LET IRANIANS SHOUT, "DEATH TO AMERICA," BUT DON'T BOMB THEM

Supporters of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ("Ahmadi") marched through the streets of Teheran two days ago supporting their candidate in this Friday's elections and shouting,"DEATH TO AMERICA."

People like John Bolton and Dick Cheney would interpret the chant as a casus belli, as proof that Iranians are evil and irrational. For Cheney and Bolton and people like them, Iran is the "enemy," and should be destroyed.

Just like there are those in Israel and elsewhere who think that Israel must attack Iran because Ahmadi has denied the Holocaust, the Iran demonizers in the U.S. would like nothing better than to bomb Iranian cities and nuclear power plants.

Have any of these people ever heard of freedom of speech? Just because someone insults you or says, "Death to America," that is no reason to kill him. Words, after all, are merely words. Everyone, including the Iranians, should be able to say anything he or she wants, without having to fear physical retaliation. So a kid in grade school can call your mother any number of disparaging names, and you don't have any right to beat him up.

Iran has shown no threat to the world and has invaded no other country in the last 100 years. It hasn't dropped a nuclear device on another country. It hasn't been the aggressor as has been the U.S. in wars every 10 years.

So let Iranians chant anything they want about the U.S. Let them yell, "Death to America." That is their political right. Neither the U.S. nor Israel has any right to say, as a result, that Iran is the "enemy," and therefore they can bomb Iranian cities and towns because of Iranian verbal insults.

SOME IRAQIS RESENT IRANIAN PILGRIMS ON ETHNIC, LANGUAGE, RELIGIOUS GROUNDS

When people like John Bolton and Dick Cheney talk about Iran, it tends to be in a threatening, bellicose manner, as in, "we ought to bomb Iran." As part of their drum-beat to war, they usually cite the animosity of Arabs towards Iranians as somehow proof that the Iranians are the "bad guys."

But we know that there is a dislike on the part of Arabs towards Iranians, not only because of ethnic differences, language differences, but also because Iranians tend to consider themselves to be better educated and advanced, speaking in cultural generalities.

Today in The New York Times, Sam Dagher writes about Iraqi attitudes towards Iranian pilgrims to the Shiite holy shrines.

"KARBALA, Iraq — Over just two days, about 80 Iranian pilgrims were killed in April in suicide bombings in Iraq. But even though the pilgrims are clearly a favored target for Sunni extremists in Iraq, and though the threat continues, it seems nothing will keep the Iranians from coming here.

"On a recent afternoon, a group of pilgrims from the Iranian city of Isfahan — many in tears and in a trancelike state — inched toward the shimmering golden-domed shrine ahead chanting “Hussein beloved” in Persian. Inside, Iranians jostled other pilgrims to grip the ornate gold and silver cagelike structure bearing the tomb of Prophet Muhammad’s grandson Imam Hussein, shrouded in green fabric embroidered with precious stones."

But it seems that many Iraqis resent the Iranians and their presence. Especially the Sunni Iraqis who consider Shiites to be heretics. So there is at least a three-fold basis for Iraqi discrimination against the Iranian pilgrims: they speak Farsi, not Arabic; they are Shiites, not Sunni; and they are Persian, not Arabs. But the Iranian pilgrims keep coming.

Writes Dagher:

"While the United States and surrounding Arab nations worry about direct Iranian influence and support for armed groups, the pilgrimages present a small but important example of Iran’s rising soft power in Iraq. And it is something that makes Iraqis increasingly resentful."

Yet the relationship between Iraqis and Iranians is complex.

Dagher writes:

"Recently, the Interior Ministry banned Persian signs inside Karbala despite the fact most Iranian pilgrims speak no Arabic.

"In April, Karbala’s residents demonstrated against the awarding of a contract to an Iranian company, Al Kawthar, to renovate the historic city center, including the area around the shrines of Imam Hussein and his brother Abu Fadhil al-Abbas, part of a $100-million project. Officials say they have been inundated with petitions against the Iranian proposal.

"“We are Arabs, we will not accept to be colonized by anyone,” said Ali al-Hayawi, a hotel owner in Karbala catering to pilgrims, who is opposed to Iran’s involvement in the project. “We do not take orders from the Iranians.”

