in juvenile executions" was applicable to ... not China, not Iran, but the US.

The prohibition of execution of minors in the US is very recent and only came into force in 2005, in a narrowly decided Supreme Court decision (all the conservative justices voted in favor of the practice.)

Until then, 20 states in the US did allow the execution of minors and there had been 22 such executions, plus another 78 such people who were on death row when the practice was abolished in the US.

See http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/dparticles/factsheetfactsfigures.pdf

[Having said that, two wrongs don't make a right either. I am very opposed to the death penalty, anywhere and for any reason. That's why I hesitate to post this because I don't want to seem to be in support of the death penalty, and certainly not in support of the death penalty for juvenile offenders.]