ISRAELI OFFICIALS WARN AGAINST OBAMA CONDUCTING TALKS WITH IRAN

It is curious that in the last few days before president-elect Obama's news conference and his statements on Iran, two high-ranking officials from Israel thought it necessary to come out and warn Obama about establishing talks with Iran and its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Jerusalem Post reports that Foreign Minister Tzipy Livni offered that Obama's acceptance of talks with Iran would show "weakness."

"US President-elect Barack Obama should not talk to Iran just yet, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Thursday, warning that such dialogue could project "weakness."
"We need to fight extremism," Livni said as she stood next to visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a joint press conference in the home of the American ambassador to Israel.. "We need to continue the pressure on Iran and I believe that the idea of continuing the pressure comes with more intense and effective sanctions on the Iranians."
Although she described Obama's election as "a source of inspiration to millions around the world," and congratulated him on his "historic victory," her comments marked a first sign of disagreement with the incoming American administration. Obama has stated a willingness to talk to Iran about its nuclear program without condition, telling The Jerusalem Post in July that he would engage "in tough, direct talks" with Teheran."

And Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said it would allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear weapons behind the pretense of engaging in diplomatic talks. Tovah Lazaroff reports for The Jerusalem Post:

"Israel is not ruling out any option when it comes to dealing with Iran's nuclear program, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday.

"Following a meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Jerusalem, Barak said he told her that Israel is "not taking any option off the table, and we don't recommend that others take any option off the table," stressing, "We mean what we say."

"Barak insisted that Iran was continuing to "trick the world" in negotiations over the monitoring of its nuclear activities. "

The question is why we are getting all of these anti-Iranian statements from Israeli officials at this time.

I though that Barack Obama's statement on Iran at his news conference was bellicose enough with the push of the Israelis. Obama said he would never allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and that furthermore, Iran should stop giving aid to "terrorists."

By "terrorists," I assume Obama meant Hezbollah in Lebanon. If so, Obama is no better than George W. Bush in a simplistic approach to Hezbollah and the Shiite Muslims spread throughout the Middle East. Israel calls Hezbollah a terrorist group, so does the United States. But it is not clear that Hezbollah is anything more than a political entity infused with Shiite Islam that fights against Israel for land and civil rights. In other words, Hezbollah is an insurgency against the Israelis.

And as far as Iran's approach to nuclear weapons, Iranian leaders claim they have no desire to make nuclear weapons, and certainly, the IAEA has found no evidence to the contrary. All statements by Israel and Bush about Iran's desire for nuclear weapons is based on supposition and conjecture.

The question then is, would Obama allow Israel to attack Iran on the basis of conjecture? Obama's statements don't seem to reassure me on this important question.

OBAMA NEEDED MORE PREPARATION FOR DEBATE, ALWAYS ON DEFENSIVE, FAILS TO WHACK MC CAIN ON CIA TORTURE, GEORGIA OR WAR WITHOUT END

The New York Times reports in today's paper that after John McCain said that he was breaking off his campaign to return to D.C. for the bail-out talks and that he wanted to cancel last night's debate, Barack Obama too stopped preparing for the debate. Apparently, the Obama camp had set up an elaborate training site in Florida with stand-ins for the moderator Jim Lehrer and for McCain. Maybe this is what McCain's transparent ploy had in mind.

Obama last night seemed flat and not well-prepared. For example, he said nothing to contradict McCain's claim that he always opposed torture in interrogations even though McCain sided with Bush in voting to allow the CIA to continue that abominable practice.

Obama failed to point out that it was Georgia and Saakashvili who started the Russian/Georgian war by lobbing lethal shells and missiles at the mostly Russian civilian population in South Ossetia. And he stayed mute even when McCain derided him for saying at the beginning of the conflict that both sides need to exercise restraint.

Obama said nothing when McCain said he was naive for saying that he would have talks with world leaders such as Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (whose pronunciation McCain slaughtered along with Ahmadinejad of Iran) and Cuba's Raul Castro.

Obama was too laid back, too placid, too boring. I attribute all of these failings to his suspension of debate preparation. If I was a campaign adviser, I would read him the riot act.

DIPLOMACY WITH IRAN, NOT THREATS

Remember when Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent George W. Bush a personal letter talking about religion and religious faith as well as world problems? Bush said he would not even bother to read the letter, so much did he despise Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government.

What if Bush had read the letter and responded in kind? Perhaps the world would not today be threatened with the poison atmosphere that exists today in Washington towards Ahmadinejad and Iran. Perhaps if the U.S. government had some honest communication, it would not now be threatening Iran with that reckless and dangerous "all options are on the table" war mongering.

The BBC reports today that Ahmadinejad says he and the Iranian government are open to talks and negotiations regarding Iran's development of nuclear power. Bush/Cheney/Rice should accept Ahmadinejad at his word and begin diplomatic negotiations. Rather than claiming that Bush & Co. are the good guys and Ahmadinejad and the Iranians are the bad guys, the U.S. should drop the doomsday good-versus-evil silliness and begin face-to-face talks with the Iranians.

Iran's history shows the strength of its civilization and the ability of its people. The U.S. should try to understand the Iranians for a change instead of demonizing them as the "enemy."

SUDAN CONDEMNS EIGHT TO DEATH BY HANGING

Sudan, notorious for its treatment of Black non-Muslims in Darfur, has condemned eight rebels to death by hanging. In a court specifically designed to try these insurgents, the judged pronounced the verdict guilty.

So then, what's the difference between Bush's military tribunal at Guantanamo and the Sudan special court? There is no difference. When a government or regime wants to punish those fighting against it, it sets up a special court and renders a death sentence usually by hanging.

Consider Bush's latest move with the death penalty. He has just approved a death sentence against an Army private for killing and rape.

I don't care whether it is Saddam Hussein or Khalid Sheik Mohammed. The state should not be allowed to impose the death penalty. It is barbaric and cruel and it offends against the Eighth Amendment barring cruel and unusual punishment.

The U.S. under Bush is not all that different from Sudan under Oram al-Bashir or Iran under Ahmadinejad. All three countries approve and utilize the barbaric and cruel death penalty to punish offenders.

MCCAIN ENDORSES ATTACK ON IRAN

So Iran has tested long range (2,000 KM) missiles in a show of defiance. Condoleeza Rice, spokesperson for George Bush, decries the threat. So does John McCain who knows nothing apart from military force.

What do these Bushites think Iran would do after Israel deployed almost its entire air force in military games to simulate an attack against Teheran? Iran's reaction is entirely reasonable, given how many times Olmert and Bush declare that "all options are on the table," code for "we're going to attack Iran."

Barack Obama calls it a mistake not to open a dialogue with Ahmadinejad, and bellicose John McCain calls that approach "naive." This tells all of us that if McCain wins, we are condemned to another four years of Bush's "endless war."

Anyone who objects to another 500 years of conflict and war should vote for McCain. In the meantime, the rest of us must stop the crazies such as Bush, Cheney, Rice and Olmert from attacking Iran.

GEORGE BUSH THREATENING IRAN OVER NUCLEAR POWER

George Bush is up to his old war-mongering tricks, this time warning Iran over nuclear development and promising sanctions. The question needs to be asked, has Bush and his enablers Cheney and Rice already decided on a War with Iran? Some say, no war is in the offing, but I remain sceptical and wary. The same pattern as we saw with Bush as to his sanctions against Iraq now seems to be repeating itself as to Iran.

The BBC reports today on Bush's threats:

"Mr Bush said a nuclear-armed Iran would be "incredibly dangerous" to peace.

""They can either face isolation or they can have a better relationship with all of us if they verifiably suspend their nuclear enrichment programme," he said.

""They've ignored the [International Atomic Energy Agency] in the past and therefore they can't be trusted with enrichment." "

Why can't Bush cease and desist ordering other nations around. Who is Bush to say that Iran cannot have nuclear power or nuclear weapons? The United States has nuclear weapons, so why not Iran? If you were president Ahmadinejad and you saw how the U.S. invaded Iraq and tore up Iraqi society, destroyed its infrastructure and threw its whole population into chaos, wouldn't you try to obtain nuclear weapons as a deterrent to any future U.S. attack?

Bush is just up to his old war-mongering ways. I would be surprised if Bush did not mount an attack on Teheran during his last days in office. As The New York Times said today in its lead editorial, it would be a disaster.

AWFUL DOWNSIDE OF ATTACK UPON IRAN

Imagine what would happen to the price of oil if the U.S. under George Bush launches an attack against Iran. People are complaining about the price of gasoline now being above $4.00 per gallon. They ain't seen nothing yet if Bush, Cheney or their counterpart in Israel, Ehud Olmert, sends bombs and missiles raining down upon Teheran.

Oil, now at $135 per bbl. would like go to $300, and stay there. Iran, one of the world's biggest oil producers, no doubt would disrupt its supply and cause huge dislocations in the oil market. So would all the other producers who would object to another U.S. started war against an Islamic country. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela certainly would react in sympathy with the Iranians. So would the whole world, almost, that considers George Bush and his regime an outlaw and a war monger.

And how about the world's stock markets. They would go into a steep dive, especially stocks in the U.S. and those of emerging markets.

In sum, the whole world economic order would cascade down to levels unimaginable.

An attack against Iran would make enemies of all the other Islamic countries, not withstanding that Iran is mostly Shiite whereas countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are mostly Sunni. Nevertheless, the message received by the ordinary man in the street in any Islamic country would be clear - the U.S. and by association, the entire West, wages war against Islam and its beliefs. There would bitter enmity between Americans and Iranians for the next 500 years.

The ratcheting up of talk of war against Iran was not helped by Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC last week. Instead of toning down his rhetoric, Obama went out of his way to say that Iran was the gravest threat, and that he, as president, would not take anything off the table - code for bombing Iran - in assuring that Iran would never acquire nuclear weapons.

I supported Obama for his assertions that he would be willing to sit down and talk with Iranian leaders including president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I did not vote for Obama to allow him to start another Middle East war, this time with Iran. I want negotiation and diplomacy and peace, not threats and bluster and military action.

OBAMA WINS NOMINATION, PANDERS TO AIPAC ON ISRAEL

So my choice, Barack Obama, won the Democratic nomination. However . . .

I read in The Washington Post where Obama fell over himself to show that he was a true friend of Israel. Obama spoke at the AIPAC convention, the largest and most powerful Israeli-American lobby in the nation.

Reports Dana Milbank:

"A mere 12 hours after claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday -- and changed himself into an Israel hard-liner.

"He promised $30 billion in military assistance for Israel. He declared that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force has "rightly been labeled a terrorist organization." He used terms such as "false prophets of extremism" and "corrupt" while discussing Palestinians. And he promised that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

"Vowing to stop Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon, the newly minted nominee apparent added: "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel. Do not be confused.""

Is this the same Obama that garnered my support because of his willingness to adopt a saner U.S. foreign policy than what we have had over these past eight years? Someone who would be willing to sit down and use negotiation and diplomacy to talk with Ahmadinejad of Iran or Hugo Chavez of Venezuela? A president who believes that dropping bombs and shooting missiles is unjustified and yes, immoral?

How could my guy Obama say that he would isolate Hamas when even today Isabel Kirschner reports for The New York Times that Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas says that he wants to negotiate with Hamas? If Abbas wants to open talks with Hamas, why would Obama say that he would never do so? Obama's statement is disapppointing, rash, politically deceptive and unwise.

And as to Syria, Milbank reports on Obama's statements:

"Israel's military action last year "was entirely justified," Obama said, to knock out Syria's "weapons of mass destruction" program. "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," he added."

So Obama is saying that one country, Israel, is justified sending war planes across territorial boundaries of another country, Syria, and bombing a building it suspects is housing a nuclear reactor? Where is this found in the principles of international law? This is Bush's preemption carried through to its logical conclusion. And Obama is adopting this military aggression as own?

Milbank writes:

"The Superman music soon returned, and the man with the Star of David on his lapel left the dais in a shower of hugs and kisses from the AIPAC officers."

BUSH THRILLED POPE WILL VISIT 9/11 SITE BUT WHY NOT AHMADINEJAD?

The Pope has begun his visit to the United States. Benedict will visit New York City and plans to pay his respects at the 9/11 site in lower Manhattan. Dana Perino, Bush's press secretary, says that the president values that Benedict will visit the World Trade Center site.

Recall that last September at the start of the United Nations General Assembly, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted also to pay his respects. But Bush and the State Department would not allow it. Why?

Iran had nothing to do with the attack of September 11th. The hijackers were Sunnis most from Saudi Arabia. Iran is predominantly Shia. No hijacker was Iranian. Yet Bush and Cheney kept Ahmadinejad from paying respects on the part of Iran and Iranians.

So Bush's policy is to allow Pope Benedict but bar president Ahmahdinejad. Sounds like Bush's foreign policy as well as his decency is all messed up.

AHMADINEJAD GETS STATE WELCOME IN IRAQ

Today, Iranian president Ahmadinejad visited Baghdad and met with Iraqi leaders. He is going to stay the night in Baghdad and then leave to return to Teheran tomorrow.

Compare Ahmadinejad's visit with Bush's clandestine stops. Bush never once stayed overnight in Iraq. If Bush is the great liberator, then Bush seems overly concerned with his own personal safety when he slinks in and out of Iraq. If Iran and Ahmadinejad are the enemies, how come Iraqi leaders give Ahmadinejad a state welcome as he freely and openly appears in Baghdad?

And what would Iraq and Iraqis do if Bush and Cheney launched a pre-emptive strike against Iran? Iraq's welcoming treatment of Ahmadinejad shows that Iraq wants to live in peace with its neighbor, Iran. If Bush and Cheney sent missiles against Iran, the whole Islamic world, especially Iraq, would declare war against America.

INSTEAD OF DROPPING BOMBS ON U.S. "ENEMIES," FAR BETTER TO TALK AND NEGOTIATE

One of the main reasons why we need to see Barack Obama elected as president is his attitude towards foreign policy and his willingness to meet with foreign leaders with whom the U.S. has had run-ins.

George Bush says it would be unseemly to meet with Raul Castro or Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But why? Because Raul Castro believes in Cuba's socialist revolution? Because Hugo Chavez publicly insulted George Bush by calling him "satan"? Because Ahmadinejad is a devout believer in Islam?

Meeting with leaders who disagree with American leaders or with the foreign policy of the U.S. does not exhibit weakness or or lack of judgment. Rather it indicates strength and maturity. Instead of the leaders of the United States solving all problems with guns and missiles, it is long overdue that Americans have a president who believes it is far better to talk and negotiate. Rather than declaring certain leaders and countries as "enemies" of the U.S., we should treat all countries with respect and openness.

This is the main reason why we must elect Barack Obama as president.

WAR AGAINST IRAN WOULD BRING CATASTROPHE TO WORLD

Someone needs to talk some sense to George Bush and Condoleeza Rice about stopping their march toward war against Iran. Iranian president Ahmadinejad has left New York on his way back to Iran, and it seems that the U.S. is still determined to take action against Iran for its nuclear ambitions.

So far there is no poof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. It certainly has the legal right under the NPT to develop and enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. But the U.S. through Bush, Cheney and Rice don't want to allow even that.

If the U.S. bombs Iran, it will be a catastrophe for world peace for the next 500 years. Someone needs to make sure Bush and his group see the consequences of their dangerous war-mongering. For example, what reaction would Iran take to an attack? I am sure that Iran would not just sit by and do nothing after a U.S attack. And how about the reaction of Muslims, especially Shiites? The animosity and loathing which a U.S. attack would foment would cause a world war on a scale never before seen, in which there would be world-wide guerrilla action against the might U.S. and its world-wide bases and personnel. And so far we have said nothing about the price of oil and what a huge spike would do to the U.S. economy.

But the number one reason why the U.S should not attack Iran is that it would be immoral and improper to do so. George Bush thinks he can get his way by military force, i.e., by tanks and bombs. He wants to force his outlook on Iranians and, if they refuse to accept his world "vision," then the hell with them, bomb them into submission. Has Bush, Cheney and Rice ever heard of international law and respect for each nation's sovereignty? I doubt it. We must stop this silly madness now.

LET AHMADINEJAD LAY WREATH AT 9/11 SITE

I agree with Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. The opposition to Iranian president Ahmadinejad visiting the 9/11 site and laying a wreath is beyond reason.

The Iranians and president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had nothing to do with the criminal plot of those Arabs who flew suicide planes into the World Trade Towers. Remember the suiciders were Sunnis, mostly from Saudi Arabia. There were no Iranians participating in that heinous action.

So why should Mitt and Rudy and Hillary say that under no circumstances should Ahmadinejad be allowed to visit and pay respects on behalf of the Iranian people?

Oh, because the U.S. considers Hezbollah in Lebanon to be a terrorist organization and funded by the Iranians? Remember that Hezbollah is primarily a social welfare organization that financially helps Shiites in Lebanon. Israel likes to classify it as a terrorist organization. So does Bush, Cheney and Rice. But that does not make it true.

The same for Hamas in Gaza. Allegations of support to Hamas from Iran are much more tenuous and much less verifiable. Hamas is the democratically elected government of the people of Gaza. No one has shown any evidence that Iran is funding Hamas. Yet the U.S. and Israel would like it to be true, maybe so that Israel can get away with imposing collective hardship on the Palestinians living there.

Botttom line. If Ahmadinejad has enough interest in visiting the 9/11 site and laying a wreath, no one should say no.