Israel to Attack Iran Unless Enrichment Stops

By Dan Williams

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential, one of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's deputies said on Friday.

"If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

"Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable," said the former army chief who has also been defense minister.

It was the most explicit threat yet against Iran from a member of Olmert's government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should U.N. Security Council sanctions be deemed a dead end.

Iran has defied Western pressure to abandon its uranium enrichment projects, which it says are for peaceful electricity generation rather than bomb-building. The leadership in Tehran has also threatened to retaliate against Israel -- believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal -- and U.S. targets in the Gulf for any attack on Iran.

Mofaz also said in the interview that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, "would disappear before Israel does."

Read on here.

Excellent questions Ron Paul!

On a side note, this article provides much needed insight into the recent battle in Basra, to which Paul eluded.

Actor Overdoses on Drugs vs. An Entire People Being Suffocated

Can you PLEASE take a break from mourning Heath Ledger and pay some attention to the drama in Gaza?

Thousands of people have flooded through a hole blasted through the wall separating Gaza and Egypt. The hole was created by masked Palestinian gunmen and it allowed those trapped in Gaza to pass into Egypt, where they brought food, fuel and other supplies that have become restricted on the Palestinian side of the wall.

(Channel 4 News)

Hundreds of Palestinian women crashed a border gate Tuesday to protest Egypt's cooperation with Israeli sanctions against the Gaza Strip, setting off a riot that injured 35 people and curtailed a resumption of food aid to the impoverished territory.

(SF Chronicle)

Israel's limited reversal of its border closure was the result of international pressure, government officials said, but a one-day measure due to its own review of the situation, which included a sharp reduction in rocket fire since the weekend.

(Calgary Herald)

“With a great regret and strong condemnation of these crimes… the Islamic Republic of Iran will use all its diplomatic efforts to lift the Gaza blockade and the threats against the Palestinians,” Gholam-Hossein Elham told a regular news briefing.

(Tehran Times)

Thirty thousand cubic metres of untreated sewage from the Gaza Strip was dumped into the Mediterranean as a direct result of the four-day total embargo on fuel and humanitarian supplies, Palestinian water executives said yesterday.

(The Independent)

Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution, with the knowledge, acquiescence and - some would say - encouragement of the international community. An international community that professes to uphold the inherent dignity of every human being must not allow this to happen.

(Guardian Unlimited)

Naom Chomsky on U.S. Policy towards Iran

Naom Chomsky discusses U.S. policy towards in this short 8 minute video. He begins by talking about orientalist discourse which is very popular even amongst 'progressive' groups. He then moves on to talk a little bit about the history between the two countries and the current political situation. Smart man.

The Arrogance of America: "Roasting" an Iranian President.

To: Curesponse@columbia.edu

I can understand the pressure that Columbia was under when it invited Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a guest to speak before its student body in New York. I do thank you for doing so.

Perhaps it was this pressure that required Columbia's President, Lee Bollinger, to lunch a tirade against the invited guest and find that he exhibited “all the sings of a petty and cruel dictator” and that he was “brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.” If these comments were made under pressure that that doesn't say much for the independence of our academic institutions, on the other hand if they were made to cause resentment in Iran for the arrogant treatment of its invited President, then they appear to have wildly succeeded.

I am curious as to whether there is any precedence for this at Columbia or any other University in the world where an invited speaker is subjected to taunt and ridicule as part of their Introduction. Introductions, after all, are supposed to be flattering and intended to highlight the achievements of the speaker/guest. The only exception is when the event is a "Roasting". Did someone forget to tell the Iranian President that he had been invited to a Roast?

Usually a speaker is invited so that the audience can find out what he stands for. I am sure Columbia students, New Yorkers, especially the loud vocal New Yorkers know what Columbia's President stands for, and certainly AIPAC appreciated the brilliancy of those comments, but such self-righteous comments uttered from the pulpit of Columbia by the High Priest of Columbia had no place in an Introduction.

We seem to have become so proud of our "freedom of speech", that we have forgotten that we as Americans do not have all the right answers, (and in some cases we don't even have the wrong answers - in other words we are totally clueless). We are, after all the 800-pound Gorilla that pulverizes whatever it steps on. How can we totally neglect the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by our invasion of Iraq, the killing, jailing, maiming of thousands of Palestinians, the destruction of our own civil rights, the neglect shown to Katrina victims, the waste of billions of dollars in arms when hundreds (if not thousands) in the US sleep on the streets or in parks and go without insurance.

