The Cables that Call for Attacks on Iran: An Alternative Analysis

My recent Tehran Bureau article: With WikiLeaks’ release of over 250,000 confidential diplomatic cables between the US and its allies, politicians and specialists on Iran are falling over themselves to highlight Iran’s regional isolation and the threat posed by its  nuclear program.  Israeli premier Benyamin Netanyahu, for instance, leveraged the leaks to vindicate his official stance on Iran, saying, “The documents show many sources backing Israel’s assessments, particularly of Iran… that Iran is the threat.” (1)

The cables illustrate that senior officials in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel have been privately campaigning the United States to do their bidding and attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, alleging that Iran and its nuclear program constitute an “existential threat.”  The cables also expose duplicitous behavior for some, namely Saudi Arabia, whose ambassador to Iran only recently described Saudi-Iranian relations as “brotherly” and urged further cooperation, citing “common viewpoints” that necessitate “the continuance of consultation between the two countries.” (2)

As news agencies continue to scour the files, it remains too early to make sweeping conclusions. Nevertheless, a closer look at the cables released thus far coupled with recent developments in the region could reveal an alternative analysis: Iran is not in fact isolated but is an emerging regional power whose rise proves that there is no consensus on the threat it poses and whether the Persian Gulf country should be attacked.  Furthermore, their behind-the-scenes campaigning for an American attack on Iran also exposes their own regimes’ inability and reluctance to face the new balance of power themselves.  Lastly, the diplomatic cables demonstrate the necessity of differentiating between the view of a few unrepresentative Arab regimes and that of the general population.

A brief survey of 2010 illustrates how Iran’s influence in the region is growing both through state relations and on the popular level.  Indeed, poll results indicate that unlike the private communications of the above Arab regimes (Israel is excluded here as a non-Arab country), the majority of the people of the Arab world do not perceive Iran to be a threat and view the possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb as, in fact, favorable.

Iran-Iraq relations is a critical case in point. On March 7, 2010, Iraqis once again went to the polls to elect a new government.  The elections, however, failed to produce a clear winner and an eight-month political deadlock ensued in Baghdad.  One by one, Iraqi politicians made their way to neighboring Iran to facilitate a breakthrough, implicitly acknowledging Iran as the main powerbroker in Iraq.  This is an important point that must not be understated.  While in 2003, it was the US-led coalition that brought the Ba’athist regime crumbling down, facilitating the electoral process that allowed such politicians to contend for power, today, it is Iran and not the US that is the main arbiter in Iraq.  So decisive is the Iranian role in Iraq that it has caused the envy and competition of Iran’s rivals. For example, Saudi Arabia, an Arab country, tried to supplant non-Arab Iran as mediator by inviting Iraqi politicians to Riyadh on October 31. Iraqi officials refused, voicing, of all things, “fears over foreign interference.” (3)  That a Saudi role in ending the electoral standoff is considered foreign influence while countless Iraqi politicians visited Iran seeking support for their respective faction attests to Iran’s burgeoning role in Iraq.

Iranian influence in Iraq is not limited to political parties, but also extends to the street.  Indeed, it is rumored that Iran is orchestrating the transformation of the Sadrist movement of the powerful and populist Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has been in Iran for the past few years, into a Hizbullah-esque state-within-a-state. (4)

In addition to Iraq, Iran-Syria relations have never been better.  When Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Syria in February 2010, his Syrian counterpart, President Bashar al-Asad, announced an agreement annulling entry visas between the two countries, adding, “This agreement would result in more communication and enhancing the common interests of the Syrian and Iranian peoples… Bilateral relations cannot remain confined to the political domain for decades… I believe this agreement will push relations along this direction, and will further enhance the relations at all levels and in all sectors.” (5)

As for Lebanon, Ahmadinejad’s much publicized October visit to the country prompted a senior Israeli official to equate the visit with that of “a commander coming to inspect his troops.” (6)  As co-founder of Hizbullah, one of the world’s most powerful guerrilla movements, Iran’s continued financial, military, and spiritual and political support means that Iranian influence in the Levant is a solid long-term reality.

Iran’s support of militant groups is not confined to a sectarian Shi’ite agenda; its backing of the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip is a testament to this wider strategy.

Iran’s allies extend beyond the Arab states of the Middle East.  Relations between Iran and Turkey are also at an all-time high.  In June 2010, Turkey defied its longtime American ally and voted against the United Nations Security Council resolution which slapped Iran with another round of sanctions for its nuclear program, leading two-time presidential hopeful John McCain to quip that Turkey’s nay vote was an “obvious thumb in the eye.” (7)

To the east, Iran’s political clout dates back to the days when the Iranians, along with the Indian government, funded and sustained the resistance against the Taliban – the same resistance that rode to power atop the American effort to topple the Taliban after 9/11.  Today, Iran cements its relations with the resistance-borne Karzai regime with millions of dollars in funds. In October, Afghan president Hamid Karzai defended his acceptance of such large amounts of monetary support, saying, “They want good relations in return… Afghanistan and Iran have neighborly relations… We have also asked lots of things in return in this relationship … so it’s a relationship between neighbors. It will go on and we’ll continue to ask for cash help from Iran.”

Indeed, Iran is far from isolated in the region, to say nothing of its allies outside the Middle East.

Beyond state actors, recent polls belie Saudi, Jordanian, Egypt, and Emirati official statements that Arabs believe Iran is the biggest threat facing the region.  Conversely, the poll found that “large majorities of Arabs list the United States and Israel as the region’s worst enemies, far above Iran…” and that a “nuclear-armed Iran would be a positive development in the Middle East.” (8)

Contrary to the opinions of some specialists and politicians, this alternative analysis of the confidential cables affirms several points: Iran is not in fact isolated and that its influence is expanding throughout the region, so much so, that it causes Egyptian, Saudi, Jordanian, Emirati, and Israeli officials great anxiety; Iran’s emergence and these governments’ private pleas for help from the United States demonstrate these governments’ inability to come to terms with the new political landscape of the Middle East; the private Arab cables show how these regimes do not reflect the will of the majority of the Arab world, who according to recent polls consider Israel and the US to be a much larger threat to the region than Iran.

Iran has powerful opponents and is still reeling from the 2009 post-election turmoil and a strict sanctions regime, but it is far from isolated, as many contend.  Most importantly, there is no consensus on an attack on Iran, despite the lobbying efforts of a few Arab regimes and Israel.  The Obama administration would do well to consider the reality of Iranian influence in the region because an attack on Iran premised on the false notion that the Persian Gulf power is isolated and unpopular in the region could be a disastrous miscalculation.

Sources:

(1) Ravid, Barak.  “Netanyahu: WikiLeaks cables prove Israel is right on Iran.”  Haaretz.  Nov. 29, 2010. <http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-wikileaks-cables-prove-israel-is-right-on-iran-1.327653>.

(2) “‘Iran-Saudi relations positive for region.’”  PressTV. Oct. 26, 2010. <http://www.presstv.ir/detail/148349.html>.

(3) “Iraqi Shia bloc rejects Saudi offer.” Al-Jazeera English. Oct. 31, 2010. <http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/10/2010103183433616942.html>

(4) Moubayed, Sami.  “Muqtada unleashes new, improved army.” Asia Times Online. Apr 20, 2010. <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LD30Ak02.html>.

(5) “Syria, Iran ink deal on annulling entry visa.”  People’s Daily Online. Feb 25, 2010. <http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/6902834.html>.

(6) Ravid, Barak. “’Ahmadinejad visit proves Lebanon has joined axis of extreme nations.’” Haaretz.  Oct. 13, 2010. <http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/ahmadinejad-visit-proves-lebanon-has-joined-axis-of-extreme-nations-1.318905>.

(7) Harvey, Benjamin.  “Erdogan Rebuffs U.S., Insists Turkey Isn’t Iran Ally.”  Bloomberg Businessweek.  June 17, 2010. <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-17/erdogan-rebuffs-u-s-insists-turkey-isn-t-iran-ally-update2-.html>.

(8) LaFranchi, Howard.  “New poll: angry at US, Arabs support an Iran nuclear bomb.”  The Christian Science Monitor.  Aug. 6, 2010.  <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0806/New-poll-angry-at-US-Arabs-support-an-Iran-nuclear-bomb>.

