NETANYAHU CLAIMS PALESTINIAN CHARGE OF ETHNIC CLEANSING IS WITHOUT BASIS, YET AT THE SAME TIME ACCUSES IRANIANS OF TRYING TO BUILD NUCLEAR BOMBS

For sheer exaggeration and hyperbole, Bibi Netanyahu has outdone Ahmadinejad of Iran and Morsi of Egypt.  Bibi claims the end is near.  Any nuclear bombs made by Iran will be equivalent to nuclear weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda.

Forget for a minute that Al Qaeda and the Shiites of Iran have nothing in common.  Al Qaeda is Sunni, Iranians are Shia.  Even more importantly, the Arabs of Al Qaeda despise the Iranians for being Persian, not Arabic.

Bibi's statements are inflammatory and wild.

Tom Clancy reports on Netanyahu's speech today in The Guardian online.  Writes Clancy:

"Netanyahu's bomb drawing was like a crude, almost a spoof, version of Colin Powell's notorious presentation of Iraqi WMD in 2003, but for all its crudity and questionable assumptions, it without doubt succeeded in distracting almost all attention from Mahmoud Abbas's plaintive description of 'ethnic cleansing' in occupied Palestinian territories. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has for decades been centre stage at the UN General Assembly, but not this year, in the febrile atmosphere around the Iranian nuclear programme."

Note that, as Tom Clancy reports, Mahmoud Abbas charges Israel and Netanyahu with "ethnic cleansing," and Bibi facilely dismisses the objection, according to The Daily Beast, "We won't solve our conflict with libelous speeches."  The irony is thick.  Bibi accuses Iran of making nuclear weapons, contrary to the evidence and the protestations of the Iranians.  Yet he tries to avoid the charge by the Palestinians by claiming that the objection is without basis.

THE WORLD MUST STOP AN ISRAEL ATTACK ON IRAN

I vociferously and strenuously object to the government of Iran arresting, harassing and punishing opponents of the Supreme Leader who believe that Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei stole the presidential election.

But I oppose even more any attempt by the government of Israel and its prime minister Netanyahu to bomb or attack or otherwise commit an act of war against Iran and its people.

But there are more and more people who believe that Netanyahu and other Israeli war mongers intend just that. Micah Zenko writes today in The Los Angeles Times that he believes Israel and Netanyahu are on the verge of an attack.

Writes Zenko who is a fellow in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations:

"But if diplomacy fails, the world should be prepared for an Israeli attack on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons facilities. As Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently acknowledged: "The window between a strike on Iran and their getting nuclear weapons is a pretty narrow window.""

An Israeli attack would have devastating and catastrophic effects on world peace at least for the next 500 years. And it would cast Israel as a outlaw and a paraiah among the world's nations, and doom it to go on its own for centuries. Reasonable people must stop such an attack.

HOUSE VIOLATES OBAMA'S POLICY OF NOT "MEDDLING" IN IRANIAN ELECTION

Think Progress reports on the resolution adopted by the House supporting the Iranian protesters who support Mir Hussein Moussavi.

Why must the House go on record as supporting the demonstrators in Iran? Iranians are not holding up signs asking for American "help." The resolution of the House is a good pretext for the Ahmadi forces to quell the peaceful demonstration with force. If it can be shown that Americans are "for" the anti-Ahmadi candidate, Moussavi, then I, if I were Iranian, would switch sides and support Ahmadinejad.

SOME OF GEORGE BUSH 'S CLOSEST ALLIES ARE TYRANTS AND DICTATORS WHO DENY HUMAN RIGHTS

George Bush is quick to condemn Barack Obama for saying that he would sit down with world leaders, especially with those with whom the previous U.S. government has had unpleasant relations. Bush warned that such meetings would lend an air of credibility and legitimacy to those leaders who abused their own people and denied them basic rights.

Here's the White House transcript of Bush's words.

"What's lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs? What's lost is it will send the wrong message. It will send a discouraging message to those who wonder whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners. It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity.

"I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting now is not the time -- not to talk with Raul Castro. He's nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island, and imprison people because of their beliefs. . . .

"Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, look at me, I'm now recognized by the President of the United States. "

But wait! Don't we have fotos of George Bush himself sitting down and hugging tyrants like Vladimir Putin, the King of Saudi Arabia who believes in 200 lashes for rape victims, Islam Karimov, the tyrannical president of Uzbekistan, and Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Take Musharraf. He dismissed the Pakistani Supreme Court, put the chief justice under house arrest, and sent the police out to beat up the peaceful Pakistani lawyers who were protesting Musharraf's disdain for the rule of law. Yet Bush considers him a friend and an ally.