We sit here in our isolated halls of freedom and chastise individuals and countries that we have never visited and to which the only access we have is through the myopic, cynical view presented by the US Media. Our people sit in an ignorance well being spoon-fed miss-information and one-liners from the media and our politicians lead us guided by night goggles worn (during the day time) by our intelligence agencies. Is it a surprise then that we know so little about what is happening in the world?

How can the President of Columbia University neglect the sad state of education that exists, not just in the quality of education, at the primary and high school levels, but also the exorbitant cost required to attend college and instead taunt the Iranian President on his educational deficiencies?

We have become an arrogant nation that believes that what it does is right, that those who disagree with us are terrorist, and that those who seek to protect their independence are a threat to us. Our strength and our power have indeed gone to our heads as we hippopotamus like wreck wherever we set foot.

We are good at manufacturing reasons to create enemies; it may be more helpful to use our tremendous resources to make friends and to understand where the world is headed. Indeed our economic survival may depend on this as the rest of the world races ahead in educating its people and in developing their economy.

How much time do we have before China comes calling to collect its trillion dollar debt, before Japan comes calling and before all the Indian software engineers and entrepreneurs have departed back to India taking with them their education, their experience and the wealth that they created? Perhaps the sages who live in New York can answer the question but given the track record displayed so far, rather than finding a solution these sages will find another country to blame. After all even after Iran has been destroyed, there are other countries already on the hit list and we haven’t even scratched the surface.

May I humbly suggest that the next time Columbia invites someone to speak, do let him or her know they will be roasted.

Javed Ellahie

1. For those of you haven't yet done so, individuals who were bothered (?) by how Ahmadinejad was treated during his visit to Columbia are being asked to email their thoughts to Curesponse@columbia.edu.
2. Some other great Iran related stories:
1. Iran Labels CIA a "Terrorist Organization"
2. Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
   

Ahmadinejad Visits Columbia

Everybody has something to say about this, EVERYBODY.

With this much material it's really difficult to find a favorite story. But I think I have, and I've included my favorite quotes (below) for your reading pleasure:

"This is somebody who is the president of a country that is probably the greatest sponsor - state sponsor - of terrorism, someone who is a Holocaust denier, someone who has talked about wiping other countries off the map. I think it would have been a travesty."

Wiping other countries off the map? Apartheid Israel is not a country, it was created by wiping Palestine off the map - isn't all fair in love and war? How dare Condee pass judgment while we are spending billions of dollars on a regular basis to ensure Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and countless other countries stay off the map. What else would you call bombing Afghanistan back into the stone age? Or the "shock and awe" of 2003? Do we really have the right to be upset at Ahmadinejdad for talking about wiping an apartheid "state" off the map?

City Councilman David Weprin accused Ahmadinejad of having American blood on his hands, saying he aided the insurgency in Iraq by sending weapons and manpower for the sole purpose of killing Americans.

Iran has the blood of Ameircan soldiers on his hands? Way to pass the buck! The blood of those soldiers is squarely on the hands of Bush and Co.! Excuse the Iraqis for attempting to defend themselves in the midst of an illegal war!

Osama bin Laden -The Latest Fake

Whatreallyhappened.com has released a few photoshop images in which they successfully (in my opinion) attempt to debunk this new supposed Osama video. They point to several of his facial features including the differences in the nose, cheekbones and his beard. I'm not sure if anyone has had the chance to look at the images of Osama in the new video, but they really don't look like him. Coincidentally this new tape is released amidst the anniversary of 9/11, tensions with Iran and the results of a new Zogby poll indicating Americans want a new 9/11 investigation. Now, I know not all Muslims agree with my theory here but whether you think these are real tapes or not, one has to wonder why they are always released on a silver platter during the most convenient political times. Additionally, IntelCenter who is releasing the tapes, does not have the best reputation when it comes to dependable information. You can write me off as a conspiracy theorist, I don't care, but what bothers me most is that if these tapes are manufactured, not only Americans but globally, people defend the actions of groups and governments to curtail the rights of Muslims worldwide. In my experience I have not come across many Muslims that will publicly declare they believe 9/11 was an inside job. I wonder however what Muslims in America think of these videos not only of Osama but of the laughing 9/11 hijackers, Al Zarqawi and others. Feel free to let me know.

You can find the article here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

Funny, America is the LEAST peaceful nation between Iran and Yemen, how Ironic

USA: An UNPEACEFUL Nation

Published on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 by Reuters

New Peace Index Ranks US Among Worst Nations by Deborah Charles

WASHINGTON- The United States is among the least peaceful nations in the world, ranking 96th between Yemen and Iran, according to a new index released on Wednesday that evaluates 121 nations based on their peacefulness.According to the Global Peace Index, created by The Economist Intelligence Unit, Norway is the most peaceful nation in the world and Iraq is the least, just after Russia, Israel and Sudan.

