AHMADINEJAD CALLS FOR TOTAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, CONDEMNS NUCLEAR WEAPONS HELD BY U.S. & ISRAEL

At Iran's nuclear summit today in Tehran, Pres. Ahmadinejad called for an end to all nuclear weapons including those possessed by the U.S. and Israel. He also said no nation (i.e., the U.S.) should threaten another (Iran) with nuclear weapons. He said that talks on nuclear weapons should from now on be controlled by nations that don't have nuclear weapons. Can Pres. Obama or anyone disagree with him?

Thomas Erdbrink reports today in The Washington Post on the Iranian conference.

Writes Erdbrink:

"Ahmadinejad took particular aim at President Obama's announcement this month of a new U.S. policy that does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea.

""Threatening with nuclear weapons only dishonored the American government officials and more fully exposed their inhumane and aggressive policies," he said."

Ayatollah Khamanei also sent a message to the attendees, reports Erdbrink:

"In a statement to the Tehran conference, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the top political and religious authority in the predominantly Shiite state, reiterated a fatwa, or religious edict, he had issued earlier against the use of nuclear weapons. He called the United States' nuclear weapons "tools of terror and intimidation."

"Fatwas are binding only on followers of the religious authority that issues them and can be changed if the situation requires, religious experts here say."

Ahmadinejad also complained about the veto power wielded exclusively by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. He said that each U.N. member should also be able to block or veto proposals that are unfair.

Erdbrink writes:

"Taking direct issue with the consensus reached in Washington to take steps to reduce the world's stock of nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad called for more rigorous action.

"He demanded an end to what he called the United States' "blind support" for Israel, which he said has 200 atomic warheads yet has not signed a nonproliferation treaty. Ahmadinejad also called for veto power for all members of the United Nations, a right now accorded only to the five permanent members of the Security Council.

"Talks on nuclear disarmament should from now on be controlled by states that do not have atomic weapons, Ahmadinejad said, adding, "The involvement of the government of America will prevent any new treaty from being fair.""

STOP THREATENING IRAN WITH SANCTIONS

The purpose of proposed American sanctions on Iran is to prevent Iran from exercising independent political power in the Middle East. So sanctions try to prevent Iran from developing refined gasoline plants. The U.S. cannot stand a country that has a sphere of influence independent of American interests. The U.S. like the school bully tries to maintain its military and political hegemony.

Julian Borger and Ewan Mac Askill write in today's The Guardian:

"The US had originally sought broad sanctions against Iran's energy sector. Russia and China have said the measures are targeted against individuals and institutions directly linked with Iran's nuclear and missile programme.

"Three rounds of sanctions have already been imposed on Iran. The US claims Tehran is covertly seeking nuclear weapon capability, while Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says the country's nuclear industry is for peaceful power generation."

I say, stop this foolish talk of sanctions on Iran and Iranians. For one thing, sanctions hurt only the ordinary people. Sanctions deny gasoline, medicine, food imports and other necessities of life. Sanctions never work. Consider the harsh sanctions on the Cuban people over the last 30 years. All sanctions do is create animosity and hatred towards the U.S. and Americans.

Second. Sanctions on Iran are hypocritical. Why can't Iran develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes? The U.S. government claims that Iran is developing nuclear weapons but to date there has been no credible evidence showing that this is so. Yet the U.S. and Obama don't apply sanctions on those nations with proven nuclear bombs in their arsenals. Consider Israel, China, Pakistan, India, France, Great Britain, Russia and the U.S. itself. So why should the U.S. punish Iran for nuclear weapons it does not have, yet not punish all the rest?

Obama, stop all this talk of sanctions, instead commit the U.S. to diplomacy. You claim that Ayatollah Khamanei did not respond to your letter for negotiation. But neither did you acknowledge Pres. Ahmadinejad's congratulatory letter to you personally upon your political victory in 2008.

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.

IRAN'S LEADER RESPONDS TO OBAMA'S VIDEO

I have complaints against The Washington Post for its headline on a story by Ali Akbar Dareini about Ayatollay Khamanei's response to Barack Obama's video message. The WashPo's headline is," Iran's supreme leader dismisses Obama overtures."

I attribute this headline to bias and prejudice of the editors at WashPo against Iran and Iranian leaders. Tell the world that Iran is not willing to compromise or engage in serious negotiation and diplomacy. This sets the world (and Americans) up for an attack against Iran. First demonize Iranians, this makes it easier to justify bombing and killing them.

But read the article by Dareini carefully:

"Khamenei enumerated a long list of Iranian grievances against the United States over the past 30 years and said the U.S. was still interfering in Iranian affairs.

"He mentioned U.S. sanctions against Iran, U.S. support for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during his 1980-88 war against Iran and the downing of an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf in 1988.

"He also accused the U.S. of provoking ethnic tension in Iran and said Washington's accusations that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons are a sign of U.S. hostility. Iran says its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes, like energy production, not for building weapons.

"Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged," Khamenei said.

"Khamenei, wearing a black turban and dark robes, said America was hated around the world for its arrogance, as the crowd chanted "Death to America."

"Prominent political analyst Saeed Leilaz said Khamenei's comments did not amount to a rejection of better ties with the Obama administration. Rather, Iran's current hard-line leaders need to publicly maintain some degree of anti-U.S. rhetoric to bolster their own position, especially with their conservative base, he said."

Khamenei and Iranians have legitimate grievances against the U.S. Remember it was Eisenhower and the U.S. that toppled an Iranian elected government in 1953 because of desires to take control over Iranian oil production. So the C.I.A. overthrew Mossadegh and replaced him with the Shah. Iranians have not forgotten or forgiven Americans for doing this. Furthermore, it was the U.S. Navy that shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988, killing dozens of Iranians.

Khamenie wants the U.S. to apologize and this is what Obama should do next. Americans can't expect Iranians and their leaders simply to forget about the downing of the Iranian airliner and the overthrow of an Iranian democratic government without having the U.S. admit that it was wrong on these and other actions aimed against Iran.

The WashPo is wrong to run the headline that Iran dismisses Obama's message. This is only the first step for both the U.S. and Iran. But Obama's message is a first step in the right direction, and Khamenei's response does not dismiss but really points forward to the direction that rapprochement requires.

U.S. BLAMED FOR SAMARRA MOSQUE DESTRUCTION

Take a look at this significant report by Prof. Juan Cole from yesterday about Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran blaming a whole bunch of people for the bombing of the holy Shia shrine at Samarra, including the United States occupiers.

"Iran's Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khamenei, managed to blame the Iraqi Baath Party, the Wahhabi sect of Islam, the Salafi Jihadi radicals among Sunnis, and the United States, jointly for the blowing up of the minarets at the al-Askariya Shrine in Samarra. The shrine is among the holiest sites for the Shiite branch of Islam. Iran is the largest Shiite country, with 90% or so of its 70 million people adhering to it.

"Khamenei is both the head of the Iranian state and the head of Iranian Shiism, and is recognized as authoritative by some Shiites outside Iran, especially the Hizbullah Party of south Lebanon. Most non-Iranian Shiites follow instead Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani of Najaf, who has called for calm. But Khamenei has a big megaphone among Shiites.


"His laying of responsibility for the bombing at the feet of the US will increase anti-American hatred in the Shiite world. (Emphasis added). Khamenei's heated and irrational rhetoric, positing a vast conspiracy among various groups that hate one another, is typical of the hardliners in Iran, but it is my impression that in recent months he has tended to leave the wilder talk to his rival Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi and his protege, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. I don't think Khamenei's remarks on this matter are a good sign.

Was this whole mess predicted before Bush started the War on Iraq in March 2003? If Bush's father refused to invade Iraq during the First Gulf War because of the Pandora's Box of occupying an Islamic country as is Iraq, how could Bush Jr. be so rash as to go against his father's policy? Why is the United States subject to the foolishness of W? How did he get re-elected in 2004? How can he still have the support of some 60% of the Republicans in latest surveys?

MESSAGE TO BLAIR AND BUSH: NO WAR WITH IRAN

Instead of Tony Blair threatening Iran with "other means" and George Bush ordering war games in the Persian Gulf bordering Iran's southern border, in response to the Iranians' seizure of 15 British marines, these two great western world leaders should try diplomacy and negotiation. How about Mr. Blair placing a simple phone call to Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and asking for a meeting between the leaders of Iran and the U.K.? How about Mr. Bush arranging for a visit to Teheran to settle differences, just as Mr. Nixon travelled to China to meet Mao Tse Dung and Chou En Lai? Instead of treating Iran as an "enemy," the U.S. and U.K. should disabuse themselves of the urge to bomb Iranian cities and sit down and work things out as adults.