So what gives with Bush's animosity to Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The answer is a hypocritical hostility towards those leaders who don't bow down before George W. Bush.

For the fotos, take a look at Think Progress here.

IRAN DENIES WEAPONS CHARGES SO BUSH & CHENEY & RICE DEMAND MORE SANCTIONS

The BBC reports today that Condoleeza Rice is calling for more sanctions against Iran. And this because Iran has not explained U.S. charges that it is coordinating a missile development program with a weaponization of nuclear materials.

As I indicated in a post yesterday, what can Iran do to disprove that it is developing nuclear warheads? The answer is Iran can do nothing. How do you disprove suspicions of an accuser who is riven with paranoia? The flimsy charges stem from a notebook smuggled out of Iran four years ago, showing drawings and schemas of what some American analysts claim are diagrams of weapons. But apart from this notebook of dubious provenance and ownership, there is no credible proof that the Iranian government is engaging in nuclear weapons creation or coordinating nuclear weapons with missile development.

Yet because Iran has not confessed to such a militaristic development, Bush and Cheney and Rice want to impose more economic sanctions on the people of Iran.

This is American foolishness. There is no good reason to penalize Iran on account of accusations and suspicions that lack a firm grounding in credible evidence. Instead of increasing hostility with Iran, I want the U.S. government to sit down and begin to create harmonious relations. I want to see Bush invite Ahmadinejad to Washington. I want to see the United States treat Iran as a sovereign nation worthy of respect and entitled to full diplomatic relations.

I harbor no realistic hopes that Bush will begin talks with Teheran. This is why we need Obama. Instead of solving its problems with guns and missiles and bombs, the U.S. needs a change of direction in its foreign policy. We need a Pax Obama.

ANOTHER DOSE OF HYPOCRISY FROM BUSH IN MIDDLE EAST

I don't understand how come Bush said nothing yesterday to Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak about Mubarak's trashing of democracy in Egypt where dissidents are thrown in jail and members of the political opposition are deemed "terrorists." Yet a few days before, Bush made that pompous speech in Abu Dhabi where he said that freedom and democracy were God's gift to mankind.

At the same time Bush rants against Iranian president Ahmadinejad and threats the Iranian nation with annihilation for sending five small speedboats out to investigate warships of the U.S. fleet in the Straits of Hormuz. Yet he is strangely reticent with the president of the Egyptian dictatorship. Remember Egypt is one of those nations where Bush illegally sent American prisoners to be "interrogated." He once boasted about this, saying, in effect, that they disappeared thereafter, and he was not unhappy about that.

Bush wants democracy where the outcome of the vote agrees with his pre-formed opinions. But he rejects democracy where the outcome does not suit him. Witness his rejection of the democratically Hamas government in Gaza. Bush calls Hamas a "terrorist organization." Another example - Bush's contempt for Hugo Chavez, democratically elected as president of Venezuela with more than 70% of the vote. Where the outcome does not suit Bush, he claims that either the election was rigged or that the elected government oppresses its people.

BUSH'S MISSION TRIES TO BUILD CASE AGAINST IRAN

The more George W. Bush tries to exacerbate the relations between the U.S. and Iran, the more the price of oil goes up. The more Bush accuses Iran of "provocations" and harboring desires to create nuclear weapons, the more the price of gold goes up. Gold is today about $910 per ounce. Oil is about $95 per bbl. If Bush has his way and initiates an attack against Iran, oil will reach $200 per bbl. and gold $2,000 per oz. Imagine what this will do to both the economy of the U.S. and the overall world economy. There would be a recession that would be the mother of all recessions.

Thanks to the gods so far that the Arabs, especially Saudi Arabia, seem to have more sense than Bush. King Abdullah invited Iranian president Ahmadinejad to attend the Haj, the pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. The long-time animosity between the Arabs and the Persians seems to have lost a lot of its heat and intensity by having Ahmadinejad come to Saudi Arabia as a Muslim pilgrim.

Bush's attempt to roil the waters between Middle Eastern countries against Iran seems to have gained no support save in Israel where the neo-cons like Olmert are engaged in an overt campaign to get Bush and Cheney to attack Iran. This must not be allowed to happen.

BUSH REFUSES TO DEFINE TORTURE, THREATENS WWIII AGAINST IRAN

Bush called another press conference today. He gives reporters only an hour or two notice. Why does he not give them more time? Because he does not want reporters prepared to ask him the tough questions.

Dan Froomkin reports in his White House Watch on washingtonpost.com that Bush was asked for a definition of torture.