"The objective of the Global Peace Index was to go beyond a crude measure of wars by systemically exploring the texture of peace," said Global Peace Index President Clyde McConaghy.

He said the inaugural effort proves "peace can and has and will continue to be measured."

The index was compiled based on 24 indicators measuring peace inside and outside of a country. They included the number of wars a country was involved in the past five years, how many soldiers were killed overseas and how much money was made in arms sales.

Domestic indicators included the level of violent crimes, relations with neighboring countries and level of distrust in other citizens.

The results were then reviewed by a panel of international experts.

"We were trying to find out what positive qualities lead to peace," said Leo Abruzzese, the North American editorial director of the intelligence unit that is part of The Economist Group that publishes the well known magazine.

He said they found in general the most peaceful countries were the smallest, the most politically stable and democratic.

"Democracy didn't actually correlate with peace, but a well-functioning democracy did. Efficient, accountable government seems to be the leading determinant of peace. Beyond that, income helps."

Fifteen of the top 20 most peaceful nations are in Western Europe, and countries with higher income appeared to lead to higher levels of peace, he said.

The United States ranked 96th out of 121 nations, just worse than Yemen and just better than Iran, Honduras and South Africa.

Abruzzese said the United States' score was pulled down by the number of wars it is involved in, large numbers of soldiers killed on the battlefield and high defense spending.

He said the fact the United States has the world's largest prison population per share of overall population also pulled down the score.

"It also has relatively high levels of violent crime,"
he added.

McConaghy said the index would be revised each year and increase the number of countries included. Some countries like Afghanistan and North Korea were not included in the first index because reliable data for all 24 indicators was not available.

121 GPI rankings

Countries most at peace ranked first
Rank/Country/Score
1 Norway 1.357
2 New Zealand 1.363
3 Denmark 1.377
4 Ireland 1.396
5 Japan 1.413
6 Finland 1.447
7 Sweden 1.478
8 Canada 1.481
9 Portugal 1.481
10 Austria 1.483

22 Oman 1.641

25 Australia 1.664

30 Qatar 1.702

37 Malaysia 1.744
38 United Arab Emirates 1.747
39 Tunisia 1.762

46 Kuwait 1.818

48 Morocco 1.893
49 United Kingdom 1.898

58 Libya 1.967
59 Cuba 1.968
60 China 1.980
61 Kazakhstan 1.995
62 Bahrain 1.995
63 Jordan 1.997

73 Egypt 2.068

77 Syria 2.106
78 Indonesia 2.111
79 Mexico 2.125

89 El Salvador 2.244
90 Saudi Arabia 2.246

92 Turkey 2.272
93 Guatemala 2.285
94 Trinidad andTobago 2.286
95 Yemen 2.309
96 United States of America 2.317
97 Iran 2.320
98 Honduras 2.390

109 India 2.530

114 Lebanon 2.662
115 Pakistan 2.697

119 Israel 3.033
120 Sudan 3.182
121 Iraq 3.437

Rosie O'Donnell on Iran and Tower 7

If you can get past the poor video quality, you'll love this!

Recommended by Alia Aboul-Nasr

'War on Terror': terrorizing Americans into consent

Its about time articles like this one by Zbigniew Brzezinski are published in the mainstream American press.

American Muslims as well as peace activists in the US and around the world have been bringing up the same points against the fear strategy called 'War on Terror' since the the very beginning of the 'War on Terror', but they were accused of being unpatriotic cowards, or worse, of supporting terrorism.

It is only now, over 5 years later, that such arguments are being heard and accepted by the American public.

Below are excerpts from the Brzezinski's article "Terrorized by 'War on Terror'" (emphasis mine):

The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world.

The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream.

To justify the "war on terror," the administration has lately crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve), the administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.

Government at every level has stimulated the paranoia. Consider, for example, the electronic billboards over interstate highways urging motorists to "Report Suspicious Activity" (drivers in turbans?). Some mass media have made their own contribution. The cable channels and some print media have found that horror scenarios attract audiences, while terror "experts" as "consultants" provide authenticity for the apocalyptic visions fed to the American public. Hence the proliferation of programs with bearded "terrorists" as the central villains. Their general effect is to reinforce the sense of the unknown but lurking danger that is said to increasingly threaten the lives of all Americans.

