Category Archives: Iran

Iran, Media, Politics, United Nations

While You Were Out, Iran Called


While everyone was busy worrying about American Idols, the politician and the one on TV, and who’s priest said what, cranes falling, and Hollywood burning, we all missed Iran’s way of negotiating with the IAEA when it comes to their nuclear ambitions. For months now, Iran has refused to cooperate with the IAEA. Negotiations aren’t over. But negotiations do have and ending point where the problem is either solved one way or solved another way. Here is a short list of news from the wire services for the last 10 days.


You should be mad as hell at the media. ALL of them didn’t so much as mention this BIG problem. When they start connecting the dots as to why it had to be solved militarily, they better start right here.

Why the virtual blackout? From the get-go it is out of Obama’s grasp. Iran says their uranium enrichment is none of the U.N.’s concern, and, is not negotiable. That, and a threat of this magnitude would play to the Republican’s strong suit, national defense. And maybe a little circling the wagons by downplaying the reality of a threatening Iran in order to present a different ‘reality,’ that of nominating a rookie, in every sense of the word, to the most powerful job in the world. It is better for Democrats, politically, to just ignore it.

related link: Barack Obama Picks His Cabinet

2008 Election, Iran, Media, Politics, Uncategorized, War On Terror

Obama The Pot, Bush The Kettle

Not satisfied that he has made a big enough fool of himself over Bush’s speech to the Israeli Knesset by behaving like HE was the focus of the speech and not the appeasers of 1939 or today, the presidential wannabe and Democrat front-runner Barack Obama is now accusing the President of “dishonest, divisive” attacks, all in the context of that speech. And Democrats are circling the wagons around him.

Obama has now become the pot calling the kettle black. How presidential? The fact that there was no attack on Obama personally or Democrats as a party isn’t going to prevent Obama to flat-out lie to the dumb masses about it. The media doesn’t think Bush was talking about Obama. Just Obama and democrats think this is the case.

The president referred to the leader of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally, and then said some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals – comments Obama and Democrats said were directed at them.

After lying about Bush’s motivations for that speech, he continues . . .

“They aren’t telling you the truth. They are trying to fool you and scare you because they can’t win a foreign policy debate on the merits,” said Obama. “But it’s not going to work. Not this time, not this year.”

I thought Obama was done with debating? That’s what he told Hillary Clinton a few weeks ago. And someone should tell Barack that Bush is not running. McCain would be the best one to debate with. Or for a real challenge, Sean Hannity. But I digress. . . Who is ‘they?’ And what lies have ‘they’ said? Obama did not say either who was lying or what the lie was. And who is the ‘you’ in ‘fool you .. scare you?’ I don’t think the Knesset felt like Bush was trying to fool them or scare them. They know, more than he, what it is like to have to live with missiles and suicide bombers ruining your day.

So the one who is lying and dividing here is Sen. Barack Obama by taking this speech and telling us that it was directed at him and his party, and that it was done to divide the country. Is this Commander In Chief material?

related links: Seattle Times

2008 Election, Iran, Politics, Uncategorized, War On Terror, Whiners

Obama The Negotiator Has Lots Of Company

So why would Sen. Barack Obama think that President Bush was talking about him? Well, other than to make himself a victim again and rouse up the lemmings. Please find below a short list of some prominent democrats on the subject of negotiating with terrorists or terrorist states. H/T to Kathryn Jean Lopez . . .

The president could have been speaking of any number of Democrats. Say, Jimmy Carter, who in April, 2008 said: “Through more official consultations with these outlawed leaders [Hamas and Syria], it may yet be possible to revive and expedite the stalemated peace talks between Israel and its neighbors. In the Middle East, as in Nepal, the path to peace lies in negotiation, not in isolation.”

Or Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, freelance diplomat, who in December 2007 said: “the road to Damascus is a road to peace.”

Or, perhaps he meant Speaker Pelosi in April 2007: “I believe in dialogue. As my colleagues have said over and over again, unless you communicate, you cannot understand each other. You cannot reach agreement.”

Or maybe he meant recent Obama endorser and former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who, according to his own press release in February of last year, believes “the U.S. should step up our diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria.”

Or Bill Richardson, who has said, about meeting with Iran and Syria: “They’re bad folks … But you don’t have peace talks with your friends.”

It could have been about Congressman Henry Waxman, who in April said: “A Democratic administration would go back and try to open that possibility up for discussions [with Iran] of a grand bargain of one sort or another … Democrats would certainly have seen that as a missed opportunity.”

Or Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich: “I can go to Syria. I can go to Iran and work to craft a path towards peace. And I will … How can you change peopled minds if you don’t meet with them?”

Or former Democratic presidential candidates and senators Chris Dodd and John Kerry, who met with Syria’s al-Assad and said: “As senior Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee, we felt it was important to make clear that while we believe in resuming dialogue, our message is no different: Syria can and should play a more constructive role in the region … We concluded that our conversation was worthwhile, and that … resuming direct dialogue with Syria should be pursued.”

Or the former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, from April 10: “[Diplomats] can deliver some pretty tough messages … You don’t begin with a president of the country, but you do need to talk to your enemy.”

Those democrats.

related link: Obama And Democrats Demand That The Shoe Fits

Iran, Politics

Young Bloggers In Iran

According to the Telegraph.co.uk, not everyone in Iran is as loony as their president. Two thirds of Iran’s population is under 30 years old. Iran has an annual inflation rate of 20 percent. With a tightly controlled media, the blogosphere and the Internet represent the only ‘free press’ in Iran. It’s only free though until the government finds you and shuts you down.

If a democratic government presided over this disaster, it would be swept from office. The young are a vital constituency; two thirds of the country’s 70 million people are under 30. They are bitterly aware that Iran floats on a sea of natural wealth, boasting the second largest reserves of oil and natural gas in the world. With oil prices exceeding $100 a barrel and no fewer than 130 billion barrels lying beneath Iran’s mountains and deserts, there is no excuse for decades of economic failure.

Like Iraq, there are a lot of people in Iran that are not hostile to freedom, liberty and the United States. The demographics in Iran will force the current political situation there to change. A change that includes the ‘west,’ that includes joining this century, that includes prospering in a world economy. Including a change from the ways and means of their current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The only question is when.

Unlike the situation in Iraq in 2003, there are, or soon will be, enough Iranians to make a change in their government peacefully. That’s the best case scenario. That could not and did not happen in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Good luck in the elections Iran.

related link: Iran can only wait and pray

Iran, Politics, United Nations

Iran's Nuclear Program Revisited

It wasn’t that long ago that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was portraying the United Nation’s IAEA, and the New York Times, as confirming that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Remember, it was reported to have stopped about the time we entered Iraq militarily, 2003?

It doesn’t jibe with today’s headlines on the subject.

U.N. council imposes new sanctions on defiant Iran
Iran defiant over new UN nuke sanctions
ElBaradei urges Iran to clarify atom arms allegations

In U.N, diplospeak, it’s blah blah blah blah

There were 14 votes in favor, none against and one country, Indonesia, abstained. Previous sanctions resolutions were adopted unanimously in December 2006 and March 2007, but council envoys said Monday’s message to Iran was a strong one.

That and, it depends on what the meaning of ‘strong’ is.

Iran denounced the current and previous resolutions as violations of international law and said they only harmed the 15-nation Security Council’s standing.

You can see where this is going.