Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Programme in 2003 According to US Intelligence

Here is a piece of news that might be worth bookmarking should the Cheney backed propaganda campaign go into overdrive:

Iran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, intelligence agencies said today, in an unexpected finding that boosts hopes of a diplomatic solution to the problem.

A new national intelligence estimate on Iran concluded, in contrast to two years ago, that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, prompting a conciliatory message from the White House.

"The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically, without the use of force, as the administration has been trying to do," said Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser.

"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons programme suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," stated the unclassified summary of the secret report.

So, Iran aren't trying to develop a nuclear bomb at the moment. Israel isn't about to be wiped off the map by Iran (not that anyone has actually said this - well, apart from the MSM anyway). The world is not about to be threatened by some supposed mad man in Iran. In short, nothing to worry about. Unless you're Dick Cheney of course. Then you are going to be spending a little bit more time than usual on trying to prove that bombing another country back into the stone age is really in our best interests. Although with Fox News in your corner, you're probably not going to need to work that much harder.

Still A Chance To Avoid War in Iran

The chances are probably quite slim given the blood thirsty nature of the US/UK axis, however, there are some encouraging signs:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to discuss with Arab nations a plan to enrich uranium outside the region in a neutral country such as Switzerland.

He made the announcement in an interview for Dow Jones Newswires in Saudi Arabia where he is attending a petroleum exporters' summit.

Gulf Arab states recently proposed setting up a consortium to provide nuclear fuel to Iran and others.

The scheme could allay fears Iran is enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb.

Iran has insisted that its right to pursue a civilian nuclear programme is not up for negotiation.

No doubt this will be spun as the Iranians playing for time while they continue to develop a nuclear capability. But these attempts must be taken seriously if those in power claim that war is a last resort. Of course, they do not so it is unlikely that this will be the case.

Michael Gove, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and the Real Problem With Disengagement

Having watched the BBC's monarchy love fest this morning (also known as the state opening of parliament), I almost choked on my tea when one of the aforementioned politicians pontificated on the real reason for public disengagement from politics. According to Nick Clegg, the fundamental problem was of continual mud slinging between the two main parties. While this may be partly the case, a later remark by Michael Gove (the neo-con crony of the Cameron brigade) was far more (inadvertently) revealing.

During a discussion on foreign policy, Gove spoke of the need to confront Iran, particularly in the light of their leader's wish to "wipe Israel off the map". That this was met with utter agreement by other members of the panel speaks volumes about the current political climate. Not one member of the panel, or the BBC for that matter, chose to challenge the lie that has been perpetuated amongst the mainstream media, entirely unchallenged. And that is the fundamental problem. There is a lack of debate between the parties. The are all standing on the same aggressive, imperialistic patch of political ground. Perhaps, just perhaps, if a politician was to challenge the status quo, more people might be engaged in the political process. Instead, we are presented with a bunch of glove puppets eager to bend to the will of their imperialist masters.

Political disengagement will continue for some time to come because, secretly (perhaps not so secretly), that is what the political establishment desire. How else can policies such as ID cards, 90 detention, not to mention the Iraq war even be proposed? If the public were engaged in the political process none of these things would even be possible. No, disengagement will continue as long as all political parties represent a narrow elite that refuses to indulge in real debate.

"The Evil Has Landed" - Or Was He Already Here?

The visit to the United States by Ahlmadinejad prompted the predictable outrage by the American public. Headlines in national papers had a field day with their attacks on the America's latest bogeyman. The New York Daily News, for example, chose the fear-inducing:

"The Evil Has Landed"

Patriotic, yet fear-mongering, the perfect news headline. However, when taking an objective view of recent events across the globe, it is hard to sympathise with the current US position in the Middle East, and particularly in relation to Iran.