"The dynamic in Karbala suggests that Iran may have a hard time exerting any deep sway among Iraqis, even among fellow Shiites, with suspicion playing out on several fronts. But at the national level, the relationship is more of a tug of war. The Iraqi government may want to keep Iran at arm’s length, but it also needs Iran economically and as a strategic ally."

Imagine what would happen if the war mongers like Cheney and Bolton, and for that matter, Israel's Netanyahu and Lieberman, got their way, and the U.S. attacked Iran. The whole of the Middle East, especially Iraq, would get caught up in a world war that would ignite conflagration and destruction lasting for years, if not for centuries. Iraq would then have to choose between its neighbor Iran and the U.S.

JOHN BOLTON FEARS SPANISH JUDGE WILL INDICT CHENEY, RUMSFELD, RICE

John Bolton is aghast at the prospect of a Spanish judge prosecuting higher-ups such as Cheney, Addington, Rumsfeld and Rice. In an op-ed today in The Washington Post, Bolton warns Obama not to let the Bush crowd be indicted by Judge Garzon. Perhaps Bolton is afraid for himself - that he might also be included and put on the list of suspected torturers and war criminals.

Perhaps Bolton forgets we live in a world where no nation, such as the U.S. under Bush, the torturer-in-chief, can get away with war crimes without being held accountable in world courts. So much for Bolton's American exceptionalism.

The sooner these Bush war criminals are brought into the dock, the better. Otherwise we will have this same sorry policy of "harsh interrogation methods" being resurrected the next time some Republican comes into office.

REPUBLICANS MOCK OBAMA FOR NOT BOMBING NORTH KOREA

Are all Republicans as mean as they sound? Are they all war mongers? Sometimes it appears that way. Consider the response of Newt Gingrich to Pres. Barack Obama's call for nuclear disarmament - he says it is naive and is making America "less safe," repeating a Cheney line. And John Bolton and Richard Perle also weigh in, criticizing Obama. But remember who these guys are - two of the biggest proponents of attacking Iran and bombing North Korea. Imagine the world with Gingrich, Bolton and Perle in charge.

Politico writers Jonathan Martin and David S. Cloud report on Republican reaction to Obama's proposals:

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he would have attempted to knock out the missile. And Richard Perle, a former Reagan official who was a leading proponent of the Iraq war, mocked Obama for recently trumpeting the prospect for renewing an arms agreement with Russia, saying the president was practicing diplomacy that is utterly irrelevant.

"“Can anyone imagine a Russian nuclear attack on the United States?” said Perle, who said Obama should worry instead about terrorists getting a mass-destruction weapon, possibly with the aid of Iran.

"“Especially in light of the North Korean launch, I thought his speech was otherworldly," said John Bolton, the conservative former Ambassador to the United Nations under President Bush. "What is he saying about the real, concrete threat from proliferant states like North Korea and Iran? We'll take you to the Security Council. Say, there's a threat! That has had no practical impact on either Pyongyang or Tehran before and will not in the future.""

NY TIMES OP-ED CLAIMS ISRAEL WILL ALMOST SURELY ATTACK IRAN

Just when I thought things were improving between the Bush regime and Iran, out comes an op-ed today in The New York Times by Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University. Morris says that Israel will almost certainly attack Iran in the next four to seven months.
Writes Morris:

"Israel will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb."

Everything about Morris's assertions is open to disbelief and doubt. Apart from the near certainty of an Israeli attack which is not that certain, consider some of Morris's other wild claims:

• Teheran is almost every day making threats to wipe Israel off the map - ". . . Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders."
• Most Israelis fear that their country's life is at stake - "Nonetheless, Israel, believing that its very existence is at stake — and this is a feeling shared by most Israelis across the political spectrum — . . ."
• Every intelligence agency around the world believes that Iran is intent on making nuclear weapons - "Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power."
• There is no diplomatic solution but only one option available - the military one - "Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel."
• The current leaders of Iran are not rational - "Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war."