"Newsweek's Richard Wolffe asked Bush exactly the question I would have asked:
"QUESTION: Thank you, sir. A simple question.
"BUSH: Yes?
"QUESTION: What's your definition of --
"BUSH: It may require a simple answer.
"(LAUGHTER)
"QUESTION: What's your definition of the word torture?
"BUSH: Of what?
"QUESTION: The word torture, what's your definition?
"BUSH: That's defined in U.S. law, and we don't torture.
"QUESTION: Can you give me your version of it, sir?
"BUSH: No. Whatever the law says."
Bush has consistently refused to say what he means when he says "we don't torture," rendering the phrase essentially meaningless. Saying "whatever the law says" doesn't clear things up at all. It just means that if we do it, his lawyers have found a way not to call it torture."


Also Bush continues to threaten Iran. Now he threatens World War III. Again Dan Froomkin reports:

"For the first time in public, Bush warned of the risk of "World War III" if Iran gets nuclear weapons.

"I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace. It would -- this is -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. And I take this very -- I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously."

Bush seems intent in attacking Iran before he leaves office. Tell me Mr. Bush, where has an Iranian leader announced that he wants to destroy Israel? Secondly, even if Mr. Ahmadinejad had said rather that Israel (meaning its government) should not exist, why are mere words of the Iranian leader sufficient to start a war against Iran and rain bombs and missiles down upon the Iranians? The Iranians have not started wars against their neighbors or invaded other countries. Only the U.S. has done both of these on multiple occasions within the past 50 years. Think of Panama, Granada, Korea, VietNam, Iraq.

WHY NO U.S. DELEGATION TO HEAR IRANIAN AHMADINEJAD?

I hope to post in the near future. I am still travelling. Access to the net is difficult for me these days. But I am following closely the situation at the U.N. with Iranian president Ahmadinejsad and his speech to the general assembly. What I dont get is why the U.S. delegation was not present for the speech. Instead of bombing Iran let's talk with them.

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.

FORTHCOMING VISIT OF IRANIAN AHMADINEJAD TO BAGHDAD UPSETS U.S.

Juan Cole points me to this important story in Gulf News by Basil Adas on a forthcoming visit by Iranian president Ahmadinejad to Baghdad. Perhaps a purpose of Bush's visit to Iraq today is to convince Al Maliki not to host the Iranian president disliked by Bush. Apparently, Ahmadinejad would like to reciprocate Maliki's recent visit to Teheran by meeting Maliki in Baghdad.

Writes Adas in Gulf News:

"Sources in Dawa Party, headed by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, revealed that Americans have notified Al Maliki about their reservations towards Ahmadinejad's expected visit."

One of the intended consequences of this forthcoming meeting will be to show the Americans that Iraq is a sovereign state that conducts foreign policy on its own initiatives, and not a mere province of the United States. Also for Iran, it is a way to throw sand in the eyes of Bush.

Adas reports:

"Sattar Al Khalidi, a researcher in Iranian affairs, told Gulf News: "Al Maliki's recent visit to Iran was supposed to touch upon all matters concerning the two countries but there is an urgent Iranian desire for Ahmadinejad's visit to Baghdad and I think they seek to provoke Americans out of it. As for some elements in Iraqi government, they believe that Ahmadinejad's visit is a moral achievement of Al Maliki's government apart from being an irritation to the Americans.""

U.S. HUMILIATES EIGHT IRANIANS - THEN ADMITS IT WAS MISTAKE

So now it appears that the U.S. military made a "mistake" when it arrested eight Iranians in Baghdad yesterday for being in the company of seven Iraqis whom the U.S. said were carrying three small arms without permits. U.S. soldiers followed the Iranians into their hotel and then led them out blindfolded and handcuffed.

Why would the U.S. blindfold and handcuff suspects against whom there were no charges? Or why did the U.S. arrest these eight Iranians in the first place? What did they do wrong that the U.S. would storm into their hotel and lead them out blindfolded? This incident is sure to raise tensions between Washington and Teheran, and Teheran has reason to take offense.

It turns out that all eight Iranians had passports, and two of the eight had diplomatic credentials. The U.S. should have ascertained this fact before leading them out as if they were war criminals.

What this shows is that Bush & Co. hate all Iranians in Iraq, even those like the eight who are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. Some like president Ahmadinejad say that Iran has nothing to fear - the U.S. is now incapable of mounting an attack. I am not so sure, given the reckless and war-mongering disposition of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

BUSH/CHENEY TO LABEL IRAN'S REVOLUTIONARY GUARD "TERRORIST ORGANIZATION"

Robin Wright writes in The Washington Post that Bush/Cheney will designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "specially designated global terrorist."