The current obsession of the US administration has clearly been the so-called nuclear threat that Iran may provide in the near future. They base this assessment, they claim, on Iran's aggressive policies in the region. If we look beyond the knee-jerk reaction to guffaw loudly at this belief, it is not hard to expose this standpoint for the ludicrous claim that it so clearly is. Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Iranian government has only been involved in one armed conflict, the Iran-Iraq war. It is worth pointing out at this point that Iraq were the aggressors on that occasion, supported by many Western powers as well as various Communist nations and Arab allies. The war itself was particularly costly for Iran. There were an estimated 1 million casualties on the Iranian side, a huge of chunk of which were killed due to the use of those infamous 'weapons of mass destruction'. The use of chemical weapons, with the tacit support of the West (including the US) led to the deaths of over 100,000 Iranians. As usual, the US tried their best to render the United Nations utterly useless. On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that:

"members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons."

The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement. The US refused to condemn the use of weapons of mass destruction on the Iranian civilian population, a refusal that caused much anger across Iran. Iran thus became one of the biggest victims to the use of these forms of weaponry in history.

This really highlights the hypocrisy of the current US position. Iran is apparently a threat and a danger to the world. However, they have only been the victims in any conflict, not the aggressors (they have never invaded a neighbour, despite the fact that many Arab nations backed Iraq in the long running war). Not only have they never been aggressors, they have also been the victim to one of the most horrendous examples of mass civilian casualties in history. Now, backers of Bush will claim that although Iran hasn't invaded her neighbours, she has been involved in covert action across the Middle East. This may well be the case, but hasn't the US been guilty of the same. Didn't the US government attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government in Venezuela in 2002? Hasn't American history throughout the post-war period been characterised by interference in other countries' affairs? Of course. Yet when it is the US they are benevolent, and when it is a foreign nation with a competing ideology they are malevolent and evil. Again, taking an objective view, wouldn't it be fair to say that when using Iran as a yardstick, the US government also appears to be a malevolent entity in global affairs? Bush alone has overseen two bloody wars of aggression (not to mention the failed coup attempts). What wars have the Iranians instigated in the past seven years?

Now, I am no defender of Iran (I am an atheist and therefore cannot support any state built on religious grounds) and I find some of Ahlmadinejad's statements a little unsavoury to say the least (note his comments about homosexuality in Iran at the recent college debate). However, I see no evidence that he is any more 'evil' than George W Bush (who hasn't exactly been noted for his liberal social views either). Perhaps before lobbing venom at the President of Iran, American people should look a little closer to home to see an establishment that is all to eager to utilise weapons of mass destruction, or encourage its use by proxies. After all, sixty-two years after the end of the war, only one nation has taken full advantage of its abilities to launch weapons of mass destruction and it's not Iran.

Rafsanjani Elected as Speaker of Assembly of Experts in Iran

It has emerged that former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has been elected as speaker of the Assembly of Experts, a group whose key role is to supervise Iran's Supreme Leader. The BBC reports:

Mr Rafsanjani will succeed Ayatollah Ali Meshkini, who died in July.

Correspondents say the appointment further consolidates the authority of Mr Rafsanjani, who is already a powerful figure in Iranian politics.

Considered a "pragmatic conservative", Mr Rafsanjani's victory will also be seen as a blow to Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says there is now a clear divide in Iranian politics between supporters of Mr Rafsanjani and those of Mr Ahmadinejad, and a complex power struggle is being carried out behind the scenes.

This development is crucial to the future of Iran. The panel itself has a big say in who will become the next Supreme Leader, where the real power is held in Iran (see post on Ten Percent for more detail on the make-up of the Iranian constitution). Although Rafsanjani is still a conservative, he is more open to the West and Russia. He has also taken a more cautious approach than Ahlmadinejad with respect to the nuclear issue. This has lead to somewhat of an internal struggle between the more moderate forces that Rafsanjani represents and the hardline faction behind Ahlmadinejad.

A military attack at this point would be foolish in the extreme. Given that much of Ahlmadinejad's rhetoric is based on the idea that the West is eager to strike at Iran, any military action would have very serious consequences. A military strike would shore up Ahlmadinejad's support and make it harder to win support from the Iranian people. The growth in influence of Rafsanjani is an opportunity for the West to resolve this situation peacefully without resorting to the high number of civilian casualties that would undoubtedly result from any attack. At this time, it would be wise of the West to remain cautious in response to developments in Iran. As Rafsanjani's influence increases, the more likely it is that his faction will see off the hardliners that back the current Iranian President. The chance of a peaceful resolution is in the offing. The question is, will the West take it.