Everyone of these reckless statements by Morris is based on conjecture and fear-mongering. Even if Ahmadinejad did say that Iran should wipe Israel off the map (something, he did not at all say, but only that he predicted the Israeli government would topple), are words enough to start a war, much less a nuclear conflagration? Would your kid be justified in beating up another kid for calling his mother a bad name? Since when does a country attack another for mere words?

Second. Morris should show which public opinion polls show most Israelis fearing their very survival because of Iran. Where are the poll numbers? What are the poll questions?

Third. Not every intelligence agency believes that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons. Consider the National Intelligence Estimate released last December that said that Iran had given up such plans back in 2002. Furthermore, Morris, if he is so sure, should have listed the agencies that believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Four. Morris minimizes a diplomatic solution. How like Bush and Cheney he sounds. We have seen how effective the military option is in Iraq and Afghanistan. And how about the Israel fiasco in Lebanon against Hezbollah and in Gaza against Hamas?

And finally, Morris demeans and belittle Iran's leaders by saying that they are not as rational as the leaders in Washington or Moscow. The Iranians seem very rational to me. Having seen what the U.S. did to Iraq over the last five years, would it be irrational for the Iranians not to want a nuclear weapon as protection from the militaristic Americans and their Israeli allies?

Benny Morris sounds like another neo-con war monger, a brother militarist to John Bolton and David Addington. The false assumptions and bad judgments in his article will not stand.

MORE WAR DRUMS BY NEO-CONS FOR WAR WITH IRAN

Think Progress alerted me to statements today made on Sunday TV shows by those neo-cons Bill Kristol and John Bolton to the likelihood that George Bush will attack Iran before the end of this year.

Both of them mention the greater probability of a Bush attack if it is clear that Barack Obama will win the presidency.

Bush and his group are dangerous madmen. They would just as soon start a perpetual war in the Middle East with Iran than ever use negotiation and diplomacy to resolve disputes.

AL-ZAWAHIRI CONDEMNS IRAN FOR MAKING DEALS WITH AMERICANS

George Bush and Dick Cheney continue their militaristic bluster towards Iran. Notwithstanding the report of the N.I.E. that said that Iran does not have a weapons program, our leaders seem intent on picking a fight before they leave office in January 2008.

Yet what do they think when Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the no. 2 man in Al Qaeda, comes out and criticizes Iran and Iraqi Shiites for dealing with the Americans? How long will it take Bush, Cheney, Bolton and the other conservative Iran haters to cease their war drums and recognize the truth in "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

Juan Cole has translated Al-Zawahiri's recent statements on his blog Informed Comment. Here are some excerpts of Al-Zawahiri's disparaging comments about Iran according to Cole:

"Al-Zawahiri also criticizes Iran's recognition of the "agent government in Kabul" immediately after it was established and criticizes it for the help it provided for the Americans during its invasion of Afghanistan. . . .

"Al-Zawahiri says: "With regard to Iraq, Iran achieved an agreement with the Americans before the latter's entry into Iraq. The agreement provided for partitioning Iraq. The Shiite militias trained, funded, and armed by Iran for years advanced violently and quickly into Iraq following the collapse of the Saddam regime. They were merged into the Iraqi Army and other Iraqi security services. They were and remain the Crusader occupier's paws used to strike at Muslims in Iraq.

"Despite the repeat of the slogans death to America, death to Israel by Iran, we have not heard a single fatwa from a single Shiite religious authority inside or outside of Iran urging jihad against the Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, Rafsanjani has made a statement expressing respect for the wishes of the Iraqi agents of Iran regarding the continued presence of US troops in Iraq."

"Then, Rafsanjani is shown making a statement to this effect. He is also shown saying that the Iranians will not take the lead in eliminating Israel.

"Al-Zawahiri adds: "The statement made by Ahmadinezhad regarding the elimination of Israel is indicative of unsubstantiated propaganda. This is because had he been sincere in his desire to eliminate Israel, he would not have shared with it membership of the United Nations, whose Charter provides for respecting the sovereignty of all UN members and their territorial integrity.""

U.S. NEEDS RE-THINKING OF POLICY TOWARDS IRAN, IMPORTANT OP-ED IN NY TIMES

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett write an important op-ed today in The New York Times. In effect, they present a detailed intelligent policy for the next president in dealings with Iran. The Leveretts dismiss the current Bush/Cheney policy as being unrealistic towards Iran's requirements for respect and acknowledgement of Iran's desire for national security.

