U.S. FINALLY RELEASES FIVE IRANIAN DIPLOMATS HELD CAPTIVES FOR OVER TWO YEARS

The U.S. military has finally released five Iranian diplomats after more than two years in a military prison in Iraq. The U.S. never produced any evidence as to why they were held or what their alleged crime was. I maintain that the whole episode was just a ploy of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to provoke the Iranian government into some action that Bush & Co. could claim was a casus belli and thus give the U.S. a chance to attack Iran.

Steven Lee Myers writes in today's The New York Times:

"The American military and a senior aide to President Obama offered few details about the release or its timing. A military spokesman here, Capt. Brad Kimberly, said in a statement that the release had come “at the request of the government of Iraq” and complied with the security agreement between the United States and Iraq which requires the eventual transfer of all detainees in American custody."

No matter what the U.S. military claims, until and unless it releases evidence showing the complicity of these five Iranians in illegal actions in Iraq, I will believe that they were arrested and imprisoned solely on the bias of the U.S. government against Iran and against the natural influence Iranians have in the neighboring country of Iraq.

Gen. Odierno tries to paint the Iranians as part of an effort to fund and train an anti-American insurgency.

Writes Myers:

"The American military has not detailed its evidence against the men, so the extent of their involvement in violence in Iraq, if any, may never be known.

"However, senior American military and diplomatic officials here continue to accuse Iran — or at least parts of its security forces and secret services — of supporting insurgent groups.

"At a news conference on June 30, the top American commander here, Gen. Ray Odierno, criticized Iran in blunt terms.

"“Iran is still supporting, funding, training surrogates who operate inside of Iraq — flat out,” he said. “They have not stopped. And I don’t think they will stop. I think they will continue to do that because they are also concerned, in my opinion, of where Iraq is headed. They want to try to gain influence here, and they will continue to do that. I think many of the attacks in Baghdad are from individuals that have been, in fact, funded or trained by the Iranians.”"

Note the words of Odierno. "Iran is . . . training surrogates who operate inside of Iraq . . . " [The Iranians] are . . . concerned . . . {about] where Iraq is headed." "They want to try to gain influence here." My reaction to all of this is, so what? I disagree with Steven Lee Myers that these are "blunt terms." I think rather they are fudging words trying to convey the impression without any evidence that Iranians are meddling. But is "meddling" a crime or an act of war? I don't think so.

Odierno also "thinks" that many of the attacks are from individuals that have been trained by the Iranians. But what does this mean?

Furthermore, Odierno thinks his assertions about the Iranians are true, but this word "thinks" surely implies that he does not know for sure. And even if Iraqi insurgents were funded or trained by Iranians, this statement still means nothing. Perhaps the individuals attended Islamic school in Iran to study the Quran or maybe they took language training and studied Farsi.

Odierno's statement is just fluff. But it is dangerous insofar as it tries to demonize Iran and the Iranians on the basis of conjecture and Odierno's own opinion which conceivably is riddled with conjecture.

DON'T UNDERESTIMATE GEORGE BUSH AND HARM HE CAN DO IN HIS SEVEN MONTHS TO GO

George Bush at his news conference with French president Nicolas Sarkozy made it a point to warn Iran that "all options are on the table," code for mounting a military attack.

This is the quintessential George Bush - always threatening, hectoring, dictating. What a bully this guy is. Here we see Bush's foreign policy. No, not diplomacy or negotiations but threats and warnings. Who says that Bush will not fire missiles at Iran and its people before he leaves office? I am not so sure.

Incidentally, Bush tells the Iranian people that their leaders are causing all sorts of problems because they want to develop nuclear power. Yet if Bush does attack Teheran, guess who will be the victims? None other than the Iranian people that Bush is trying to set against the Iranian leaders.

Must the United States and its people suffer this bullying bluster and threat-making for another long seven months? This guy Bush is a serious threat to world peace and world order. He can do a lot of damage in the time he has left.

WHERE IS EVIDENCE TO BACK UP CHARGES THAT IRAN IS SUPPLYING IEDS?

In today's The Washington Post, Robin Wright reports that the U.S. will free nine Iranians captured in Iraq and accused of fomenting trouble on what seems trumped-up charges.

"The status of the captured Iranians is so sensitive -- both diplomatically and militarily -- that their status has been reviewed all the way up to the White House. The decision to release nine Iranians reflects a shift in position. Last month, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top commander of day-to-day operations in Iraq, said he would recommend that the five Iranians captured in Irbil not be released.