IAEA Report on Iran - Enrichment Programme 'Well Below Capacity'

Although you would barely know it from the reporting on the BBC. Although their report describes 'significant developments', it only gives a passing mention to the fact that the enrichment programme is well below capacity. According to the BBC:

The UN nuclear watchdog says Iran has agreed to a plan aimed at clearing up questions about its controversial nuclear activities.

The IAEA says the development is "significant", but adds that for the plan to work, it is essential to get full and active co-operation from Iran.

It also says Iran is continuing its enrichment programme, but at a slower pace than before, despite UN sanctions.

Western powers fear Iran could try to make nuclear arms, which Tehran denies.

Notice the fact that the reduction in enrichment is secondary to the fact that they are enriching and that this is contrary to UN sanctions. Their actual capacity seems barely important to the BBC, who concentrate on the agreement between the IAEA and Iran. Compare this to the coverage in Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper:

Iran's uranium enrichment program is operating well below capacity and is far from producing nuclear fuel in significant amounts, according to a confidential United Nations nuclear watchdog report.

A senior Iranian nuclear official said the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) report showed U.S. suspicions about Tehran's nuclear intentions were baseless.

Officials familiar with the report said the IAEA could open future inquiries into Iran's atomic activity if new suspicions arose, even after Tehran answers questions about the program under a transparency deal reached this month.

Western leaders suspect Iran wants to build atom bombs, not generate electricity, and were alarmed when Tehran said in April it had reached "industrial capacity" to enrich uranium.

But the IAEA report said Tehran remained far short of that threshold. Iran had just under 2,000 centrifuges divided into 12 cascades, or interlinked units, of 164 machines each refining uranium at its underground Natanz plant as of August 19, it said.

Not only does this undermine the case for war that is slowly being built up by the US, it also proves the extent to which the Iranian regime will over-exaggerate their capacity. Reports such as these are often overlooked as governments build the case for military action. It is clear that Iran is a long way from posing the threat that the Western powers allege, however, this does not mean that the propaganda campaign will cease. On the contrary, they will continue to present Iran as a country seeking nuclear armaments in attempt to threaten the world. This is, perhaps, the reason why Iran has requested that its understanding of the agreement with the IAEA be published on the IAEA website (which you can read here - pdf file).

Iran and Pakistan - The American Contradiction

Sometimes even The Guardian disappoints me. The US has been upping the ante against Iran with its latest threat to class the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation. Not withstanding the fact that this would make it easier to portray Iran as a state harboring terrorists (and thus, under the Bu$h doctrine, make it easier to launch an attack), this move is an interesting contradiction with the situation in Pakistan, and its relationship with America.

One of the pretexts for this move by the US, is that Iran has been fomenting violence in neighboring Afghanistan. On page 13, The Guardian makes plain the government view on the troubles via an interview with Des Browne. Browne made the following statement:

"I have no doubt - because we have uncovered evidence - of weapons coming in through narco-trafficking routes, supplying weapons to the Taliban. I have reason to believe the Taliban go to Tehran for training."

He also accuses Iran of:

"backing every horse in the race."

This is all part of the Iran interfering with its neighbours pitch that the Western powers are spreading around. However, turn to page 26 and we find an interesting little story, buried away near the back of the international section:

The Pakistani government gave substantial military support to the Taliban in the years leading up to the September 11 attacks, sending arms and soldiers to fight alongside the militant Afghan movement, according to newly released US official documents.

Islamabad has acknowledged diplomatic and economic links with the Taliban but has denied direct military support. The US intelligence and state department documents, released under the country's freedom of information act, show that Washington believed otherwise.

The suspicion has lingered that some elements of Pakistani intelligence are still protecting the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies in the autonomous tribal areas along the Afghan border. US officials have warned they might take direct military action without Islamabad's approval.