Posted in Iran, US Foreign Policy, US-Iran Relations, WikiLeaks | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Brazil Recognizes Palestine

For Brazil, an emerging power, to recognize a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders may not have an immediate effect on the ground, but it is without a doubt significant nonetheless – al-Jazeera: Israel has expressed disappointment at Brazil’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, saying it flew in the face of efforts to negotiate a peace deal.

In a public letter addressed to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, on Friday, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, recognised Palestine as an independent state within the 1967 borders.

The decision came in response to a personal request made by Abbas on November 24, according to the letter published on the foreign ministry’s website on Friday.

“Considering that the demand presented by his excellency [Abbas] is just and consistent with the principles upheld by Brazil with regard to the Palestinian issue, Brazil, through this letter, recognises a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders,” it said.

The letter refers to the “legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people for a secure, united, democratic and economically viable state coexisting peacefully with Israel.”

Posted in Brazil, Palestine | Tagged | 2 Comments

WikiLeaks: U.S.-Iran Relations “Now What” Moment?

Huffington Post – Excerpts: It should now be clear that U.S. policy has never been a true engagement policy. By definition, engagement entails a long-term approach that abandons “sticks” and reassures both sides that their respective fears are unfounded. We realized early on that the administration was unlikely to adopt this approach. Instead, we pursued a “carrot and stick” strategy similar to the Bush administration, utilizing positive and negative inducements to convince Iran that changing its behavior would be its most rewarding and least harmful decision. The key difference between the Bush and Obama approach is an effort by the latter to fix tactical mistakes of the former. By disavowing regime change, striking diplomatic quid pro quos with key allies, and dropping preconditions to diplomacy with Iran, Obama changed tactics, but maintained an objective similar to his predecessor — making Iran yield on the nuclear issue through pressure. By changing tactics, the U.S. managed to build a consensus for international sanctions after talks collapsed in 2009 — something the Bush administration was unable to achieve.

Moreover, as the leaked cables show, the highest levels of the Obama administration never believed that diplomacy could succeed. While this does not cheapen Obama’s Nowruz message and other groundbreaking facets of his initial outreach, it does raise three important questions: How can U.S. policymakers give maximum effort to make diplomacy succeed if they admittedly never believed their efforts could work? Why was Iran expected to accept negotiation terms that relinquished its greatest strategic asset (1200 kg of LEU) without receiving a strategic asset of equal value in return? And what are the chances that Iran will take diplomacy seriously now that it knows the U.S. never really did? The Obama administration presented a solid vision, but never truly pursued it.

3. Paradoxically, WikiLeaks may have caused a “Now What?” moment in U.S.-Iran relations. For America, the strategic ambiguity in its status-quo Iran policy is no longer tenable. Wikileaks has provided Iran with clarity on the U.S. “carrot-stick” strategy. Now, Obama must choose between continuing the existing policy that has been unevenly applied (where are the carrots?), or recalibrating his policy to seriously consider the political, economic, security and nuclear incentives sought by Iran that any diplomatic solution will have to address. This does not imply that concessions must be made to Iran on each of these four fronts. Only robust diplomacy can determine whether it is in America’s interest to address Iranian concerns. But if Iran’s interests are not addressed in negotiations, diplomacy will be deemed one-sided and fail without being executed in good faith. This increases the likelihood that the aforementioned international coalition will begin to fragment — and that Iran will likely exploit those fragmentations.

For Iran, WikiLeaks should make it clear — it has no real friends, in the region or elsewhere. At best, it has leverage that is facilitated by business arrangements. Trust is in short supply. Going forward, this is likely to affect its strategic calculus vis-à-vis the U.S. and its nuclear program. While it is currently unclear whose hand will be strengthened in Tehran by these recent developments, one of two scenarios seems likely. Iran’s new-found sense of isolation may exacerbate existing domestic and international pressures to the point where it feels compelled to cut a deal. Indeed, Iranian decision-makers may decide that the WikiLeaks damage suffered by the U.S. and Iran have leveled the playing field, making it easier to reach an agreement without losing face. Conversely, the information gleaned from WikiLeaks could emasculate pragmatic conservatives in Iran, embolden hardliners and their preconceived notions of “foreign plots,” and reinforce Iran’s “don’t trust anyone” mentality that has become increasingly visible in its foreign policy since 2005.