"Militarily, we should hold on to them," he told reporters and editors at The Washington Post on Oct. 5. But last week, Odierno said there had been a sharp decline in one type of the roadside bombs, the so-called explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs. The heavy metal projectile that makes up the penetrator strikes with speed and power to shatter through the steel of armored Humvees."

We all know that the detention of the Iranians is just political shenanigans originating from the Bush/Cheney antipathy towards Iran. There has been no proof that these Iranian captives did anything wrong in Iraq. Most of them are diplomats invited into Iraq by Iraqi Premier Al-Maliki. Yet the United States went out of its way to grab them in January and hold them for more than nine months.

Writes Robin Wright:

"But the announcement also came as officials announced that five U.S. troops were killed by roadside bombs believed to have originated in Iran (emphasis added), which raised the U.S. combat death toll this year to 851 2 -- making it the deadliest year yet for the U.S. military, according to the Web site icasualties.org, which tracks military casualties. In 2004, 849 U.S. troops were killed."

I object to Robin Wright's unfounded assertions in her report that it is commonly believed that Iran is supplying IEDs and EFPs. Robin Wright is too ready to put credence in unsubstantiated claims of Bush/Cheney and the U.S. generals that Iran is supplying roadside bombs. She writes in today's story.


I ask on what basis the generals believe the bombs originated in Iran and were provided by Iran? Where is the evidence for the world to see? So far there has been no believable evidence. This campaign is just trying to lay blame on Iran for screw-ups of Bush in his unjustified war against Iraq. Anyone can fashion these explosive devices. All that is needed is some modern tool and die. There are probably thousands of workshops in Baghdad that can fashion them and supply them to insurgents.

Bush is trying to salvage his tattered reputation by blaming outsiders for the mess he has made.
I object to Robin Wright mouthing and repeating the talking points that Iran is to blame.

U.S. - FREE FIVE IRANIAN DIPLOMATS WITHOUT DELAY

Good news, Haleh Esfandiari has been allowed to leave Iran. The 69-year old Iranian American is now in Austria recuperating from being in prison for more than three months. Iran's leaders did the right thing by letting her go. Esfandiari believes in dialogue between the United States and Iran, not confrontation or war. She was the wrong person for Iran to arrest.

Now the U.S. needs to free the five Iranian diplomats arrested in Erbil last January. In May, it was reported that Dick Cheney prevailed in keeping them under arrest for at least another six months, even though about the only crime I see is that they are Iranians. The U.S. military has presented no evidence why they should be arrested and put in prison. Iran claims they are diplomats. The U.S. government has shown no evidence that they are not, even though Bush's intemperate statements about Iran are in keeping with this reckless arrest and imprisonment of the five Iranians.

The Bush government needs either to show evidence why the five Iranians should be brought up on charges in a court of law or else it needs to free the five Iranians without any more delay.

NOW U.S. SHOULD FREE FIVE IRANIAN DIPLOMATS

Iran has done the right thing and freed Haleh Esfandiari, the 69-year old Iranian-American academic. Now it is past time that the United States frees the five Iranians taken captive in Erbil last January.

The U.S. claims that the five were military operatives, but once again backs this charge up with no evidence. V.P. Cheney back in May insisted that the five not be freed but be held for at least six more months, notwithstanding the lack of credible evidence.

This is just provocation on the part of Bush/Cheney. The Bush administration is looking for a fight, itching to drop bombs and missiles on Iran. Instead of condemning war mongering and military bullying in others, the U.S. needs to back off from its own recklessness.

REPUBLICANS TALK ABOUT "ENEMIES" AND "WAR" AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM

I caught about five minutes of the Republican debate today, but during those five minutes, I heard Mitt Romney talk about "our enemies" and Sam Brownback talk about a "war with Islamic fanatics."

First, as to Romney. Why must the United States have enemies? Take Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. Is he and/or the Venezuelan people enemies of the U.S. based on Mr. Chavez calling George Bush "Satan"? Surely that can't be a reason. Has Venezuela committed any aggression or hostile action towards the United States? The answer is obviously no, so that can't be the reason. So why does Mitt think Chavez and Venezuela are "enemies"?