The Leveretts write:

"The idea of “engaging” Iran diplomatically is becoming less politically radioactive than it was early in the Bush years, when any officials who broached it were putting their careers in jeopardy. Given official American-Iranian cooperation over Afghanistan and Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks (one of us, Hillary, was involved in those negotiations) and the current sets of talks between American and Iranian officials in Baghdad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s claim that she is willing to change “28 years of policy” and negotiate with Iran is disingenuous."

What the Leveretts want is a policy that takes into account concerns on both sides. The U.S. is concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions and its support for Shiite communities throughout the Middle East, many of which are active opponents of Israel. Iran wants to be treated as a sovereign nation and not as some rogue regime that needs to be toppled.

Write the Leveretts:

"From an Iranian perspective, serious engagement would start with American willingness to recognize Tehran’s legitimate security and regional interests as part of an overall settlement of our differences. But neither Republicans nor Democrats have been willing to consider such an approach, because of the pursuit of a nuclear weapons option and support for terrorist organizations that Iran employs to defend what it sees as its fundamental security interests. Successful United States-Iran engagement requires cutting through this Gordian knot by undertaking comprehensive diplomacy encompassing the core concerns of both sides.

"From the American side, any new approach must address Iran’s security by clarifying that Washington is not seeking regime change in Tehran, but rather changes in the Iranian government’s behavior. (While Secretary Rice has said recently that overthrowing the mullahs is not United States policy, President Bush has pointedly refused to affirm her statements.) To that end, the United States should be prepared to put a few assurances on the table."

The Americans would have to announce publicly that the U.S. foreign policy did not seek the overthrow of the Iranian government. Also the U.S. would need to end sanctions against Iran and stop demonizing Iran as an official state sponsor of terrorism. On its part, Iran would need to recognize a two-state solution in Palestine and urge its fellow Shiites such as Hezbollah to accept Israel as a legitimate nation and people in the Holy Land.

Furthermore, the Leveretts urge a community or organization of nations be formed that deal with the political instability in Iraq, nations that have an interest in Iraq, such as Iran, Syria, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

"The goal of such cooperation would be a multilateral body analogous to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Each member nation would commit to abide by international norms regarding respect for other states’ sovereignty, the inviolability of borders and the observance of international conventions and United Nations resolutions on conflict resolution, economic relations, human rights, nonproliferation and terrorism.

"Since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei’s death in 1989, United States policy toward Iran has not served American interests. Neither continuing to disregard legitimate Iranian interests nor timid incrementalism will improve the situation. In the long run, the real lesson of the new National Intelligence Estimate is that we need a comprehensive overhaul of American policy toward Iran."

This is an important article by two foreign policy experts that needs to be carefully considered by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the other Democratic candidates. The U.S. can ill afford another foreign policy fiasco as that brought by the present rogue administration of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, John Bolton and the other war-mongering neo-cons. The last thing world peace needs is a military attack by the U.S. on Iran. The Leveretts are right - the U.S. needs a complete rethinking of American policy towards Iran.

GATES CLAIMS IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM A THREAT

And I thought Robert Gates was moderate and intelligent. Here he is today speaking at an Arab security Conference in Bahrain accusing Iran of still wanting to build nuclear weapons and spreading terrorism throughout the Middle East. Gimme a break! If not Gates, is there no one in this Bush/Cheney administration who is not fomenting a war against Teheran?

Ann Scott Tyson reports in today's The Washington Post:

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates argued forcefully at a Persian Gulf security conference Saturday that U.S. intelligence indicates Iran could restart its secret nuclear weapons program "at any time" and remains a major threat to the region.

"Tough and at times sarcastic, Gates described the Iranian government as an ongoing menace to the Gulf region not only for its nuclear aspirations but also for supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, backing the armed Islamic movements Hezbollah and Hamas, and developing medium-range ballistic missiles.

""Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents," Gates said in a speech to defense leaders from 23 countries attending the Manama Dialogue, a security conference organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies."