As negotiations in Geneva commence this weekend, it would be wise for both sides to utilize lessons learned — from the previous round of diplomacy, and from the WikiLeaks debacle — to maximize the chances for successful diplomacy. Ambassador John Limbert, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran during my time at the State Department, used to (half) joke about doing whatever it took to keep some form of rationality in our Iran policy. If any good is to come out of the inexcusable WikiLeaks security breach, perhaps it will be something as simple as taking Ambassador Limbert’s advice to heart.

Posted in US-Iran Relations, WikiLeaks | Tagged , | 5 Comments

The Latest WikiLeaks Leak: “US urged to tackle Iran”

al-Jazeera: Among the documents in the cache of quarter-million files are striking passages detailing US observations from meetings with foreign leaders regarding Iran.

A series of diplomatic cables sent from US diplomats in the Middle East to the US state department in Washington reveal efforts by Gulf countries and Israel to influence US opinion.

The following are excerpted from cables that were published in The New York Times:

From US embassy in Abu Dhabi, UAE – May 16, 2006

Turning to Iran, MbZ voiced certainty that the EU-3 efforts with Iran would break down and that Iran would resume its nuclear activities ) if it had not already done so. Repeating concerns first voiced to us in February (reftel), MbZ appeared convinced that it was only a matter of time before Israel or the U.S. would strike Iranian nuclear facility targets. U.S. installations in the Gulf could be targeted by Iran in the aftermath of such an action, he warned. MbZ agreed with the USG,s tough line with Tehran and the Europeans. A nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Gulf region and possibly allow terrorist access to WMD.

[MbZ is Abu Dhabi crown prince Mohammed bin Zayed]

From US embassy in Abu Dhabi, UAE – April 29, 2006

In recent meetings with senior USG officials, Abu Dhabi’s ruling family has expressed clear support for U.S. initiatives against Iran. The U.S. and UAE have a “common desire to succeed,” AbZ told U/S Joseph, noting that the combination of Iran and terrorism is something that cannot be tolerated. “The threat from al-Qa’ida would be minor if Iran has nukes,” AbZ said (ref N). MbZ told Townsend April 22 that the Iranians think that the U.S. will not do anything about their recent declaration that they have successfully enriched uranium. He added that he thought the Iranians were wrong. MbZ and UAE Vice President and Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid agreed with Secretary Rice February 23 about the need to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region and its nuclear ambitions, although they specified that any sanctions should target the key Iranian leadership, not the Iranian people.

[AbZ is UAE foreign minister Abdullah bin Zayed]

From US Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia – April 4, 2008

The King, Foreign Minister, Prince Muqrin, and Prince Nayif all agreed that the Kingdom needs to cooperate with the US on resisting and rolling back Iranian influence and subversion in Iraq. The King was particularly adamant on this point, and it was echoed by the senior princes as well. Al-Jubeir recalled the King’s frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program. “He told you to cut off the head of the snake,” he recalled to the Charge’, adding that working with the US to roll back Iranian influence in Iraq is a strategic priority for the King and his government.

[Adel al-Jubeir is Saudi ambassador to the US]

From US embassy in Manama, Bahrain – November 4, 2009

King Hamad pointed to Iran as the source of much of the trouble in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He argued forcefully for taking action to terminate their nuclear program, by whatever means necessary.”That program must be stopped,” he said. “The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.”

[King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa is Bahrain’s monarch]

From US embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel – June 2, 2010

When asked if the USG and GOI have fundamental differences of opinion when assessing Iran’s nuclear program, Barak said we share the same intelligence, but acknowledged differences in analysis. He suggested that the USG view is similar to presenting evidence in a criminal court case in which a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. As such, USG standards are tougher — especially following the failure to find WMD in Iraq — while end-products such as the 2007 NIE unintentionally take on a softer tone as a result. Barak said the fate of the region and the world rests on our ability to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons — as such, the standards for determining guilt should be lower as the costs are higher.

[Ehud Barak is Israel’s defence minister]

Posted in Iran's Nuclear Program, Middle East, US-Iran Relations, WikiLeaks | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Church in Arizona protested because it looks like a mosque

Our country is going mad! – Islamophobia may have reached a point in this country where people condemn Christians that they suspect are Muslims without ever checking the facts.

In Phoenix, Arizona, a new Christian church has residents fearing that it is an Islamic mosque.

The Light of the World multidenominational church is being built just off of Interstate 10 and features a dome-like structure.

“Since the distinctive dome shape went up, church leaders said they have received phone calls from concerned neighbors who’ve mistaken the building for an Islamic mosque,” KPHO reported.

“I heard many people, they came over and they say, ‘Is this a Muslim temple?’ No, it’s not,” church member Juan Calixto told KPNX.

“It is unfortunate that people are so intolerant to differences that they aren’t willing to see that the place of worship is not a mosque,” said Tayyibah Amatullah of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Arizona chapter.

Church officials have hung a sign to let people know they aren’t Muslim. “If you think we are different you are wrong,” the sign reads. “We are building a Christian house of prayer.”

Posted in Muslims in America | 3 Comments

Site: “Wtf has Sarah Palin done so far?”

This is actually pretty funny. Here’s the link to the site. The good thing about it is that all the quotes/jokes are sourced. By the way, I hope she runs and clinches the Republican nomination for president in 2012 because not a single independent will vote for her! She’ll torpedo the GOP’s shot and winning the presidency just as she did in 2008! For those who are hoping to defeat the democrats in 2012, you’d have a better shot at doing so by campaigning against her winning the republican candidacy in the primaries.

Here are a few that stand out:

“Is qualified to be an astronaut because she saw the moon from her porch.” – my favorite

“Wanted to relate to the common-folk hockey moms everywhere by going on a $150,000 shopping spree at Saks 5th, Neiman Marcus and Bloomingdale’s.”

“Admitted she tried marijuana several years ago, but she did not like it. She said it distorted her perceptions, impaired her thinking, and she’s hoping that the effects will eventually wear off.”

Posted in 22 Khordad | 13 Comments

George Bush’s memoirs reveal how he considered attacks on Iran and Syria

The Guardian: George Bush ordered the Pentagon to plan an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and considered a covert attack on Syria, the former president reveals in his memoirs.

Bush, in the 497-page Decision Points, a copy of which was obtained by the Guardian in advance of its publication in the US tomorrow, writes of Iran: “I directed the Pentagon to study what would be necessary for a strike.” He adds: “This would be to stop the bomb clock, at least temporarily.”

Such an attack would almost certainly have produced a conflagration in the Middle East that could have seen Iran retaliating by blocking oil supplies and unleashing militias and sympathisers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

Bush also discussed with his national security team either an air strike or a covert special forces raid on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility at the request of Israel.

The book, which is published in the US tomorrow, seeks to rebuild Bush’s reputation, giving his side of the story on the most controversial issues of his presidency, which include Iraq, Afghanistan, hurricane Katrina, the Wall Street meltdown and torture at Guantánamo.

Bush justifies the use of waterboarding in his book, saying that the controversial interrogation technique used on three detainees helped break up terrorist plots to attack Heathrow airport, Canary Wharf, US diplomatic missions and a number of targets in the US. He writes: “Whatever the verdict on my presidency, I’m comfortable with the fact that I won’t be around to hear it. That’s a decision point only history will reach.”

In the memoirs Bush:

• Describes Tony Blair as his closest foreign ally.

• Admits mistakes over Iraq, but regards it as the right thing to have done.

• Defends the Guantánamo Bay detention centre and the use of torture.

• Accepts he took “too long” to make decisions over the disaster that engulfed New Orleans after it was struck by hurricane Katrina five years ago, killing more than 1,800 people, but says the blame lies with other people.

In a book largely lacking in personal insight, Bush says he is most angry at accusations that he was indifferent to the plight of the victims of Katrina because so many are black. “The suggestion that I was a racist because of the response to Katrina represented an all-time low. I told Laura at the time that it was the worst moment of my presidency. I feel the same way today,” Bush writes.

On Iran, some of his advisers argued that destroying “the regime’s prized project” – its nuclear facility – would help the Iranian opposition, while others worried it would stir up Iranian nationalism against the US.

Two other options under consideration by Bush were direct US-Iranian negotiation, which Barack Obama favours but Bush ruled out, saying talking to a tyrant seldom worked out well for democracies; and joining the Europeans in a mixture of sanctions and talks with Iran, the option he finally chose.

“Military action would always be on the table, but it would be my last resort,” he said. He added that he discussed all the options with Blair, who in his memoirs, published earlier this year, revealed he is now leaning towards military action.

Bush says: “One thing is certain. The United States should never allow Iran to threaten the world with a nuclear bomb.”

Bush also discussed a request from the then Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, to bomb a suspected Syrian nuclear plant. Bush convened his national security team to discuss an air strike or a covert raid. He says of the latter: “We studied the idea seriously, but the CIA and the military concluded it would be too risky to slip a team into and out of Syria.” He said no to a disappointed Olmert. The Israelis then did it themselves in September 2007.

Posted in Bush, US Foreign Policy, US-Iran Relations | 2 Comments

How political Islam is winning the war for talent (and gaining a competitive edge)

Foreign Policy Magazine – Excerpts: In 2009 the Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide Mohammed Mehdi Akef voluntarily stepped aside — the first time a top leader in the movement had voluntarily resigned before reaching death’s door. His message, as Michele Dunne of the Carnegie Endowment describes it, was that ‘we old guys need to step aside — I’m going to set an example.’ This month Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Akef’s counterpart in the ruling establishment, hinted he would run for a third term in office next year, extending his three decade rule.

Akef’s resignation was the high note in a pitch that Islamist groups have repeatedly made: that they are more internally democratic and dynamic than their secular counterparts. It’s a cultivated image that glosses over a deeply flawed system, one that can be just as autocratic and hostile to new ideas. But it is giving Islamist groups a competitive edge, especially in attracting and retaining a new generation of talented members.

Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood are the sharpest examples: they recruit young, smart entry-level members, sort them according to interest and expertise, and, in some cases, allow them to rise the ranks, with an emphasis on ideological purity and a populist touch. Through an internal political Darwinism, the process produced leaders who’ve have been able to outsmart and outmaneuver their secular rivals. It has also energized the lower ranks, where young volunteers then help run rallies, canvass for elections, or take up arms.

Posted in Hezbollah, Islamism | 11 Comments

“Growing Use of Contractors Added to War’s Chaos in Iraq”

NY Times – Excerpt: The mayhem cropped up around Iraq, notably in one episode reported in March 2005 in which a small battle erupted involving three separate security companies.

At a notoriously dangerous checkpoint on the main road to the Baghdad airport, a cement truck entered a lane reserved for Department of Defense vehicles. A guard from Global, a British company, fired a warning shot, and when a man initially identified as an Iraqi opened the door and tried to flee, guards from a tower started firing, too. The man dropped to the ground. Then members of an Iraqi private security team parked nearby also opened fire, shooting through the chest not the driver but a worker from DynCorp International, an American security company.

When the truck driver was finally questioned, he turned out to be a Filipino named José who worked with yet a third company, KBR, the American logistics and security giant.

The conclusion drawn from this chaos was, “IT IS BELIEVED THE DRIVER ENTERED THE DOD LANE BY ACCIDENT.”

Posted in Iraq, WikiLeaks | 1 Comment

Trailer: “Skyline”

A treat for Sci-Fi junkies… me being one of them. Release date: November 12.

Posted in Film, Trailers | Comments Off on Trailer: “Skyline”

Sanctions pinch UAE-Iran trade (video)

See the al-Jazeera video here.

Posted in Iran | Comments Off on Sanctions pinch UAE-Iran trade (video)

“Is Iran Pulling the Strings in Iraq? Not Quite”

Time.com – Excerpts: The fact that Iran has blessed a second term of office for Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki — support that could help get him re-elected — is being treated in some corners as a grim and unexpected turn of events. No sooner had American combat troops departed, goes the story, than Iran moved into the vacuum to install its man in power, ordering the radical, anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to throw his weight behind al-Maliki, whom al-Sadr detests. “May God get rid of America in Iraq so that its people’s problems are solved,” said Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, hosting al-Maliki on Monday. Cue the “Who lost Iraq?” chorus in Washington.
Tehran may have greater influence than Washington does, but it is not able to script Baghdad’s political process. Iran, after all, wouuld have had the Shi’ite parties run as a single coalition, which would have finished way ahead of Allawi’s. Nor is that influence anything new: Iran’s key ally at the time, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, as well as al-Maliki’s Dawa Party, were included in the interim government assembled by the U.S. in 2003, and all three democratic elections have seen the Shi’ite Islamist parties emerge dominant. Even al-Sadr’s kingmaker role is nothing new: al-Maliki became Prime Minister in May 2006 only with the backing of al-Sadr’s parliamentary bloc.
Posted in Iraq | Comments Off on “Is Iran Pulling the Strings in Iraq? Not Quite”

CNN Video on Ahmadinejad’s Visit

Very interesting.

Posted in Hezbollah, Iran, Lebanon | 4 Comments

Ahmadinejad Visits Lebanon

[There is a rally organized in south Beirut, a Hizbullah stronghold. There is no footage of the event yet, but it should be interested. I went to one such rally 2 years ago when I was in Lebanon and it was intense, to say the least. I’ll post the video from the event as it comes online. In the meanwhile, here’s a video that mentions his arrival in passing.  I’ve been meaning to comment on Israel’s quest to implement a “loyalty oath” and will as soon as I get a chance.] al-Jazeera Excerpt: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, has praised Lebanon for its resistance against Israel before a massive crowd at a controversial rally organised by Hezbollah in the group’s stronghold in Beirut, the Lebanese capital.

“Lebanon is the school of resistance and perseverance against the bullying forces of the world, and is like a university for jihad, for adventure in the way of the noble, human causes,” Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday while calling for a united Islamic world.

Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, did not appear in person at the rally because of security concerns but welcomed Ahmadinejad in a speech broadcast via video link.

During his first official state visit to the country, Ahmadinejad earlier pledged to stand by Lebanon in confronting what he called hostilities from Israel.

He also extended Tehran’s unstinted support to a “unified Lebanon and its government”.

Ahmadinejad was given a tumultuous welcome on arrival by thousands of Shia Muslims who lined the road from the airport, throwing rice and flower petals at his motorcade.

Even though the Iranian president was on an official visit, Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr, reporting from Beirut, said that Wednesday night’s rally was not organised by the state.

Khodr said Hezbollah leaders have told her that the rally was arranged by the group to “thank the Iranian leader for the political as well as the financial support the Islamic Republic of Iran provided, particularly to Hezbollah supporters, after the 2006 Lebanon-Israel war”.

Posted in Hezbollah, Iran, Lebanon | Comments Off on Ahmadinejad Visits Lebanon

“Why the Dollar is Green”

[This is a project spearheaded by some friends of mine that I think is worth your time. Read about it below and cast your vote please]

**Forwarded Message

About:  The film  “Why the Dollar’s Green” will provide researched analysis explaining the state of the environment and providing information on organizations doing non-profit work for the environment, in addition, the film will follow crew members as they attempt this endeavor.

The goal of the project is two-fold. First to build awareness and education on the issues the environment is facing today, which this researched documentary will highlight. Second, we will raise funds that will provide support for environmental organizations doing non-profit work, which will be raised through the making of the film itself. The film also encourages America to take the lead in this important global issue. The film will portray a different side of America by highlighting the more positive qualities of American culture, such as compassion, unity and awareness, as Americans come to together to show why the dollar is green.
Our Goal: Our goal is to collect $1 from each American on behalf of Rise Up 4’s documentary film project.
How You Can Help: Please take a minute to vote for our pepsi refresh project idea. It takes one minute and voting goes until the end of the month. You can vote for it once everyday! Vote here.
Posted in Documentary, Environment | Comments Off on “Why the Dollar is Green”