So, while Iran is considered a hostile nation due to alleged activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan is considered a friend in similar circumstances. So when is the United States going to proclaim MQM as a terrorist organisation? I guess never as right-wing groups remain infatuated with right-wing military dictators.

Iranian Authorities Admit Osanloo Detained in Evin Prison

Taken from the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) website:

After two days of denying all knowledge of his whereabouts, the authorities in Iran this afternoon (Thursday 12 July) admitted that Mansour Osanloo is being held in Evin Prison, Tehran.

Osanloo was snatched from a bus two days ago by unidentified assailants. Since then his family, colleagues, lawyers and friends have met a wall of denials when questioning the authorities about who was holding him.

The order to arrest Osanloo is believed to have come from Revolutionary Court Judge Saeed Mortazavi, who had denied any knowledge of Osanloo’s whereabouts.

ITF General Secretary David Cockroft said: “At least we now know where Mansour is being held. We will campaign with renewed vigour for his release, and for the Iranian Government to rein in the loose cannons responsible for this latest shameful attack.”

Osanloo was attacked as he was getting off a bus and was subsequently severely beaten according to witnesses. He was then bundled into a car before being taken away by unidentified assailants. Once again, it emerges that Osanloo has been detained in the notorious Evin prison.

How you can help

The ITF is currently running a campaign to demand fair treatment for Osanloo and ensure his immediate release. You can help in the following ways:

1. Sign the petition

To urge President Ahmadjinejad to take every step possible to ensure the safety and immediate release of Mansour Osanloo.

2. Send a Protest Letter

Click the above link to send a protest email to President Ahmadjinejad.

Please do your bit to force the Iranian government to observe basic human rights and ensure the safe release of Osanloo and an end to his persecution at the hands of the state.

Action Taken So Far

ITF and ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation) have taken the following action to bring pressure on the Iranian Government:

· They have jointly written to President Ahmadinejad, protesting against the attack.

· They have asked ILO (International Labour Organization) Director General Juan Somavia to help free Osanloo. ILO Executive Director Kari Tapiola today raised the matter with the Iranian Labour Attaché in Geneva.

· They have added this latest attack to their complaint to the ILO’s Committee on Freedom of Association against the Government of Iran.

· They have promised to mobilise trade unions internationally to shame the Government of Iran if Osanloo is not released today.

ITF General Secretary David Cockroft stated: “Three weeks ago we were applauding Mansour. One week ago we were successfully campaigning to have his deputy released from another unjustified arrest. This week we are profoundly worried about his physical safety and want to see Mansour freed and among his friends and family as quickly as possible.”

“We utterly condemn this latest cowardly mob attack on our friend and colleague, and urge the Government of Iran to wake up and deal with the elements within that have pulled off this latest act of repression.”

Education International Calls For Osanlou's Release

Below is a copy of the letter sent on behalf of Education International in response to the abduction of Mansour Osanloo. I will be posting more on this, including what you can do to help, later this evening.

His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President Islamic Republic of Iran
Palestine Avenue, Azerbaijan Intersection
Tehran
Islamic Republic of Iran

Fax:

Brussels, 11 July 2007

President Ahmadinejad,

I write to you on behalf of Education International (EI) to condemn the abduction of Mansour Osanloo, the President of the Sandikaye Kargarane Sherkate Vahed (Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company).

EI has been informed by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) that Mansour Osanloo was abducted by unidentified assailants as he was leaving a Vahed Company bus near his home at around 7pm on 10 July. Witnesses stated that he was beaten severely, as he was taken away in a metallic grey Peugeot to an undisclosed location.

During the week of 18 June 2007, I and other leaders of international trade unions from all regions of the world welcomed Mr. Osanloo at meetings in London and Brussels. We all pledged support to the Sherkat-e-Vahed trade union and Mr. Osanloo himself.

Following his abduction, EI is deeply concerned for the safety of Mr. Osanloo.

By virtue of its membership of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) the Islamic Republic of Iran is legally bound to respect its core principles including the principle of the freedom of association.

EI therefore joins the ITUC and ITF to urge your government to take every possible step to secure the immediate release of Mr Osanloo.

In addition to worries about the latest attack on Mr. Osanloo, EI is also concerned about the fate of the teacher representatives whose case is still reviewed by courts following the recent legitimate teacher protests. Teachers were protesting to uphold their right to a decent living wage. Teachers and their union representatives were merely requesting fair negotiations and social dialogue.

EI therefore urges you, Mr. President, to:

· Secure the immediate release Mr. Osanloo, ensure his safety and identify those responsible for his abduction;

· Secure the immediate and unconditional release of all teachers and their representatives detained in the context of the teacher protests;

· Open serious negotiations with the teachers’ representatives on their longstanding request for improved wages and respectable working conditions;

· Ensure that, in future, the right of teachers and workers’ organisations to exercise their activities and to hold meetings relating to the conditions of work and economic and social policy be respected.

EI would welcome a positive response on these requests, and will, in the meantime, continue to monitor the situation in Iran closely.

Sincerely yours,

Fred van Leeuwen

General Secretary

Change in the Air???

Encouraging signs have been emanating from the Middle East. Indications suggest that two of the destabilising forces in the region could be on the verge of losing their leaders. It would appear that the pressure is really starting to grow on both Olmert and Ahmadinejad from within their own countries. In Olmert's case it is hard to see how he can continue to hold on to power much longer. Already embroiled in corruption scandals, he has now been accused of incompetence in the Winograd Report. For Ahmadinejad, the forces of the opposition are starting to gain momentum and his disastrous policies look likely to seal his fate.

The Winograd Report, put together by a government appointed committee looking into the second Lebanon war, has been scathing of Olmert's handling of the crisis. The partial report accuses Olmert of "severe failure" in exercising judgment, responsibility and caution during the outset of the war. According to the report, Olmert acted hastily in leading Israel to war without a comprehensive plan. He was also criticised for failing to consult military experts before rushing into war. From Haaretz:

"The prime minister made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one," the report said. "He made his decision without systematic consultation with others, especially outside the IDF, despite not having experience in external-political and military affairs."

Olmert was also censured for failing to "adapt his plans once it became clear that the assumptions and expectations of Israel's actions were not realistic and were not materializing."

"All of these," the report said, "add up to a serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility and prudence." [my emphasis]

Despite the strong criticisms levelled at Olmert, he is refusing to stand down. In a live television address, he said:

"It would not be correct to resign and I have no intention of resigning."

Luckily, Olmert has some friends in very high places. In response to the report, Tony Snow claimed that George W Bush:

"works very closely with Prime Minister Olmert, and thinks that he's essential in working toward a two-state solution. The president remains committed to it."

Of course, the war with Lebanon had the full backing of Bush and Blair, who refused to call for a ceasefire as innocent people were killed in the ongoing conflict.

Despite this backing, it seems clear that the pressure is going to mount on Olmert until the inevitable occurs. The families of those who died will clearly need some serious questions answered by Olmert. What with this report, and the ongoing corruption scandals, it looks like time is running out for Ehud Olmert.

As for Ahlmadinejad, it also looks like the end is near for the West's favourite bogey man. According to a report in today's Guardian:

A grand coalition of anti-government forces is planning a second Iranian revolution via the ballot box to deny President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another term in office and break the grip of what they call the "militia state" on public life and personal freedom.

It would appear that opposition forces are coming together to ensure that his reign collapses sooner rather than later. Centred on the former president, Mohammad Khatami , the opposition intends to capitalise on the President's growing unpopularity to win control of the Majlis in the upcoming general elections. According to opposition spokesmen, the goal is to:

bring down the fundamentalist regime by democratic means, transform Iran into a "normal country", and obviate the need for any military or other US and western intervention.

And that is the key. The change that is necessary can be achieved without intervention from the West. In fact, it is very likely that any moves by the West will lead to a very hostile response by the Iranian people and a subsequent rise in support for Ahmadinejad's hardline policies. Given the West's background in the region, through support of the Shah, the Iranian people are very wary of Western influence and any attempts to influence the country should be resisted at all costs. Despite the eagerness of Bush and Blair to see another bombing campaign in which hundreds of thousands of people will die, the best solution is to allow the natural progression of Iranian politics to bring about a softening in rhetoric. Intervention is not the answer to the problem.