Next Iran. Why should Americans consider the government of Iran to be a hostile regime or enemy? Because Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust did not exist? Obviously these words are nonsense, but would we go to war with Iran over these words? Would Bush and Cheney send missiles against Iran because of what Ahmadinejad said? How about nuclear weapons? Well, Bush just made a pact with India to supply nuclear materials to India, even though India was never a signer to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. India has nuclear weapons, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, so do China and Israel, as well as France and England. So is Iran an enemy because of its nuclear ambitions?

Second, Brownback says we are in a "war with Islamic fanatics." Why is that so? Because 19 Islamists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, committed suicide with American planes, resulting in the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians. This is not a war. This is a police action against those on the outer fringes of society who wish to make a point that they are against "decadent" Western values, especially as these values relate to women. Brownback is trying to fight criminals with a national army and air force. Brownback's tactics will never be successful. He is as deluded as Bush and Cheney in their zeal to mount a modern crusade.

IRAN & U.S. AGREE TO CONTAIN SUNNI INSURGENTS

Juan Cole at Informed Comment makes an important observation about the generic reports in today's newspapers about the meeting of Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq and his counterpart from Iran. See for example the report of the meeting by Megan Greenwell in The Washington Post today.

Juan Cole observes that Damien McElroy of The Telegraph reports that there were also, and most importantly, discussions about Iran and the United States forming a joint task force to resist the Sunni insurgent groups, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. Writes McElroy:

"Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, saw signs of apparent progress at the session.

"We have reached an agreement, for the first time, to work together on the security sub-committee for the benefit of the people of Iraq," he said.

"The two countries did agree to form a security committee, with Iraq, to focus on containing Sunni insurgents. The committee would concentrate on the threat from groups such as al-Qa'eda in Iraq, officials said, but not those militia groups the US accuses Iran of funding and training."

Comments Juan Cole:

"If the US is allying with Iran against the Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda, this is a very major development and much more important than some carping over Shiite militias. (My guess is that 98% of American troops killed in Iraq have been killed by Sunni Arab guerrillas). If the report is true and has legs, it will send Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal ballistic. The Sunni Arab states do not like "al-Qaeda" in Iraq, but they are much more afraid of Iran than of the Iraqi Sunni Arabs who are fighting against US military occupation."

U.S. ACCUSES IRAN OF SUPPLYING WEAPONS BUT OFFERS LITTLE EVIDENCE

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, met with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad today, and the talks were heated according to the BBC report.

The U.S. accuses Iran of providing military support for Shiite militias in Iraq. Iran is a predominantly Shiite nation. So is Iraq. Some of the holiest Shiite mosques and shrines are in Iraq. It is common for Iranians to travel to Iraq on religious pilgrimages. The U.S. military is suspicious of these close religious ties between Iranian and Iraqi Shiites, and claims the Iranian muslims are supplying arms to their Iraqi correligionists.

Another source of irritation between the U.S. and Iran is the taking of captives. The U.S. detained five Iranians in Erbil this past January. It has refused to bring charges against them. Reports say that VP Cheney prevailed on Bush not to let them go. Up till last month, the U.S. held them incommunicado, no phone calls allowed, no access to legal counsel, no visits from Iranian diplomats.

In response Iran has taken at least three Iranian-Americans into custody, including the 67-year old scholar, Haleh Esfandiari. See my reports here, here and here.

I believe it is real and hopeful progress that the U.S. ambassador sits down and dialogs with the Iranian ambassador. The more dialog the better. The more contact, the better. In this regard, I commend Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for saying last night at the CNN/You Tube debate that he would personally sit down with Iranian leaders and try to work out differences. This was in contrast to Hillary Clinton who refused to agree to personal discussions and diplomacy.

The U.S. repeats its claim that it has evidence of Iran supplying arms and training to the Shiite militias, but it has never presented any credible evidence. It shows arms and missiles that it claims were manufactured in Iran, but the markings are at best ambivalent.

Writes the BBC:

"Iranian ambassador Hassan Kazemi-Qomi reportedly brushed aside the US allegations, saying that the US had no proof of its claims.

"From Tehran, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini said the US would be better off finding ways to get out of the Iraq crisis. "These declarations aim to deceive public opinion which is troubled by the US's warlike policy," he said, according to French news agency AFP."

I agree. Until the U.S. military and ambassador Ryan Crocker and the entire Bush establishment present solid and credible evidence that Iran as a government is providing arms and training to its Iraqi neighbors, the U.S. charges cannot be taken as more than spin and propaganda. The more the U.S. military fails in its political and military objectives, the more apt it is to try to pin the blame for the Iraqi fiasco on Iran.