The entertainment industry has also jumped into the act. Hence the TV serials and films in which the evil characters have recognizable Arab features, sometimes highlighted by religious gestures, that exploit public anxiety and stimulate Islamophobia. Arab facial stereotypes, particularly in newspaper cartoons, have at times been rendered in a manner sadly reminiscent of the Nazi anti-Semitic campaigns. Lately, even some college student organizations have become involved in such propagation, apparently oblivious to the menacing connection between the stimulation of racial and religious hatreds and the unleashing of the unprecedented crimes of the Holocaust.

The atmosphere generated by the "war on terror" has encouraged legal and political harassment of Arab Americans (generally loyal Americans) for conduct that has not been unique to them.

The record is even more troubling in the general area of civil rights. The culture of fear has bred intolerance, suspicion of foreigners and the adoption of legal procedures that undermine fundamental notions of justice. Innocent until proven guilty has been diluted if not undone, with some -- even U.S. citizens -- incarcerated for lengthy periods of time without effective and prompt access to due process. There is no known, hard evidence that such excess has prevented significant acts of terrorism, and convictions for would-be terrorists of any kind have been few and far between. Someday Americans will be as ashamed of this record as they now have become of the earlier instances in U.S. history of panic by the many prompting intolerance against the few.

Beginning to understand Iraq (and the Middle East)

When internal fighting and killing first started in Iraq around two years ago I was very distressed and completely confused. The US occupation is illegal, unjust, and inhuman; that's an easy one to figure out. But, what do I say about the "sectarian violence"? Are Muslims really killing each other? Who do I protest against? Will I do more harm than good by speaking against one political party or another?

Since then the chaos has spread to other parts of the region, and has gained more news and media coverage. According to mainstream American media, all the problems in the Middle East seem to boil down to one thing: the Sunni-Shia struggle.

I am still not entirely clear about the situation in Iraq; I don't think anyone can be given the limited and distorted media coverage. Still, there is one thing I know for a fact: the so-called Sunni-Shia sectarian violence only started after the US-led occupation. Iraqis had peacefully coexisted for decades until they were "shocked and awed".

No, I am not in denial. There are definitely ignorant, misled Sunnis and Shias who are perpetrating the daily massacres against innocent Iraqi civilians. However, I refuse to believe that all Iraqi Shias are carrying out an Iranian plot to take over Iraq, or that all Iraqi Sunnis want to avenge Saddam's death by killing as many Shias as possible.

As for speaking out against regional political parties and figures, I will strongly condemn any party that chooses to work closely with foreign powers (US,UK,Israel France,...), against the interest of its own people. If that happens to be "Shia" groups in Iraq and "Sunni" parties in Lebanon then so be it. I trust that people will be mature enough to realize that my political opinions are based on political stances, not religious ones.

In the past week or so, I have come across several excellent articles that offer interesting analyses of the situation in Iraq and the Middle East in general (links and excerpts below). I think they are a must-read for anyone looking to truly understand the situation in the Middle East. These articles all make the point that there is so much more to the situation than Sunnis and Shias.

As far as Muslims go, we cannot afford to be ignorant about the situation. We cannot sit back and watch as our enemies divide us.


Sunnis Will Not Be Persuaded That Iran Is Their Real Enemy
"Despite the US-Shia alliance that brought his rule to an end, sectarianism did not become serious until the US-led occupation replaced Saddam's regime with one based on quotas, a process destined to divide Iraq along sectarian and ethnic lines."

The Shia-Sunni Divide: Myths and Reality
"The consensus in both Sunni and Shia circles appears to be that attempts to emphasise Sunni- Shia rivalries are intended to deflect attention from both the US occupation of Iraq and continuing Israeli aggression. That the US is working to fuel such tensions is almost an article of faith for Muslims on both sides. In its attempt to create an anti-Iran alliance, they say, the US is resorting to a strategy which aims to raise the spectre of sectarianism across the Muslim world."

How Easy It Is To Put Hatred on A Map
"Our guilt in this sectarian game is obvious. We want to divide the "other", "them", our potential enemies, from each other, while we - we civilised Westerners with our refined, unified, multicultural values - are unassailable."


Baghdad New Alliance
"Bush’s new strategy can be described as a policy of escalation and rejection of conceding failure. In addition, it is a plan to take revenge on Baghdad that deprived him from achieving the long-promised victory. By allocating 17,000 additional troops to Baghdad – while knowing that there are no clearly-defined fighting fronts – Bush in fact seeks to cause the biggest amount of damage to its people and buildings."

iRack & iRan

This may put things in perspective: