JIM CRAMER AND MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD BOTH AGREE: WORLD NEEDS TO SWITCH TO NATURAL GAS

Loud-mouthed Jim Cramer of CNBC often has moments of intelligent lucidity, such as his promotion of the virtues of natural gas: cheap, plentiful and clean-burning. So when Exxon recently made an offer to take over XTO, a natural gas driller, Cramer thought it was a smart move.

I bet Cramer would be surprised to find that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad agrees with him on the desirability of natural gas as one step in curbing man-made green houses gasses and global warming.

Juan Cole in his Informed Comment quotes Ahmadinejad's speech to the U.N. assembly in Copenhagen in a translation by the USG Open Source Center.

Ahmadinejad says:

"Every year millions of people lose their lives as a result of pollution, and skin and respiratory illnesses are on the increase. If greenhouse-gases continue to increase at the present speed, they will reach twice the level of gases before industrialization. In other words, instead of a reduction of 50 per cent, they will increase by 50 per cent and will pose a real challenge to the natural environment."

Ahmadinejad offers several concrete solutions, including ending the purposeless war in Afghanistan and spending the billions of dollars on Afghanistan's infrastructure and economic development:

"The so-called industrialized countries should fulfill their international commitments. At the same time, clear and feasible mechanisms should be drawn up which bring the disobedient governments and economic sectors under control and obligates them to pay fines to the countries which have experienced a loss. It has been said that more than 250 billion dollars has been spent on the expedition to Afghanistan and around 1,000 billion dollars has been the cost of the war in Iraq. Wouldn't 50 billion dollars spent on Afghanistan's infrastructure and economic development have turned this country into a developed country? And wouldn't 200 billion dollars on developing new technology and suitable use of fossil fuel have returned the pollution level to the period before industrialization?"

Ahmadinejad says that Iran is pursuing reduction of green-house gasses and global warming on different levels:

"And to this end the government has focused on the following plans:

- Reduction in energy consumption through improving standards in industries and productions,

- The management of consumption and elimination of energy subsidies in a planned and scheduled program,

- Extensive conversion of vehicles, industries and power plant to run on gas,

- Provision of access to natural gas for more than 90 per cent of cities and many villages,

- Extensive research on the use of clean energy including wind, solar, as well as plans for the production of nuclear fuel and 20,000 mw nuclear electricity."

Note Ahmadinejad's tress on natural gas. As I said above, Jim Cramer would love these proposals. And rightly so.

ISRAEL CLAIMS THAT IRAN IS "EXTREME ENEMY OF PEACE"

This is getting ridiculous. The Netanyahu government in Israel is accusing the Palestinians of talking with "extreme enemies of peace" because a Palestinian official met with the Iranian Foreign Minister.

The BBC reports:

"Israel has accused a senior Palestinian official of meeting "the extreme enemies of peace" after he held talks with Iran's foreign minister."

Israel's response follows the classic treatment of "enemies." First demonize them, then attack them.

Israel's government seems to have the George W. Bush sickness: refuse to talk or have any dialog with those countries that have insulted you or said bad things about the Holocaust.

Just as Bush would not have diplomatic relations with Hugo Chavez and Venezuela because Chavez called him the devil, so it seems that Israel will have nothing to do with Iran or even establish talks with the Iranian government because Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the holocaust a figment of the imagination or that the government of Israel should be wiped off the map.

Because of these words, however harsh and intemperate not to say foolish, Israel now deems Iran an "extreme enemy of peace."

George Bush attacked Iraq because he claimed Iraq was a threat to world peace. It turned out that it was Bush who was the genuine threat. I would argue that it is the same with Israel. It terms Iran an extreme enemy of peace but I see Israel as the great destabilizer in the Middle East when it comes to peace. Just look at the Israeli three-week war against Gaza this past January, or the cruel Israeli month-long military campaign against Lebanon several years ago that left a thirty-mile swath in southern Lebanon filled with unexploded cluster bombs.

LET IRANIANS TAKE CARE OF AHMADINEJAD, U.S. SHOULD NOT INTERVENE

Anita Ghazarian writes on Facebook:

"Obama is doing exactly THE RIGHT THING: KEEPING QUIET.

"The reason Iranians have had such negative feelings about Iran and England is because of a history of colonization/ neocolonization and meddling in their affairs, deposing their democratic gov in 1953 and installing a puppet Shah. Should the West take sides, they will be dooming those they wish to help by marking them as agents of foreign influence& mere puppets and they will try to unite the country against a treacherous outsider power mongering. WE MUST STAY OUT OF IT.

""Given Iran's well-known allergy to foreign meddling--and the hardliners' adept ability to justify their harsh repression by blaming alleged foreign plots--the Obama administration is doing exactly the right thing. Just as the absolute worst thing the US government could have done in the days leading up to the elections was impose new sanctions to "cripple" Iran's economy, the worst thing the administration could do now is take sides in the political infighting."

I fully agree with Anita Ghazarian's post today on the importance of not meddling in the latest developments in Iran. Iran has too long suffered from colonialist interference and meddling. Iranians are well able to take care of the problem by themselves without any interference by Obama, Brown, or the other "great powers."

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 MEAN PEOPLE DENY THE HOLOCAUST, DON'T KILL THEM FOR SAYING IT

Michael Gerson claims in his op-ed in today's The Washington Post that anti-Israel types in the Middle East deny the Holocaust so as to deny legitimacy to Israel itself. However, he himself repudiates this connection:

"This conception of Israel's history is itself a distortion. The Holocaust is important to Israeli identity; it is not identical to Israeli identity. Zionism existed well before the European genocide. The ties between Jews and the land of Israel reach back for millennia. Israel does not exist merely because of Holocaust guilt. It exists because of its own tenacity, sense of purpose and national success."

I agree with Gerson that Israel exists apart from the historical fact of the Holocaust. Six million Jews died in WWI, most at the hands of the Nazis and Soviets. But Israel would exist whether or not the Holocaust took place.

For this reason, I strongly disagree with those who would kill anyone who dares to utter the falsehood that the Holocaust was made up. So Ahmadinejad of Iran denies the Holocaust, let's bomb and kill Iranians. I object to this view, seemingly adopted by some Zionists such as Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman, and even by some of my friends and acquaintances.

Attacking and killing a person who denies the Holocaust is like beating up the kid who calls your mother a slut. How about some free speech? I don't care what someone SAYS, let him say it. Don't kill him because of it, no, not even if he denies the Holocaust.

NO SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN

Stop the rush to apply U.S. sanctions against Iran.

Politico reports in a story by David S. Cloud that there is a move among some Democrats in Congress to press Obama to quickly apply sanctions on Iran.

I say that the Democrats who call for more Iran sanctions are acting on behalf of Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman as well as for AIPAC, and are not acting in the interest of the United States or of world peace.

I voted for Obama to put an end to the U.S. policy of mounting a military attack against any country or any one who disagrees with any U.S. policy. Apparently there are also Democrats who agree with war mongering Republicans that the best way to take care of Iran is with U.S. war planes, bombs and tanks. I call upon Obama to resist these militaristic calls to punish Iran and the Iranian people.

Obama needs to sit down with president Ahmadinejad in a dialog of respect and negotiation. And he forcefully needs to confront the war makers in both Israel and the U.S. who want nothing else than to kill anyone who says that Israel is cruel and racist, its inhumane and criminal military campaign against the Palestinians in Gaza notwithstanding.

ISRAEL'S BULLDOZERS DESTROY ARAB HOMES IN EAST JERUSALEM

I heard a BBC Radio News report this afternoon that Israel sent bulldozers to East Jerusalem to take down Arab homes that Israel claims were built without proper permits. The BBC interviewed one lady surrounded by her five sobbing children after they were given five minutes to leave and their home was demolished. (Sorry I don't have a link to provide, but I will try to obtain one in the next few hours.)

Can we have a better example of "ethnic cleansing"? The United States decided to go into Bosnia and Serbia to prevent the rampant inhumane ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. But American politicians seem steadfast in their support of Israel, no matter how cruel or racist Israel appears and no matter how much ethnic cleansing Israel engages in.

Remember that a few days ago at a United Nations conference on racism, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad termed Israel "cruel and racist," and delegations from several European countries made a show of walking out during the speech. Israel's action in destroying homes belonging to Arabs in East Jerusalem is a good example of its cruelty towards Arabs and its embedded racism. Israel just does not want Arabs living in a part of Israel that it believes Jews should populate alone. Given that belief, Arab children put out of their homes peremptorily and families cruelly deprived of their possessions without due and fair process means nothing to the Israeli government.

STOP RUSH TO WAR AGAINST IRAN

There were several troubling developments regarding prejudice against Iran and its nuclear development program.

One was a letter published in today's The New York Times by Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, calling Iran the "greatest evil in the modern world." Foxman seems to be one of those many (not all) rabid Zionists here in the U.S. who would like nothing better than provoke the U.S. attack Iran, bomb its nuclear facilities, and in the process, kill tens of thousands of Iranians.

And what caused Foxman's latest demonization of Iran? Ahmadinejad called Israel "cruel and racist" for its actions in the three-week attack on Palestinians in Gaza this past January. Is there any doubt that Israel and its IDF shot and bombed civilians, closed borders to prevent civilians fleeing the fighting, bombed homes, mosques, schools, and yes, even the United Nations food storage center? Even today, Israel will not permit Palestinians to obtain construction materials to re-build, with the result that hundreds if not thousands of Palestinian families are still without proper shelter.

Second. Hillary Clinton, testifying before a House Committee, said that the U.S. would impose "crippling" sanctions on Iran unless it came to some acceptable agreement about its nuclear program. Viola Gienger writes for Bloomberg on Clinton's statements:

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. effort to reach out to Iran will be coupled with the threat of “crippling” sanctions should the regime in Tehran rebuff diplomacy to curb its nuclear program."

Remember this is the same Hillary Clinton who said during the campaign that she as president would "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. We need Barack Obama to put an end to Clinton's intemperate and bellicose language. In truth, the danger comes not from Iran attacking Israel, but just the other way around. The U.S. cannot permit or allow Israel to attack Iran.

Americans need to stop thinking of other countries having different languages and cultures and religions as "enemies." The U.S. should maintain friendly relations with all countries, including Iran, North Korea and Venezuela, to name but a few. Obama needs to make sure all his officers and cabinet members put this principle of foreign policy into place and observe it.

AHMADINEJAD CALLS ISRAEL CRUEL AND RACIST

I don't understand the walk-out and protest by several country delegations today during the talk by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the United Nations Conference on Racism. What caused the walk-out was when Ahmadinejad said that Israel was cruel and racist. Can anyone seriously disagree with this statement?

As to being cruel, look at Israel's actions in the three-week attack on Gaza this past January. The shooting of women, the killing of children, the closing of Israel/Gaza crossing points with the result that civilians in Gaza could not flee the bombing and the shelling. The dropping of white phosphorous bombs. The destruction of homes, schools, mosques and even police stations.

As to being racist, Israel seems to want to kill all Palestinians and rid itself of the problem of how to allow non-Jews to live and work within its borders. Consider that Israel will not allow any construction materials into Gaza. This means that the Palestinians whose homes were bombed and destroyed by Israeli war planes are living out in the open or in tents or in their ruined houses. One could reason that Israel wants to get rid of all Palestinians.

So Ahmadinejad calls Israel cruel and racist. Does this allow the hawks and neo-cons in Israel to call for war upon Iran? That's the next call we are going to hear - the call to bomb Teheran, kill all Iranians and establish Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

BIAS IN NEWS REPORTING ABOUT IRAN

Here is text of an email I sent to Martin Savidge and World Focus, the new internationally centered news broadcast. I take objection to the seemingly biased attitude of World Focus towards Iran.

I watch World Focus almost every night and enjoy your international news. However, I find your treatment of stories about Iran to be biased in favor of the neo-con Bush/Cheney approach of solving all international problems by shooting missiles and dropping bombs.

Why did you need to ask your NYT guest the other night whether "all options are still on the table," implying that the US would be justified in starting a war with Iran?

How about giving Ahmadinejad some credit for establishing closer relationships with Bolivia and Venezuela?

Why not talk about Israel having nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT instead of implying that Iran wants to develop nuclear technology for purposes of developing nuclear bombs?

OBAMA'S COMMENTS ON IRAN SUPPORTING "TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS" UNFORTUNATE AND UNNECESSARY

When Barack Obama gave his first news conference last Friday, he was asked about a letter sent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad congratulating the U.S. president-elect. Obama said he would study the letter and respond "appropriately."

But why did Obama need to add that Iran must stop "supporting terrorists?" And why did he also think it necessary to say that the U.S. would never let Iran obtain nuclear weapons?

This is the same old Bush/Cheney bellicose blustering about Iran. Instead of engaging Iran and its leaders with diplomacy and respect, Bush/Cheney and now Obama somehow think they must oppose Iran's legitimate quest for nuclear technology. Iran has said many times it has no interest in nuclear weapons. Why must Obama now contradict them when there is no credible evidence to the contrary?

And as far as Iran's support for "terrorists," I assume Obama refers to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Is Hezbollah a "terrorist organization?" Or is it really an indigenous Lebanese social/economic/military organization that represents an insurgency against Israel and its restrictive policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Just because the U.S. government has labeled it a terrorist organization, following the lead of Israel, this does not ipso facto mean that Hezbollah is engaged in "terrorism." What is terrorism to Israel may be liberation insurgency to the majority of Lebanese.

IRANIAN AHMADINEJAD CONGRATULATES OBAMA

The BBC reports that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sent official congratulations to Barack Obama upon his presidential election victory. This is not insignificant.

According to the BBC, Ahmadinejad wrote:

""As you know the opportunities provided by the Almighty God, which can be used for elevation of nations, or God forbid, for their collapse, are transient," the message continued.

""I hope you will prefer real public interests and justice to the never-ending demands of a selfish minority and seize the opportunity to serve people so that you will be remembered with high esteem," it said, according to the English language website of Irna.

"Mr Ahmadinejad said Americans expected the government to "rectify the critical situation facing the US, restore lost reputation as well as their hope and spirit, fully respect human rights and strengthen family foundations".

"He continued: "Other nations also expect war-oriented policies, occupation, bullying, contempt of nations and imposing discriminatory policies on them to be replaced by the ones advocating justice, respect for human rights, friendship and non-interference in other countries' internal affairs.

""They also want US intervention to be limited to its [own] borders, especially in the Middle East. It is highly expected to reverse the unfair attitude towards restoring the rights of the Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghans.

""The great nation of Iran welcomes basic and fair changes in US policies and conducts, especially in the region," President Ahmadinejad said. "

Obama should not ignore this Iranian overture. The U.S. has discarded and disregarded too many Iranian initiatives in the past.

Obama should acknowledge the Iranian letter and respond that he looks forward to continued discussion between the U.S. and Iran in the near future.