With the growth of opposition movements in Israel and Iran, there is hope that the end of days is coming for two leaders who have done much to damage their countries in the eyes of the world. It is hard to be optimistic in this part of the world, but maybe there is a glimmer of optimism amongst the darkness.

Further information: The main findings of the Winograd partial report on the Second Lebanon War, Inside the struggle for Iran and Reformists prepare to take on Ahmadinejad and his militias.

Tales of Right-Wing Ignorance

Well, it was to be expected. No sooner had I posted on the comments made by Ahlmadinejad, good old no_slappz reliably stepped in with wild accusations and weak arguments (all sadly disproved if you actually bother to click on the 'Iran', 'Ahmadinejad' labels, not to mention the banner in my sidebar for Ten Percent's Blogapalooza). Sadly, I have deleted and banned him (something I am loathe to do, as you know from the Tim Blair saga) as once the argument reduces to unfounded accusations and slander, I have to take appropriate action. I tolerate reasoned debate, I do not tolerate unfounded insults. However, I feel it would be foolish of me not to share one of the comments that were made, as it goes a long way to explain the lack of understanding of some of those on the right (you can read the actual email here).

Without wishing to go over the Ahmadinejad speech again, our trusty commenter referred to my previous statement that Ahmadinejad never actually said that Israel should be 'wiped off the map.' His argument frequently twists to interpretation but never addresses the point that those words were never said. To further the argument, no_slappz insists that the meaning is obvious (although the meaning has never been in dispute). He reasoned:

Perhaps it's news to you that the government of Israel is headquartered in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. Meanwhile, the religious heart of Judaism is found in Jerusalem.

Thus, the "regime" identified by the imam is not the political regime governing Israel, but the religious and cultural "regime" of Judaism that is identified with Jerusalem.

The Judaic "regime" comprises every Jew. Therefore, if the Judaic"regime" were to "vanish" from the pages of time, the act of vanishing would require the deaths of all Jews.

Perhaps that is worth quoting again:

Perhaps it's news to you that the government of Israel is headquartered in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem.

Note the patronising tone. And then note the content. Apparently, unknown to most of the world (including the Israelis), the seat of government has moved from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv. I do hope someone told the members of the Knesset, the Supreme Court, the President and the Prime Minister, they will be mighty confused when they turn up to do their work. Still no_slappz makes a common (if schoolboyish error) error believing that Tel Aviv is the capital. Tel Aviv is where many embassies are based as Jerusalem is not widely recognised as the capital by the International Community (see United Nations Security Council Resolution 478). It is, however, by Israel. Furthermore, East Jerusalem is occupied by the Israeli State.

So, to reiterate, he said that the regime (Israeli government) occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time, not that Israel should be wiped from the map. Although Ahmadinejad is clearly hostile towards Israel (only a madman or an anti-Semite would claim otherwise), that is not what he said. If, no_slappz, you would like to explain why you believe Tel Aviv is the capital, please email me and I will publish your response (providing you do not resort to vulgar insults).

US Ready For Attack

Just a few days ago, Tony Snow said the following:

"We're not getting ready for war on Iran, but what we are doing is we're protecting our own people. And we're going to do it. And we've made it clear that that is going to be a priority."

Then, we read this:

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

Nope, no signs of them being ready for war here. Only an idiot could fail to see the obvious.

So, What's a Regime?

Top quality Phillips on Moral Maze tonight. She asked the question:

How can you remove a regime from the map without committing genocide [referring to the mis-translated Ahlmadinejad quote]?

Is she really suggesting that Bush and Blair have committed genocide by removing Saddam's regime off the map?? Or does she simply fail to understand the basics of English? I know which one my money is on.

Mad Mel Advocates Invasion of Iran

Under the frankly bizarre headline of 'He Gets It', Phillips clearly proves that she does not. From her website:

Mmmm, I think someone has an incurable case of blood lust. Clearly, Phillips is as clueless as many on the right about the dynamic in the Middle East. Thankfully, not everyone is as clueless as Phillips. Writing in today's Guardian, Ali Ansari gets it pretty much spot on. He writes (under the headline 'Only the US hawks can save the Iranian president now'):

Ironically, it is this very international crisis that may serve to save Ahmadinejad's presidency, a reality that the president undoubtedly understood all too well. As domestic difficulties mount, the emerging international crisis could at best serve as a rallying point, or at worst persuade Iran's elite that a change of guard would convey weakness to the outside world.

There can be little doubt that US hawks will interpret recent events as proof that pressure works, and that any more pressure will encourage the hawks further. Yet the reality is that while Ahmadinejad has been his own worst enemy, the US hawks are his best friends. Ahmadinejad's demise, if it comes, will have less to do with the international environment and more with his own political incompetence. There is little doubt that it will take more than a cosmetic change to get Washington to listen to Iran. But the real question mark, as the Baker-Hamilton commission found to its cost, is whether Washington is inclined to listen at all.

Clearly it is Ansari who 'gets it'. Ahmadinejad is in a pretty weak position in Iran at the moment. Even the conservatives are concerned by recent developments. The paradox is that, in fact, Iran currently holds more influence in the region than ever before. It is paramount, therefore, that they do not lose this influence. The Iranian elites recognise this all too well, and Ahmadinejad's posturing is in danger of costing them this influence. However, any attempt to increase the pressure on Iran would only lead to Ahmadinejad gaining popularity and uniting the Iranian people (nothing unites a country more than external threat). Phillips and others, such as Bolton, either fail to understand the situation or are deliberately mis-representing it to feed their blood lust. Either way, they certainly do not 'get it'.

Shift Away From Ahlmadinejad in Iran

Much of the media seems to continually portray Iran as a country run by 'mad mullahs' intent on the destruction of Israel and the West. Given the current appetite for an attack on Iran, this is perhaps unsurprising. Whenever there is talk of destabilisation, Iran's name nearly always crops up. The truth is, as always, a little more complicated than that.

As reported in today's Guardian, the supreme leader of Iran is growing increasingly distant from the current President. The recent election defeats for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have had a damaging effect on the President's credibility. This has been reflected in the recent shift in position by the supreme leader. After receiving a signed letter by 150 parliamentarians, Khamenei is sure to distance himself further from the President. He is said to be blaming the recent UN resolution imposing sanctions on Ahmadinejad, and has even refused to meet with him on occasion. According to one Iranian political commentator:

"Ahmadinejad's golden era is over and his honeymoon with the supreme leader is finished. He has problems even meeting the supreme leader. The countdown to his dismissal has already begun. There is a probability that he cannot even finish his current four-year period."

In the meantime, Hashemi Rafsanjani, who has been critical of the President's policies, has seen his stock grow with the Iranian people. As a result of the recent council elections, Rafsanjani received over 1.5 million votes recording a massive victory over Ahlmadinejad's supporters and this was a crushing blow for his radical agenda.

It is clear that the recent hardline approach by the President is not shared by many of those who really hold the power in Iran. However, it is also clear that any attack on Iran by an outside party could lead to disastrous consequences for the region. Iran is now seen as the real power in the region by many political observers. The war in Iraq removed their greatest threat and the war in Lebanon further consolidated their position in the region. Furthermore, their relationship with the PA is also strengthening in light of the sanctions placed on Hamas. The problem is that, with all these factors, we have played a major part in strengthening the role of Iran within the region. We invaded Iraq, we stood by and watched the destruction of Lebanon and we enforced sanctions on Hamas. All these events have made Iran, not the US, the major power in the region.

It is clear that the US is keen to reassert it's authority in the region, and perhaps an attack on Iran is at the forefront of their minds. After all, there is only room for one major power in the region. Taking any action against Iran would lead to a situation that few of us could ever comprehend. Recent history has taught us the effects of meddling in the political affairs of another country, we would do well to heed those lessons.