This is a dumb move that may be the predecessor to disastrous military action against Iran. Instead of applying pressure, let's sit down with the Iranians and work things out. There is no reason why Bush must treat Iran and Iranians as the "enemy." The U.S. should work diplomatically to make Iran a friend and an ally.

Some would launch military strikes against Iran for what President Ahmadinejad said against Israel and Jews, doubting the Holocaust. But calm down. These are only words. Iran has not taken any military action against Israel. Hezbollah and Hamas do not constitute Iran. Lebanon is not Iran. Syria is not Iran.

Instead of provoking Iran and starting another Mid-East war, let's put down our swords and start to talk.

Wright includes criticisms similar to my own of the Bush/Cheney designation, such as that of analyst Joseph Cirincione at the Center for American Progress:

"The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."

"Such sanctions can work only alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added.

""Sanctions can serve as a prod, but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change.""

KARZAI MEETS WITH AHMADINEJAD IN KABUL

Today there was a meeting between President Karzai of Afghanistan and President Ahmadinejad of Iran. Bush's saying he needs to have a heart to heart with Karzai about Iran's intentions has thankfully been dismissed.

Genuine thanks to Karzai for rejecting Bush/Cheney's hard line towards the Iranians. After so much bluster from Bush on the evil regime in Teheran and how the Iranian people should overthrow their government, Karzai's meeting with Ahmadinejad goes a long way to defuse the drums of war incessantly generated by Washington.


Robert Tait in The Guardian from London describes the meeting:

"Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, audaciously signalled his determination to counter US global power today by meeting his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai, in open defiance of Washington's wishes.


"Mr Ahmadinejad led a high-ranking Iranian delegation to Kabul in a demonstration of growing Iranian influence in Afghanistan, where the US, Britain and other western powers are engaged in a bitter struggle with the Taliban.


"The visit - Mr Ahmadinejad's first to Afghanistan - was tailor-made to provoke alarm within the Bush administration, which accuses Tehran of destabilising its efforts while claiming that the Taliban is being armed with Iranian weapons. Iran, which is mainly Shia, denies helping the Taliban, whose puritanical Sunni ideology it has condemned."

The last sentence is illuminating. The U.S. claim made by Bush/Cheney is that Iran is arming all of the "enemies" of the United States, including the Taliban in Afghanistan. This claim is most ridiculous and ludicrous on its very face. Iran is mostly Shia muslim. The Taliban are fanatical Sunnis. Are we to believe that Iran is sending arms and aid to a group that tries to kill Shias as a matter of religious doctrine?

Writes Tait:

"Addressing a joint White House press conference last week, Mr Bush said: "I would be very cautious about whether or not the Iranian influence in Afghanistan is a positive force." Mr Karzai flatly contradicted him by describing Iran as "a helper and a solution."

"Departing from Tehran's Mehrabad airport, Mr Ahmadinejad paved the way to further deepen the disagreement by saying today's talks would cover arrangements for establishing Afghanistan's security and independence.


"Describing Iran and Afghanistan as "two brother nations with common interests, cultures and histories", he told reporters: "The present condition of the region demands more exchange and negotiations between Tehran and Kabul. In this trip economic cooperation, especially over Iran's participation in Afghan development plans, will be discussed.""

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.

OBAMA IS RIGHT IN EMPHASIZING TALK RATHER THAN WAR

Steve Clemons at The Washington Note writes today on the disagreement between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the question of dealing with those leaders and regimes that Republicans like to call "enemies," for example, President Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Sanchez of Venezuela.

Steve says exactly the right things. We should praise Obama for being willing to break the current Bush policy of refusing to talk or negotiate with those regimes and leaders who disagree with Bush or U.S. policies and actions. Bush believes that anyone who disagrees with him is "evil" and an "enemy." Obama believes that the U.S. should deal with such leaders and discuss differences. After all, talking and diplomacy never killed anyone.

Hillary is too politically calculating to come right out and agree with Barack. She says she would be resistant to engage in talk and diplomacy until it was clear these antagonistic world leaders were not simply using her for propaganda purposes. But then she adds she would elevate diplomacy to a new higher level.

Obama is correct in calling her "Bush-lite." Many in the U.S., especially Republicans, think that the only way to solve world disagreements is through waging war and dropping bombs. Hillary needs to admit that this is the wrong approach, just as she still needs to admit she made a horrible mistake in voting for the AUMF, the authorization for Bush to use military force in Iraq.