FIVE IRANIAN DETAINEES HELD BY U.S. ALLOWED VISITORS FOR FIRST TIME

It's about time. The United States has allowed visits in recent days for the first time to the five Iranian diplomats imprisoned since last January when there were picked up in Irbil. The BBC reports that the Iranian Ambassador to Iraq and associates were able for the first time to visit the five detainees.

"The five have been detained by the US military in northern Iraq since they were captured in Irbil in January.

"Three Iranian diplomats including the ambassador in Baghdad visited the five detainees in Iraq," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said."

Perhaps this relaxation of harsh policy by the U.S. will be a first step in Iran releasing its three captive Iranian-Americans, including 67-year old scholar, Haleh Esfandiari. See my post on this Iranian detention of visiting Iranian- Americans here and here.

Writes the BBC today:

"Mr Zebari said he hoped the visit would help pave the way for further talks between the US and Iran, after a landmark meeting in May."

The capture and detention by the U.S. military of the five Iranians in Irbil has exacerbated relations between the United States and Iran. Back in May, V.P. Cheney prevailed on Bush to keep the Iranians captive even though it was then clear there was no evidence that they had been doing anything wrong in Iraq. I believe it was a clear provocation against Iran, as if throwing down the gauntlet, or kicking dust in Iran's face. As if Cheney wanted to provoke Iran to take some action that would allow the U.S. to justify shooting some missiles or dropping some bombs on Teheran.

The BBC comments:

"The detention of the five raised tension between the US and Iran, which has demanded that the men be released.

"It also caused arguments between the White House and the State Department over their continued captivity.

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reportedly argued for the five Iranians to be released because they were "no longer useful". "

JOIN THE CAMPAIGN - DON'T LET BUSH & CHENEY START A WAR AGAINST IRAN

We need every reader and every blogger to join the campaign to prevent Bush and Cheney from starting a war against Iran.

It seems every single day, we hear politicians like Joe Lieberman calling for strikes against Iran. People like Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney. Even Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards say that as far as Iran nothing is off the table, implying that they would bomb and attack Iran.

Why does the United States government and its politicians think that Iran is the enemy? Or that we can solve the disagreements with Iran over its nuclear enrichment power plants by raining down bombs and missiles?

The U.S. thus appears to the rest of the world as the most aggressive, the most bellicose, the most militaristic county in the world.

Wars and bombs don't solve anything. Yet people like Bush and Lieberman continue to call for it.

The only way we can stop this madness is for everyone to make it his or her personal campaign to express and publicize in any and every possible that there are a lot of us who will resist this call for war against Iran.

NPR FEATURES JOE LIEBERMAN CALLING FOR ATTACKS ON IRAN

NPR's All Things Considered this afternoon had a piece by Mike Shuster on the call by some for a military attack against Iran. There was Joe Lieberman saying that the U.S. should attack Iran because Holy Joe said there was some "evidence" that Iran is supplying weapons and IEDs to the insurgents in Iraq.

That's a lot of bull. If Lieberman has evidence, then show it to the country. To date, there has been no credible evidence (i.e., that any court in the U.S. would accept as "evidence") that Iran is supplying weapons or bombs or IEDs to Iraq or any of the insurgents fighting the U.S. occupation within Iraq.

Joe Lieberman is a war monger who should have gone done to defeat in the last general election, only that his opponent Ned Lamont ran such a crummy campaign trying to introduce issues other than Iraq. Joe Lieberman is no better than war mongers Bush or Cheney who think they can push other sovereign countries around merely by bombing them into submission.

My question with NPR's ATC is why there were no guests opposing Holy Joe's Iran-bashing? Not all Washington thinks bombing Iran is the way to go. Surely there are many of us who believe we should be-friend Iran, not make them enemies for the next thousand years.

TRADE THE FIVE IRANIAN DIPLOMATS FOR THE FOUR IRANIAN AMERICANS

I have blogged many times in the past - here, here and here, - on the underlying reason for the government of Iran seizing the four or five Iranian-Americans while they were visiting Iraq. One, for example, is the noted scholar, Ms. Haleh Esfandiari, who is 67 years old and was visiting her ailing mother.

The United States seized five Iranian diplomats last January in Irbil, Iraq. They have not been allowed use of the telephone or any other way to communicate with their families. Last month, Vice President Cheney prevailed in his argument to keep the five Iranians locked up for another six months, notwithstanding that there is no evidence presented so far that could justify their incarceration. Cheney's decision can be seen only as an act of provocation against Iran.

Today the Washington Post carries an AP story by Ali Akbar Dareini discussing the investigation of the Iranian-Americans. Dareini quotes the Iranian Foreign Minister linking the Iranian Americans to the five Iranian diplomats:

"In a sign of the strain between the two nations over detention of their nationals, Iran also warned the United States today that it would "regret" its detention of five Iranians last January in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil. The five were picked up in a U.S. military raid on Iran's liaison office.

""We will make the Americans regret their ugly and illegal act," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, according to the state-controlled IRNA news agency. He offered no specifics.

"The five Iranians are members of the Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, which has been active in arming and training Iraqi militants. Their status is due for review by the United States later this month, according to U.S. officials. The Iraqi government is pressing for their release."

U.S. CLAIMS NO ATTACK FORTHCOMING ON IRAN

Oh good! Helene Cooper writes for NYTimes.com today that Condi Rice says the United States is not pushing for an attack on Iran. If this is true, then those pushing for a diplomatic solution to U.S. -Iranian relations seem to have won over the forces of darkness led by Dick Cheney who have been looking for ways to provoke Iran and get the U.S. into another catastrophic war in the Middle East

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought today to minimize any sense of division within the Bush administration over Iran after the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency delivered a pointed new warning against what he called the “new crazies” pushing for military action against Tehran.

"“The President of the United States has made it clear that we are on a course that is a diplomatic course,” Ms. Rice said here. “That policy is supported by all of the members of the cabinet, and by the vice president of the United States." . . .

"Ms. Rice’s assurance on U.S. strategy came as senior officials at the State Department are expressing fury over reports that members of Vice President Cheney’s staff have told others that Mr. Cheney believes the diplomatic track with Iran is pointless, and is looking for ways to persuade Mr. Bush to confront Iran militarily.

"In a news conference today, Ms. Rice maintained that Vice President Cheney supports her strategy of trying to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions through diplomacy. A senior Bush administration official separately denied that there is a deep divide between Ms. Rice and Mr. Cheney on Iran.

"But, the official said, “the vice president is not necessarily responsible for every single thing that comes out of the mouth of every single member of his staff.“ The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about any divide within the administration."

Cheney's hawkish attitude towards Iran cannot merely be laid at the voluble mouths of his aides. After all it was Dick Cheney who last month successfully argued that the five Iranian diplomats taken into U.S. detention in Iraq last January be incarcerated for at least another six months. This was done even though everyone knew it was sure to provoke Iran and its leaders. There has been no evidence produced by the U.S. indicating that these five Iranians were anything but diplomats, even though the military and other neo-con hawks like to imply they were on more than diplomatic missions.

Today, George Bush repeated his call that Iran release the four Iranian-Americans taken into custody over the past several months, while they were visiting family and friends in Iran. Helene Cooper reports:

"President Bush said today that American citizens being held in Iran — Haleh Esfandiari, Parnaz Azima, Kian Tajbakhsh, and Ali Shakeri — “have dedicated themselves to building bridges between the American and Iranian people, a goal the Iranian regime claims to support,” Mr. Bush said. “Their presence in Iran — to visit their parents or to conduct humanitarian work — poses no threat. Indeed, their activities are typical of the abiding ties that Iranian-Americans have with their land of origin.”"

Why couldn't the same statement be made by President Ahmadinejad of Iran about the five Iranians held captive by Bush and the U.S.? The five Iranians were in Iraq because there is close ties between the Iranian people and the majority Shias in Iraq. In fact, the government of Iraq is dominated by Shias, both in the executive and legislative branches.

I have a solution. Let the U.S. trade Iran: the five Iranians for the four Iranian-Americans. Certainly there is no evidence that the four Iranian-Americans are guilty of espionage or treason or attempts to overthrow the Iranian government. Iran should release them. And the United States should give back its five Iranian prisoners. This should be done immediately.

THREE IRANIAN AMERICANS IN IRAN VS. FIVE IRANIANS HELD BY U.S.

Today in The New York Times, (sorry for the absence of HTML links, I am still in NYC on a "foreign computer") Helene Cooper reports that Condoleeza Rice has rejected the observation that Iran has taken three American-Iranians into detention, including the 67-year old scholar Haleh Esfandiari, as tit-for-tat for the Americans taking five Iranian "diplomats" into custody in Iraq this past January.

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday rejected linking Iran’s charges against three Iranian-Americans in Tehran to the Bush administration’s capture of members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Iraq."

"Ms. Rice said that the five Iranian Revolutionary Guard members arrested by United States forces in Iraq on Jan. 11 were working to destabilize Iraq and were “endangering” American troops there. “The two are simply not linked,” she said.

"Iran maintains that the men are diplomats and should not have been detained."

I have written more than once about the possible motivation of Iran in seizing the three Americans all of whom were on visits to Iran when they were seized. Recall that within the last month, V.P. Cheney prevailed upon the inner Bush circle to keep the five Iranians detained for at least another six months, notwithstanding that there was no credible evidence against them that has been revealed. Their only crime was to have been found in Iraq. Iran claims they are "diplomats." Perhaps this is true.

What is galling to the Iranians is that the United States has arrested these five and there have been no charges or evidence presented. This is like the Iranian seizure of the U.S. embassy personnel in Tehran some 30 years ago. Recall how incensed Americans were as a result. We can only imagine how irate the man in the street in Tehran is now about the American detention of the five Iranians. This is just not an issue of a rogue Iran regime doing bad things to Americans, as Tom Friedman seems to suggest in his op-ed column today in The New York Times. This issue generates ill will towards the U.S. by the Iranian people.

I want Iran to release Ms. Esfandiari immediatedly together with the two other Iranian Americans. But I also want the United States to release the five Iranians. For Condoleeza Rice to say there is no parity is just propaganda for those who are not watching what is actually happening.

JUAN COLE ON NEO-CONS' FICTITIOUS ARGUMENTS AGAINST IRAN

We know that many neo-cons and their supporters would like nothing better than a war against Iran, that evil Islamist empire. Here is Juan Cole today demolishing sophomoric arguments in an article in The Guardian by Simon Tisdall on why Iran is the bogey man.

"At a time when Sunni Arab guerrillas are said to be opposing "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" for its indiscriminate violence against Iraqis, including Shiites, we are now expected to believe that Shiite Iran is allying with it. And, it claims that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are shelling the Green Zone. The parliament building that was hit to day by such shelling is dominated by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and its paramilitary, the Badr Organization. Who trained Badr? The Iranian Revolutionary Guards. And they are trying to hit their own guys . . . why?

"By the way, the US has 16,000 suspected insurgents in custody. Tisdall should ask how many of them are Iranian. (Hint: close to none. What, do they just run faster than the others?)

"The article even traffics in the ridiculous assertion that Iran is backing hyper-Sunni, Shiite-killing Taliban in Afghanistan. Why not just cut to the quick and openly say that Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei is in reality . . . Satan!

"It really is discouraging that Tisdall didn't report instead on what crazy things the US military spokesmen in Iraq told him. US military spokesmen have been trying to push implausible articles about Shiite Iran supporting Sunni insurgents for a couple of years now, and with virtually the sole exception of the New York Times, no one in the journalistic community has taken these wild charges seriously. But The Guardian?"

IRAN LIKE MANY IN THE U.S. TRIES TO EXPEL UNDOCUMENTEDS

BBC News on the radio reported this morning that Iran is expelling thousands of "undocumented" Afghanis who live and work in Iranian towns along Iran's eastern border with Afghansitan. Here is the BBC link.

How similar to what many U.S. politicians and their mean followers would like to do with Mexicans and other undocumenteds! The same inflexible feelings of antipathy towards the foreigner, the same xenophobia, the same lack of respect for a different language and culture, exists in Iran as it does in the United States.

The United States has always been the refuge for immigrants, a place of opportunity where if you worked hard you could make it. The same people here in the U.S. who won't give undocumented Latinos and others a chance to find work and feed their families are the very same children of immigrants who came here but a generation or two ago.

RELEASE MS. ESFANDIARI AND THE FIVE IRANIANS

Robin Wright in today's Washington Post reports on Iran's detention of the Iranian-American scholar 67-year old Haleh Esfandiari. I have previously posted comments about this unfortunate situation. See my post on May 11, 2007, and my post on May 12, 2007.

My point was and is that it should come as no surprise that Iran is retaliating against the United States for holding and detaining five Iranian "diplomats" seized in Iraq this past January. Especially after recent news reports that Vice President Cheney won out in his argument that the U.S. should hold these Iranians for at least another six months and not release them even though there is no real evidence against them for spying or aiding Iraqi insurgents.

But the linkage of the five Iranians with the case of Ms. Esfandiari seems non-existent to supporters of the Bush regime, for example, Condoleeza Rice. Robin Wright reports:

"In Moscow, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for Esfandiari's release. Her arrest and detention revealed "the nature of the Iranian regime," Rice told reporters. "She ought to be released and she ought to be released immediately.""

How must the detention of the five Iranians appear to people in Iran? Does it reveal "the nature of the [Bush] regime?"

Yes, Ms. Esfandiari ought to be released and she ought to be released immediately. But so should the five Iranians locked up by Cheney till at least July.

MARGARET WARNER'S STORY ON IRAN DETAINING MS. ESFANDIARI

I watched Margaret Warner's discussion last night on The NewsHour with her two guests Lee Hamilton and Karim Sadjadpour about Iran's holding 67-year old Ms. Haleh Esfandiari, director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, after she went back to Iran to visit her ailing 93-year old mother. As I indicated in my post on May 11, 2007, on the same subject, I am against Iran taking Ms. Esfandiari into custody and detention without any evidence she did anything wrong.

I am also against a decision by Bush and Cheney to arrest the five Iranians in Iraq in January 2007, and in deciding to keep them in custody even though there is no evidence they did anything which would justify their imprisonment, other than being Iranians.

I think the way to secure the release of Ms. Esfandiari is for the United States to sit down and negotiate with Iran over these detainees.

I heard nothing from Margaret Warner or her guests remotely suggesting this diplomatic stategy. Nor did anyone mention the obvious connection between the detention by the U.S. of the five Iranians with Iran's detention of Ms. Esfandiari.

IRAN: FREE MS. ESFANDIARI; U.S.: FREE THE FIVE IRANIANS

I agree with Senators Obama, Mikulski and Cardin that Iran should release the 67-year old scholar, Haleh Esfandiari, taken into custody while she was on a trip to Iran visiting her 93-year old mother. I think it is unjust for Iran to be detaining this lady, just as I think it is cruel and unjust for the United States under Bush and Cheney to be arresting and detaining the five Iranian diplomats picked up in Iraq in January. See my post on April 14, 2007 on their arrest and detention.

As to Ms. Esfandiari, Robin Wright in the Washington Post writes today:

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and three senior lawmakers today called for the immediate release of Haleh Esfandiari, the American scholar imprisoned in Iran this week after being under virtual house arrest for more than four months.

""The Iranian government's detention of this 67-year-old grandmother and scholar shows its complete disregard for basic human rights," Obama said in a statement. "If the Iranian government has any desire to engage the world in dialogue, it can demonstrate that desire by releasing this champion of dialogue from detention."

"In a joint statement, Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin, both Maryland Democrats, urged Iran to make a "gesture of goodwill" to the American people by immediately releasing Esfandiari, who is director of the Middle East program at the Smithsonian Institution's Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a resident of Potomac."

This is not complicated to solve. The United States detains and arrests five Iranians. Iran detains and arrests Ms. Esfandiari. Both countries believe the arrests on the part of the other are unjustified and unwarranted. I call upon Bush and Cheney to work for the release of Ms. Esfandiari by sitting down and negotiating with Iran as to the release of the five Iranians. There is no reason why the U.S. should consider Iran an "enemy" or "adversary." But the arrest of Ms. Esfandiari should not be considered to be out of the blue or unexpected, given the detention of the five Iranians since January 2007.

IRAN BARS AL-JAZEERA CORRESPONDENTS FROM IRANIAN PARLIAMENT

Here's something else those criminals Bush/Cheney/Rice might try to use to justify war against Iran. Al-Jazeera reports today that the government of Iran has banned Al-Jazeera correspondents from its legislature because it says one of Al-Jazeera's programs insulted the Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq.


"Iran has banned Al-Jazeera from its parliament, saying one of its talkshows had insulted the most revered Shia cleric in Iraq.

"Gholam Ali Hadad Adel, the parliament's speaker, said: "Parliament has decided to prevent Al Jazeera journalists from entering until this network makes a formal apology for insulting [Grand] Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani."

"Iran said questions from the host of the "Without Borders" programme had questioned the legitimacy of Sistani's leadership in Iraq.

"Hadad Adel said: "This is a plot of the enemies of Islam and Iraq and news networks like Al Jazeera committed this insult because of their influential role.""