Gulfnews.com adds that the audience erupted in laughter when Gates also added that he did not consider Israel's nuclear arsenal a threat to the region:

"US Defence Secretary Robert Gates defended Israel’s nuclear programme on Saturday, saying the Jewish state did not seek to destroy its neighbours or support terrorism, unlike Iran.

"Asked at the Manama Dialogue conference whether Israel's nuclear programme posed a threat to the region, Gates replied: "No, I do not."

"The statement was greeted by laughter from a room filled with government officials from Middle Eastern countries."

Now we have the dangerous spectacle of Robert Gates joining Bush, Cheney and neo-cons like John Bolton, calling Iran a grave threat. Instead of trying to make Iran and Iranians the demonized enemy, I want the government of the United States to sit down with the leaders of Iran and show some respect. Instead of threats of bombs and missiles, Americans should recognize Iran for a great and proud country that must be allowed to be part of the community of nations.

RUMSFELD IMPLIES U.S. SHOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST HUGO CHAVEZ

And I thought we heard the last from Donald Rumsfeld. But here he is, opining in The Washington Post today on Hugo Chavez. The headline of Rumsfeld's op-ed refers to Chavez as a tyrant. And Rumsfeld writes how sorry he is to see America stand by and do nothing as Venezuelan democracy is sliced and diced by Chavez.

How about Donald Rumsfeld minding his own business as to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela? If the Venezuelan people want Chavez to be able to be president an unlimited number of terms, why should Rumsfeld and the other anti-Chavez gringo neo-cons object?

I personally hope the No vote wins. Chavez has done a lot of good for the poor and disfranchised in Venezuela, but I do not support amending the constitution to allow him to run for president more than what the present constitution allows. However, I am not a citizen of Venezula, so I am not entitled to vote. Let the people of Venezuela decide.

Rumsfeld's op-ed seems to imply that the United States should be doing something to prevent the people from giving Chavez this power. What should the U.S. be doing, Mr. Rumsfeld? Bomb and attack and occupy Venezuela? Treat Venezuelans as the "enemy" because Hugo Chavez said that Bush was Satan incarnate?

Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush and Bolton et al. think the only way to solve international questions and/or disputes is through the use of American guns and war planes. This is why the U.S. invaded Iraq, why some Republicans and neo-cons are currently threatening Syria, North Korea and, above all, Iran. It would be one easy baby step to include Venezuela. Rumsfeld will show those brown-skinned non-English speaking foreigners that it is a fatal mistake to say that Bush is the devil.

DON'T LET BUSH START A WAR WITH IRAN

Hooray for Gordon Brown. The British Prime Minister is refusing to toe the Bush/Cheney line that Iran should never be allowed a nuclear weapon. In contrast to those push-overs, Nicolas Sarkozy and German Minister Angela Merkel, Brown is resisting the march of Bush and Cheney towards war with Iran. Thanks to ThinkProgress.com for discovering the story in The Telegram.

Tim Shipman and Philip Sherwell write in the Telegram.co.uk that Bush is becoming impatient with Brown.

"Allies of Condoleeza Rice, the US Secretary of State, have told The Sunday Telegraph that the Prime Minister should emulate France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and warn that Iran may face military action, in order to help avert a new war in the Middle East. . . .

"The concerns reflect growing irritation in Washington, from the White House down, that Mr Brown will not match his more robust private conversations on Iran with hard-hitting public statements that would put pressure on the Teheran regime."

It seems that all Bush, Cheney, Lieberman, Rice and the rest of the neo-cons want is to drum up support for bombing Iran. ThinkProgress.com reports on John Bolton's smear today of Mohamed El Baradei , head of the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations, for saying that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapon program:

"Two weeks ago, Mohamed El Baradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on CNN that an attack on Iran would “lead absolutely to disaster.” He added that there is no evidence of a “concrete, active nuclear weapon program” going on inside Iran.

"Today on CNN’s Late Edition, neconservative warhawk John Bolton responded by smearing ElBaradei as “an apologist for Iran” and said the United States is “paying the price” for not opposing him more vociferously."

By the way, we are hearing too much from John Bolton lately. Bolton is always trying to incite a war someplace in the world. He would like nothing better than to bomb North Korea and Iran at the same time.

JOHN BOLTON MAKING BELLICOSE THREATS AGAINST IRAN

I see where John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and one of the neo-cons and one of the most bellicose war-mongers, has told a British audience that the U.S. has no choice but to strike Iran militarily.

Ros Taylor reports in The Guardian:

"John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, told Tory delegates today that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country."

Bolton goes on to say that Americans, whether Republicans or Democrats, are not inclined to neogtiate and use diplomacy. Writes Taylor:

"There is too much of a view in Europe that you have passed beyond history," Mr Bolton told delegates. "That everything can be worked out by negotiation ... Democrats or Republicans, we [Americans] don't see it that way."

My response to Bolton is, how can you speak for anyone but yourself? You are one of the foremost proponents of bombing Iran, or North Korea, or Iraq. The only way you think U.S. foreign relations can be resolved is raining down cruise missiles on the peoples, countries and governments that don't agree with you.

Well there are other Americans besides yourself who believe war is not the answer. We just need to get past the Bush era (another 16months) before we can escape the danger and catastrophe that your militarism and bellicosity would bring us.

LET AHMADINEJAD SAY WHATEVER HE WANTS BUT NO WAR AGAINST IRAN

The New York Times runs a story today by Michael Slackman in Teheran on Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has recently arrived in New York City for the opening of the United Nations general assembly.

Writes Slackman:

"Since his inauguration two years ago, Mr. Ahmadinejad has grabbed headlines around the world, and in Iran, for outrageous statements that often have no more likelihood of being put into practice than his plan for women to attend soccer games. He has generated controversy in New York in recent days by asking to visit ground zero — a request that was denied — and his scheduled appearance at Columbia University has drawn protests.

"But it is because of his provocative remarks, like denying the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, that the United States and Europe have never known quite how to handle him. In demonizing Mr. Ahmadinejad, the West has served him well, elevating his status at home and in the region at a time when he is increasingly isolated politically because of his go-it-alone style and ineffective economic policies, according to Iranian politicians, officials and political experts."

Slackman goes on to report on the view of many political analysts in Iran that the U.S. pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad because it misunderstands the political system and apparatus in Iran.

"Unlike in the United States, in Iran the president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president’s power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up.

“The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad,” said an Iranian political scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “He is not that consequential.”

"That is not to say that Mr. Ahmadinejad is insignificant. He controls the mechanics of civil government, much the way a prime minister does in a state like Egypt, where the real power rests with the president. He manages the budget and has put like-minded people in positions around the country, from provincial governors to prosecutors. His base of support is the Basiji militia and elements of the Revolutionary Guards.

"But Mr. Ahmadinejad has not shown the same political acumen at home as he has in riling the West. Two of his ministers have quit, criticizing his stewardship of the state. The head of the central bank resigned. The chief judge criticized him for his management of the government. His promise to root out corruption and redistribute oil wealth has run up against entrenched interests."

So let Ahmadinejad express his outrageous opinions on Israel or whatever he wants. Mere words normally cannot do any harm, and they are not grounds for demonizing Iran and Iranians. No matter what Ahmadinejad says about the Holocaust or the government of Israel, words are not a casus belli for the United States or Israel to attack Iran or drop bombs on Iran that some neo-cons, including reputedly, VP. Cheney and John Bolton, would like to do.

WHO LOST IRAQ? CERTAINLY NOT THE PEACE MOVEMENT

I want to comment on an article entitled "Who Lost Iraq?" in Foreign Affairs by James Dobbins, former assistant secretary of state to both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Dobbins claims that the entire nation failed in Iraq. Not only George Bush and Dick Cheney, but also the Democrats for not insisting on a full debate about the merits of invading Iraq, and also the generals for not objecting to what many considered a foolish invasion until they were safely retired and receiving their pensions.

I disagree most adamantly with Dobbins when he claims Iraq is the fault of the entire nation. It was most certainly not the entire nation. Has Dobbins ever heard of the anti-war movement? How about all those marches for peace and against George Bush's reckless war even before the invasion in March 2003? How about the thousands and hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters, myself included, who participated in demonstrations against the war? And how about figures like Cindy Sheehan and the Dixie Chicks?

Don't try to let George Bush & Co. off the hook by saying that the War in Iraq was the fault of the "entire nation." We all know who is chiefly responsible - the war mongers led by Bush, Cheney and the other neo-cons, such as John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz.

JOHN BOLTON HOPES U.S. WILL ATTACK IRAN IN NEXT SIX MONTHS

Think Progress has video and verbatim words of John Bolton, neo-con and former despised U.N. Ambassador (by Bush recess appointment), hoping that the United States will strike Iran within the next six months.



This guy Bolton is always scheming for the U.S. to attack and bomb another country, like Iraq, Iran and North Korea. As reported by Think Progress from a video clip of Bolton appearing on Fox News, we get the following war-mongering:


HEMMER: One final step here, too, that I want to take with you. You told one of our producers earlier today that you don’t know if it’s true — and you’ve made that clear in our interview here, that you don’t know what the odds are or are not against that — but you hope it’s true. Why do you hope it’s true?
BOLTON: Absolutely. I hope Iran understands that we are very serious, that we are determined they are not going to get a nuclear weapon capability, and unless they change the strategic decision they’ve been pursuing for close to 20 years, that that’s something they better factor into their calculations.



Lest we forget: There has been zero evidence presented by Bush, Cheney or Bolton, or any of the other hangers-on that Iran has been supplying, arming or training any insurgent forces in Iraq. Secondly, there has been no evidence showing that Iran's nuclear ambitions have anything to do with obtaining a a nuclear weapon.

JOHN BOLTON WANTS TO BOMB IRAN

I want to point out a disturbing article in The Daily Telegraph today on John Bolton and his statements/views that the United States should attack Iran before it gets a nuclear bomb. Toby Harnden writes:

"Iran should be attacked before it develops nuclear weapons, America's former ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday.

"John Bolton, who still has close links to the Bush administration, told The Daily Telegraph that the European Union had to "get more serious" about Iran and recognise that its diplomatic attempts to halt Iran's enrichment programme had failed."

Harnden quotes Bolton as to the United States going it alone in attacking Iran:

"If we can't get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we've got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that's the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it's safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so. And if all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force."

I find it amazing that there are people like John Bolton out there who believe the way to solve all world problems is with guns and bombs. This is what makes the United States government, as it now exists with Bush and Cheney at the top, so dangerous to world peace and order. Has anyone ever told these guys that war planes can never provide the answer? Instead of making enmities that will last centuries, the United States should sit down and negotiate with countries like Iran, instead of constantly demonizing and bombing them.

JOHN BOLTON ON THE ISRAEL-LEBANON WAR

Raw Story pointed me to an interview that John Bolton, former U.N Ambassador gave to the BBC. In the interview, Bolton said he was "damned proud of what we did" (meaning the United States government) to prevent an early ceasefire in the war between Israel and Lebanon.

Recall that during the time of the conflict, the U.S. was supplying Israel with bunker-busting bombs, as well as cluster bombs. It turns out that the U.S. was resisting calls for a cease fire because according to the BBC,

" . . .US officials argued a ceasefire was insufficient and agreement was needed to address the underlying tensions and balance of power in the region."

Meanwhile the U.S. was happy having Israel attempt to destroy Hezbollah, as if a social and political organization could be destroyed by mere bombing.

"Mr Bolton, a controversial and blunt-speaking figure, said he was "damned proud of what we did" to prevent an early ceasefire."

The BBC's piece also indicates that other Arab states showed little sympathy for Hezbollah.

There were many not - how should I put it - resistant to the thought that the Israelis should thoroughly defeat Hezbollah, who... increasingly by Arab states were seen as an Iranian proxy," said UN special envoy Terje Roed Larsen.

This is understandable both from a religious and ethnic position. The Arab states for the most part are Sunni whereas Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon are Shia. Furthermore and equally important, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have populations that are primarily Arab. Iran's population is Persian, not Arab.

According to the BBC,

"More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and an unknown number of Hezbollah fighters were killed in the conflict. Israel lost 116 soldiers in the fighting, while 43 of its civilians were killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks."