iran - carrying a grudge to extremes

One of the issues President Obama will need to overcome and apologize for in opening a dialogue with Iran is the bad press Iran and Persia have gotten in the West. This is evidently a very long term affair, related to Western cultural imperialism in the Middle East and the machinations of highly placed secret Zionists in the historiography industry. .

 

It seems that the Iranians are still sore about bad press over their invasion of Greece about 2,500 years ago. In the Middle East, a grudge is forever.

 

Iranians are still sore about Thermopylae - they got bad press from the West. Witness this report from AP and as-Sharq Al-Awsat:

 

TEHRAN, Iran, (AP) – An adviser to Iran's president on Sunday demanded an apology from a team of visiting Hollywood actors and movie industry officials, including Annette Bening, saying films such as "300" and "The Wrestler" were "insulting" to Iranians.

Without an apology, members of Iran's film industry should refuse to meet with representatives from the nine-member team, said Javad Shamaqdari, the art and cinema adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"In my viewpoint, it is a failure to have an official meeting with one who is insulting," Shamaqdari told The Associated Press.

The film "300," portrays the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., in which a force of 300 Spartans held off a massive Persian army at a mountain pass in Greece for three days. It angered many Iranians for the way Persians are depicted as decadent, sexually flamboyant and evil in contrast to the noble Greeks.

The Iranian government has long been convinced that Hollywood, and in particular the Disney studios, are controlled by the international Jew-Zionist conspiracy, and that Mickey and other mice are creations of the devilish Zionists. Add Thucydides and Herodotus to the list of Zionist conspirators. How unfortunate that the benighted Greeks did not appreciate the attempt of the enlightened Persians to bring their advanced civilization to Greece and eliminate the Zionist apartheid regimes there!

 

 

 

Arab countries try to continue petroleum extortion

Arab and Muslim petrolocracies planned the future on gouging the west with sky-high oil prices. After $150 a barrel oil ruined the world economy, oil prices plumetted. These countries are stuck with budgets that plan for luxuries like artificial islands and atomic weapons programs to wipe out Zionism and America.

 

In reaction, they are cutting production in order to try to retrieve their loss. Of course, this will only sabotage world economies further and accelerate the search for petroleum alternatives. The long term price of oil, in adjusted dollars is $20 a barrel, and that is fairly close to its fair value, including the highest extraction costs, transportation and reasonable profit. Cutting supplies in a dead market ignores market economics and won't raise the world demand. These countries will discover that the demand for anything is elastic. It's true people need oxygen. But if you raise the price of oxygen to $100 a liter and they can't afford it, most people will just suffocate to death and you won't have any market any more.

 

UAE cuts oil supplies

 

26/02/2009

 

CAIRO (AP) - The United Arab Emirates' official news agency says the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company has announced it will cut oil shipments to customers starting in April, a move aimed at shoring up crude prices as the global downturn eats away at demand.
WAM reported Thursday that ADNOC will enact 15 to 17 percent cuts in supplies of its various crude grades, including Murban.

 

The move comes as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries struggles to reverse a slump in crude prices despite its pledge to cut 4.2 million barrels per day from September production levels.

 

Several OPEC members say more reductions are needed, as crude still hovers about 70 percent below mid-July highs of almost $150 per barrel.

Egypt and Hamas: Keep Iran out of the Palestinian problem

The message is clear: Saudi Arabia and Egypt are to form an axis against Iran for controlling the Hamas and preventing Iran from exploiting the Palestinian problem for its own purposes - taking primacy in the Muslim world away from the Sunni Arab countries as a first step to regional hegemony of Iran.

 

Congratulations Hosni Mubarak
 

01/03/2009

 

By Tariq Alhomayed
Editor, as-Sharq al-Awsat 

 

Remarkable and important are the words one could use to describe the speech delivered by the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, aimed at Egyptian President Mohammed Hosni Mubarak following the Egyptian-sponsored reconciliation talks between Palestinian factions that took place in Cairo.

 

There is no doubt that Egypt (and the Egyptian president), which has suffered from the injustice of its brotherly nations, deserves to be congratulated. However, more importantly, we must understand the significance of the Saudi monarch's remarkable speech.

 

In his speech to the Egyptian president, the Saudi monarch said, "Undoubtedly, the efforts exerted by your Excellency clearly indicate that Egypt of the free and proud people, Egypt of Arabism and Islam, under your wise leadership, has played its hopeful and expected historical role as a government and people." In reference to Egypt the King added, "It has proved, as it is customary, its continuing determination to find a solution for the inter-Palestinian disagreement. Tiredness and weakness have not found a way to the watchful mind of Cairo."

 

The first point that should be made is that it has become clear that Riyadh and Cairo are the ones that are concerned about all the plotting against the Arab world. Some people think that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not affected by it; this is nothing but part of an organised plan to harm the region and these two countries.

 

Moreover, the Saudi monarch's speech shows that there is no rivalry between Riyadh and Cairo with regards to inter-Palestinian reconciliation. Rather, Saudi's interest is on par with Egypt's interest to bring together the Palestinians and prevent the Palestinian Cause from becoming a playing card in the hands of foreign parties.

 

It is difficult to forget what Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said about Egypt and what the Iranians said about Saudi Arabia after the Israel-Gaza war as part of their organised smear-campaign against the two countries. This is the crux of the matter.

 

Regarding the Palestinians, the Saudis played their part through the Mecca Agreement. What happened after that happened, and today the Egyptians are completing their historical role with regards to Palestinian reconciliation. The Saudis rushed to say to Cairo that a success for the Egyptians was a success for the Saudis.

 

In fact, in his historical speech to the Egyptian president, King Abdullah said, "We congratulate your Excellency and our brothers in Egypt and we congratulate ourselves with you as supporters for the issues of Arab and Islamic nations." This demonstrates the clear integration between Saudi Arabia and Egypt and this pleases all rational-minded people.

 

What is important today is that the Palestinians, from various factions and Hamas especially, prove that they care about reconciliation and its success and adhere to it in spite of all the difficulties that they will face. They must also show that they will prioritise the Palestinian Cause and not one ideology over another or their own limited interests.

 

If any of the Palestinians thwart Egypt's efforts, they will not be pardoned; after the Mecca Agreement, Hamas realised how shocked many Arabs were at what the movement did regardless of what it said. Accordingly, whoever seeks to weaken dialogue today will bear the consequences tomorrow. Therefore, without any hesitation, Cairo must resort to naming any Arab party that seeks to thwart Palestinian reconciliation, not out of revenge but so that that party may bear the consequences vis-à-vis Arab public opinion. Saudi Arabia must also strive towards this so that those who seek destruction know that they will pay the price.

---

Tariq Alhomayed
Tariq Alhomayed is the Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, the youngest person to be appointed that position. Mr. Alhomayed has an acclaimed and distinguished career as a Journalist and has held many key positions in the field including; Assistant Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, Managing Editor of Asharq Al-Awsat in Saudi Arabia, Head of Asharq Al-Awsat Newspaper's Bureau-Jeddah, Correspondent for Al - Madina Newspaper in Washington D.C. from 1998 to Aug 2000. Mr. Alhomyed has been a guest analyst and commentator on numerous news and current affair programs including: the BBC, German TV, Al Arabiya, Al- Hurra, LBC and the acclaimed Imad Live's four-part series on terrorism and reformation in Saudi Arabia. He is also the first Journalist to conduct an interview with Osama Bin Ladin's Mother. Mr. Alhomayed holds a BA degree in Media studies from King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, and has also completed his Introductory courses towards a Master's degree from George Washington University in Washington D.C. He is based in London.

 

Dennis Ross: The Most Important Dossier

Heads up to Dennis Ross, the arch-Zionist villain of Middle East op-ed fiction, from the general manager of Al-Arabiya television, in the Arab world's leading publication.

 

Dennis Ross: The Most Important Dossier

 

01/03/2009

 

By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
 
There are many political envoys in the administration of the new American President, Barack Obama. But assigning diplomat Dennis Ross the dossier of Iran and the Gulf means that his [mission] is the most serious and important of all. Despite the importance of the Arab-Israeli conflict and its historic value, it remains confined to a 35-year-old case, counting the years from the last war that changed the political situation. It can continue as it is, with its disputes and wars confined in the area of its conflicts. As for Afghanistan and its neighbor Pakistan, and with them Al-Qaeda organization, it is true that this is a problem capable of exploding but it is similarly confined to its area.

 

But Iran is the problem number one in the world. It presents a recipe of uranium, religious extremism, and limitless ambitions. It is the most energetic force in managing anarchy and financing wars. It is also accused of being behind the Lebanon turmoil and the emergence of Hamas, and of being the only threat to Iraq as well as to the Gulf nations. Add to this that it is about to give birth to its first nuclear weapon which will make it more dangerous.

 

The Americans have been suffering from the Iranian Complex since the Khomeini Revolution that has lasted for three restless decades. This has gone to the extent where the United States sees the Iranians in its nightmares and where the bulk of US policies have become geared to how to deal with them everywhere, in such places as Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, the Gulf, Yemen, and Palestine.

 

Now this file has been turned over to Ross, the man who can be described without hesitation as knowledgeable about all the details of the Iranian affair and the issues linked to it in the region. This will save a lot of time for the American Administration, but it does not mean automatically guaranteeing the sought solution with Iran. Envoy Ross has to perform a miracle that defied five American presidents who ruled for 30 years and devoted much of their time to extinguishing the Iranian fire.

 

So, will the special envoy be able to contain Iran, or to draft a plan for fighting it or reconciling with it, or making concessions to it? We do not know, but any decision Ross recommends might change the map of the region. It might end a dispute that has dragged on, and consequently open the door to solving the difficult problems of the region in which Iran is definitely involved. Everybody hopes that a good relationship with Tehran will mean peace in the Middle East, and [yet] Ross could be the cause for embroiling the region into more Iranian hegemony and consequently erosion of American power and threats to the Gulf nations, with new wars that will ensue as a result of this. Thus it is no exaggeration to say that Ross is carrying the most important dossier and that he is required to perform a political miracle.

---

Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
the general manager of Al -Arabiya television. Mr. Al Rashed is also the former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al- Awsat, and the leading Arabic weekly magazine, Al Majalla. He is also a senior Columnist in the daily newspapers of Al Madina and Al Bilad. He is a US post-graduate degree in mass communications. He has been a guest on many TV current affairs programs. He is currently based in Dubai.

Iran: Orchestrated attack on reformists

There is no doubt that the Tehran troglodyte paleocons and extremist Ayatollah groupies are going to pull out all the stops to prevent the accession of a reformist presidency in Iran, even though the Iranian government is in large part a tool of the Ayatollahs. But of which Ayatollahs is it a tool?

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad established a power center that is built on the IRGC and is somewhat independent of more "moderate" Ayatollahs like Rafsanjahni. At the same time, he recruited the backing of more extreme factions represented by Ayatollah Khameinei.

 

As he is the incumbent, Ahmadinejad is free to use the resources of the state to batter his reformist opponent, Khatami.

 

The Fight in Tehran Gets Bitterer by the Day
Friday 27 February 2009
By Amir Taheri

As Sharq al-Awsat

Although the Iranian presidential election campaign is not due to open until the end of May, two things are already certain. The campaign has started; and it is unusually dirty. One could expect piles of dirty laundry to be washed in public, affecting major figures of the regime. Even "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi, hitherto kept outside the mud hole, is being dragged in.

 

The first shot was fired last December when the official Islamic New Agency, controlled by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, published a 5000-word article attacking Muhammad Khatami, the former president who has since declared his candidacy in next June's election.

 

The article, signed by Payam Fazli-Nejad, claimed that Khatami is at the centre of an international conspiracy to bring the Khomeinist revolution to an end and transform the Islamic Republic into a secular state.

 

According to Fazli-Nejad, the so-called «Bilderberg Group» hatched the "conspiracy" when Khatami attended one of their annual gatherings in a Portuguese resort. According to Fazli-Nejad, the group is part of the global Freemasonry and represents financial interests and political circles that use it as a "secret government of the world."

 

Although Fazli-Nejad's claim could be dismissed as pure nonsense, they claims found an echo in Iran partly because mullahs have a long history of association with Freemasonry. The Islamist reformer Jamaleddin Asssad-Abadi, known to Arabs as al-Afghani, founded the first Freemason lodge in Iran in the 19th century. Sayyed Hassan Imami, Tehran's Friday Prayer Leader between 1955 and 1979, presided over another Freemason lodge known as "The Brothers."

 

Obviously encouraged by the Office of the Supreme Guide Ali Khamenehi, the author of the article went on to publish a whole book about what he claims are "secret plans to topple the Islamic Republic through soft subversion."

 

The book, titled "Knights of the Cultural NATO", includes a number of photographs and photocopies of supposedly confidential documents revealing the alleged "conspiracies" in which the government of the United States is supposed to have played a major part.

 

It names most of the active figures of the internal opposition of being involved in the "conspiracy" and, in effect, working for US and other NATO intelligence services. The list of those accused amounts to a who-is-who of politicians, journalists, lawyers and human rights activists who try to oppose the system without breaking with it.

 

The message of the book is clear: the so-called "reformist" camp is an American Trojan horse, brought in to destroy the Khomeinist system.

 

Last week, the official news agency in Tehran reported that the book, published by the Kayhan Group, which is controlled by Khamenehi, has run into its 10th edition, becoming a major best seller.

 

Tehran sources claim that the book's best-seller status has been engineered by the government with the purchase of thousands of copies for free distribution among civil servants and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

 

In an introduction to the book, Kayhan's Editor in Chief, Hussein Shariatmadari, claims that it contains "irrefutable evidence of contacts between the bridgeheads of this group with foreign intelligence services". He seems to ignore that his claim raises a crucial question: if there is "irrefutable evidence", why haven't the authorities have brought no charges against those named in the book?

 

The response of the accused came last week during a meeting at the home of Ayatollah Abdallah Nuri, a former Minister of the Interior and generally considered as the regime's most serious critic within the Khomeinist establishment. During the meeting, attended by more than 200 "reformist" figures across the board, speaker after speaker denounced the campaign of vilification orchestrated by Khamenehi's office. One speaker, Hashem Aghjari, a hero of the war against Iraq, went further by denouncing Khamenehi by name and calling for the abolition of the post of "Supreme Guide".

 

A few days later, an even graver charge against Khamenehi came a few days later in an attack by Muhammad Sazgara, a former aide to the "Supreme Guide" and one of the first generation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Accused of working for US intelligence, Sazgara claimed that Khamenehi himself has a history of contacts with the KGB, the former Soviet Union's intelligence agency, and its East German branch known as Stasi.

 

In an open letter addressed to Khamenehi and published in "reformist" websites, Sazgara claims that his allegations are based on top-secret Stasi documents, made available by the German government for research purposes. According to Sazgara, these documents are being studied by a "young Iranian researcher", and, once fully analysed, could show that Khamenehi acted as a Soviet agent of influence during a crucial phase in the power struggle in the early years of the revolution.

 

Sazgara's allegations may be as fanciful as those of Fazli-Nejad. After all, that Khamenehi was in contact with Soviet officials was no secret at the time. As Deputy Defence Minister at the time, Khamenehi was charged with the task of securing weapons from the USSR at a time that the United States, Iran's main arms supplier, had imposed an embargo.

 

The accusations from both sides are important not because they might reflect the truth. They certainly don't. Khatami is no CIA agent and Khamenehi was not working for the Soviets.

 

These accusations are important for two reasons.

 

First, they show that the power struggle may be heading into new and more dangerous directions in which the Marques of Queensbury's rules would no longer apply.

 

Secondly, they show that the two camps are unable to fight on the basis of concrete political and economic plans and are using Middle Eastern style personal attacks, and charges of "betrayal" and "working for foreign intelligence" as a substitute. This campaign would see a lot of mud flying. However, what Iran needs is a serious debate about its future at what may be the most dangerous time in its contemporary history.

 

Amir Taheri's new book " The Persian Night: Iran Under The Khomeinist Revolution" has just been published by Encounter Books, New York and London.

Iran Q&A - We are in sight of Iranian nuclear weapons

by Shalom Freedman
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8606

Are the Iranians seeking to attain nuclear weapons?

There is overwhelming evidence in support of a "yes" answer to this question. The Iranians have continued to defy the IAEA and enrich uranium, a vital part of the process of making nuclear weapons. They have claimed that they are enriching the uranium for civilian purposes, but highly respected non-proliferation expert David Albright of ISIS points to the fact that the Iranians have at their disposal enough raw-material, "yellowcake", for the making of nuclear weapons but not for the creation of a domestic electrical energy program. Clearly, their enrichment program is for nuclear weapons purposes. They also have a heavy water plant at Arak, and the large plant at Bushehr, the pilot plant of which is to be inaugurated in late February 2009.

While the supreme Iranian leader Khamenaei has said the use of weapons of mass destruction is forbidden by Islamic law, other leaders, including former President Rafsanjani, have threatened Israel with a nuclear exchange.

There are many geopolitical reasons for Iran to wish to attain nuclear weapons. Among these are its being surrounded by nuclear neighbors Pakistan, India and Israel. The Iranians also see the attaining of nuclear weapons as enhancing their prestige and as means of extending their power in the Middle East.

How close are the Iranians to attaining nuclear weapons?

Former American Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says the Iranians have mastered all the technical difficulties involved in creating a nuclear weapon. It is generally acknowledged that the most difficult part of the process is the enriching of the uranium. The Iranians have increased the number of centrifuges in their Natanz plant to four thousand and Albright believes that they will have enough enriched material for at least one nuclear bomb in 2009. He also believes that the "weaponization" process can be carried out quite swiftly.

Once Iran has enough enriched uranium it can, in effect, be said to have nuclear weapons.

The Iranians have the missile capacity not only to reach every point in the Middle East, but also in southern Europe. That is to say that all US bases in the Middle East may soon be in range of Iranian nuclear weapons.

How can Iran possibly go to the final stage of the process, weaponization, when it is being observed and supervised by the UN?

Yaakov Lappin, in a February 22, 2009, article in the Jerusalem Post, cites a report of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency claiming Iran has produced 1,010 kg. of low-enriched uranium. The figure is a third more than Iran had previously disclosed. Moreover, Prof. Raymond Tanter, President of the Washington-based Iran Policy Committee, told the Post, "Because it takes more time to create LEU (low-enriched uranium) than to go from LEU to HEU (highly enriched uranium), the discovery of the additional LEU suggest that the Iranian regime has accelerated its quest for nuclear weapons capability."

Tanter also claims that Iran has a secret underground facility in its military complex at Lavizan 2, in northeastern Tehran, where the weaponization process can take place. The UN is not permitted to inspect military facilities like this one.

Is Iran likely to transfer its nuclear weapons to Hizbullah, Hamas or any of its other surrogates in the world?

There are those who point out that Iran has a WMD capacity with chemical and biological weapons, but has never transferred them to its surrogates. They argue it is extremely unlikely that Iran would give the surrogates the power to initiate an action, the reaction to which might bring great harm to Iran. Yet, it is impossible to be certain about this, as Iran has in the past used surrogates in terror attacks, in order to cover its own tracks.

Does Iran intend to use its nuclear weapons against Israel?

Many argue that Iran would not risk this, as they understand that Israel and the United States have the capacity to level Tehran, destroy the heart of their civilization. They contend that no matter how hate-filled the regime is in relation to Israel, it is not suicidal. So the general consensus is that Iran would not try a first strike against Israel. But there is, of course, no way of knowing for certain that this is the case.

Will the United States - when it understands it is being strung along, deceived by Iran - decide on nuclear preemption?

The Obama Administration will do everything it possibly can to avoid taking military action. It will show a great deal of good-will and understanding towards Iran. It will attempt to lure it into a dialogue. Iran will probably engage in such a dialogue, but not at the price of halting its nuclear program. It will continue its pursuit of nuclear weapons and will not accept the alternatives the US offers it. But it will delay and deceive, making promises it won't keep. And it will probably string the Obama Administration along for a long time. Yet, at some point it is likely the American patience will run out. In this, it would seem that Iran and the US are on an inevitable collision course.

The confrontation now seems certainly to happen after Iran has acquired a nuclear capability. In other words, an open clash might mean a nuclear war and massive destruction. The United States may then simply take the military option off the table. My guess is that for many of Barack Obama's closest foreign policy advisors, it has never been on the table.

It should be remembered that the Bush Administration promised repeatedly to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, yet Iran proceeded unimpeded towards this goal during the Bush years. That President Obama will be true to his promise of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed power is thus extremely doubtful.

If the United States does not preempt Iran, must Israel do so?

It is conceivable that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would do more harm than good. This would be the case if Iran does have the capacity to strike Israel with a nuclear weapon. That is, to be successful any Israeli strike has to not only destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities and its capacity to manufacture new weapons, it must also ensure that no Iranian weapon is used in retaliation. All this suggests that the decision for Israel is a complex one and cannot be made simply.

New York Times correspondent David Sanger reported on January 2009 that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert requested from President George Bush in 2008 permission to fly over Iraq and was refused. Bush also reportedly refused an Israeli request for an advanced kind of bunker-buster ordnance and new refueling technology. All this suggests that an Israeli operation is almost a mission impossible.

How should Israel respond to an Iranian attack?

It is to be hoped that we would be able to preempt it, or if not, to intercept the missiles. But if not, it is not true, as former Iranian President Rafsanjani claims, that in a nuclear exchange Iran would survive and Israel would not. Most likely, both societies would survive and be terribly crippled. Only an insane, messianically driven Iranian leadership would dictate such an outcome. But for deterrence purposes, the Israeli leadership must make it one-hundred-percent clear that any attack on Israel will be met with a devastatingly disproportional response.

Adar 1, 5769 / 25 February 2009

Verboten: Christian Journal can't use the word 'Allah' in Malaysia

An example of the enlightened human rights policy of Malaysia.

Malaysian govt rescinds Catholic paper's use of "Allah"
Posted: 01 March 2009 1117 hrs

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia's government has rescinded a Catholic newspaper's right to use the word "Allah" just weeks after it gazetted a law allowing the paper to do so, according to reports Sunday.

On Friday, the editor of the Herald newspaper, Father Lawrence Andrew, said the weekly had been allowed to use the word as a translation for "God" in its Malay-language edition, as long as it printed "For Christians" on the cover.

The permission had been granted after a long battle with the government which threatened to close it down.

However, Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar told the New Straits Times newspaper Sunday a "mistake" had been made, although he did not specify what it was.

"I think there was a mistake in enacting the gazette. When we make a mistake, I must admit that there is a need to look at it thoroughly," he was quoted as saying.

Syed Hamid said the ban on the use of the word would remain in force until a pending court case decided on the matter, the paper reported.

"There is a judicial review on the matter and we leave it to the court to decide," he added.

Home ministry officials could not immediately confirm the decision.

The government has argued that the word should be used only by Muslims, who dominate the population of multicultural Malaysia.

Andrew said Malaysian Christians have been using the word "Allah" for centuries in translations of the Bible, and in popular prayers.

The home minister's comments come as some conservative Islamic leaders criticised the government's decision to allow the use of the word.

"To me, it's a mistake," Malaysian Islamic Dakwah Foundation chairman Nakhaie Ahmad told the state news agency Bernama.

Andrew said Friday the Herald would continue with a court case which it started to force the government to allow it to print the word "Allah".

Around 60 per cent of Malaysia's 27 million people are Muslim Malays.

The rest of the population includes indigenous tribes as well as ethnic Chinese and Indians, variously practising Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism, among others.