No evidence Iran is arming insurgency

The Western media rarely challenges the United States on its quite unsubstantiated accusation that Iran is arming the insurgency, even though it is demonstrably false. Iran's UN spokesman M.A. Mohammadi, said:

"the recent accusations about Iran's role in sending arms and 'explosively formed penetrators' to Iraqi extremists to foment a civil war in the neighboring country are completely false and baseless."

Commenting on Iran's role in Afghanistan and Iraq he said, "the leaders of both these countries have praised Iran's constructive, good-neighbor policy toward them," and asked the U.S. government, "to proffer evidence regarding its accusations and to provide the list of Iranian agents who it alleges are operating in Iraq," which they have to date been unable to do.

Moreover, 85 percent of the detainees in U.S. custody are Sunnis. The 15 percent of Shia detainees are mainly from the Jaish al-Mahdi. Whereas Iran is more closely associated with their rivals, the Badr organisation. Therefore it is absurd to claim that Iran is arming the insurgency, yet the media stil do.

British forces flee Basra

British forces are at present withdrawing from Saddam's place, or more accruately they are fleeing Basra; a city that they could no longer hold.

The troops stationed in the airport are, to use the military parlance, marking time. There can no longer be any military justification for their continued presence, since they are doing little more than defending themselves.

The USA has ceased to be relevant

The relationship between Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki and the U.S. dictatorship in Iraq, which has always been tempestuous, has now deteriorated further. Much to the annoyance of his U.S. overlords; al-Malaki rubbished the preposterous claims that Iran is destabilising Iraq as the U.S. Government likes to claim. In fact al-Malaki pointed out the reverse is true and thanked Iran for its “positive and constructive” role in “providing security and fighting terrorism in Iraq”.

The comment not only earned rebuke from the beleaguered U.S. President, they also led to the following threat: ”my message to him is, is that when we catch you playing a non-constructive role there will be a price to pay.”

A rebuke that Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki is not going to heed. His response the U.S. President criticism of his administration was even more assertive. He said:

“No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people. Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution, and can find friends elsewhere.”

This statement represents a recognition in the Iraq government of the now irrelevance of the United States: the ignominious defeat of British forces in the South and the failure of the U.S. surge to quell the rise of factional violence or the insurgency has left al-Malaki government in no doubt that the U.S. forces have to all intents and purposes already been defeated and that there is no appetite in the United States to reverse that outcome: troop withdrawal is inevitable.

Thus al-Malaki is looking to the future; a future in which the United States’ role in Iraq will be limited; he is no doubt also aware that should Hillary Clinton win the U.S. presidency he would not be able to count on her support. She said this week that Iraq needs a “less divisive and more unifying figure.”

In fact whilst politicians in the United States make much of the Iraq’s sectarian divisions and urge a national unity government, this is fundamentally undemocratic and quite fraudulent, it is not for Iraq’s sake that they wish a pluralist government. An estimated 63% of the population are Shia. However, that is only if one includes Kurdistan, which is effectively a separate entity from Iraq. Certainly the main Kurdish parties are separatists. Thus if the Kurds are discounted, and properly they should be, since they do not consider themselves Iraqis; Shia constitute nearly 79% of the Iraqi population and Sunnis only 21%. Thus the sectarian divisions in Iraq are overplayed; in truth Iraq is a Shia country.

It is this reality that the United States government continues to supress: were they ever serious about installing democracy, they would support Shia majority rule and an Iranian style Islamic democracy; instead of doing all they could to prevent it. Yet it is clear that the United States cares little for Iraqi democracy; preferring anarchy and civil war to another autonomous Shia state in the region.

As ineffectual as al-Malaki has been as premier, the fact that he was willing to publicly chastise the U.S.A. and actively court Iranian and Syrian influence, despite incurring Washington’s displeasure, is significant since it reflects the mood on the street.

First Casualty of War

The British and U.S. media are reporting that Britain has lost the war in Basra and is no more than an observer in the battle for control of Basra, having been disengaged for some time. The Independent on Sunday adds that British generals are now calling for British forces to be extradited from the South without delay.

However, what is being reported here is not new; it is that which was already known. Indeed, I reported the British surrender back in February 2007, which followed the provocative British assault on the Jamiat Police Station in December 2006, this was a pivotal event, yet was not treated as such in the Western media.

It is no exaggeration to say that the British media has hitherto been complicit in the wilfully misleading of the British public about the true extent of the British military demise in Iraq.
“In war, truth is the first casualty.” (Aeschylus, 525 BC - 456 BC)

The Exploitation of Iranian Jews

Jonathan Cook, a Jewish writer living in Nazareth, writes an excellent article in Al-Ahram about the exploitation of Iran's 25,000 strong Jewish population. Yet it is not the Islamic Republic of Iran whom he accuses; rather it is the Zionist regime.

The Execution of Jafar Kiani

The Meydaan organisation has reported that Jafar Kiani was executed on the 6 July 2007 in Iran. They also reported that Dr. Alireza Jamshidi, the Iranian judiciary spokesman, gave a press conference on Tuesday 10 July 2007, in which he reputedly said, "Lately there has been a stoning sentence executed by a judge in Takistan branch," contrary to the existing moratorium on stoning but "the woman’s [Mokarrameh Ebrahimi] sentence is stayed now." Adding, "The extent to which the ban order can deprive a judge from independence is a long discussion, but a judge can act independently, although with the order of the Head of Judiciary, it is necessary to exercise more caution in issuing and executing these sentences."

However, this press conference does not appear to have taken place; it was not reported by either the Iranian or attended by anyone from the international media. In fact, contrary to the Maydaan assertion, the Iranian government has not confirmed the execution of Jafar Kiani, as is clear from UN rapporteur on Human Rights, Louise Arbour's statement, she in fact requests official confirmation from Iran that this event occurred.

How therefore did a Western based organisation attend a press briefing and no one else appears to?

This is not to say this execution did no take place: it may very well have done. However, if this is the case, far from the Iranian State executing this man; it is a local judge in defiance of the order of the Head of the Judiciary. Thus the Iranian State would have been powerless to prevent this and not culpabale nor indeed is stoning an offence against international law.

So what is the haste in the Western media's reporting of this incident? In the absence of facts they are bereft. Until such time as the Iranian government provides a detail account; all claims are mere conjecture and rumour. It is noteworthy that previous reports of executions by U.S. sponsored groups have transpired to be factually inaccruate.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have never accruately reported an Iranian execution since 2005. Yet when the Western media quote these organisations' claims; this is never stated. This is dishonest reporting.

Iran's Success Depends on National Determination

Yesterday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said of the Government decision to ration gasoline, "The plan's success depends on national determination."

Quite. The decision is certainly the most courageous of his presidency and the most necessary, as Ayatollah Jannati Tehran's Substitute Friday prayers leader suggested, "The huge oil asset should be used for reconstruction," and should have been implemented long ago. Khatemi's Government were grossly incompetent for failing so to do. Iran imports 40 percent of its gasoline from 16 countries at an annual cost of $5 billion, due to a lack of refinery capacity. This is the one economic weakness that the West could have exploited.

However, the decision to do what no previous President has had the courage to do - ration gasoline - will dramatically cut national oil consumption and end Iranian dependency on foreign countries thus neutralising the threat of any UN Security Council sanctions. In effect, Iran has preempted the sanction. This is why the move has not seen widespread protest to date. The country has remained surprising unified in the face of an otherwise unpopular decision.

The widely anticipated riots and protests have not occured much to the consternation of Western powers. Instead there have been a few sporadic acts of vandalism, which were denounced by Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel thus:

"I think it is inappropriate to consider those who vandalize public property and buildings a part of the nation. Rather, they are a deceived minority who commit such shameful acts because of the promises of the enemies".

This would clearly not have been so had Iran not faced external pressures: Iran after all, is on a war setting. Thus this a barometer of Iran's national determination, as Ahmadinejad suggests.

Yet, this is no temporary measure nor indeed should it be. Raising prices at the pump does nothing to reduce oil consumption; it only hurts the poor. Thus the only effective way to reduce oil consumption is rationing. Every country, not just Iran, should be using rationing to reduce oil consumption. Those that do not will find themselves economically vulnerable.

This is not to say that Ahmadinejad will not suffer in the next election for such a policy, however it may also play to his advantage: he took decisive action and he will be judged against the progress of the nuclear programme too. Moreover, there is another consequence of this decision, which will play to his and Iran's benefit: it will radically reduce foreign spending, which in turn will strengthen the economy.

MKO remains on European terror list

The European and North American based Iranian terrorist group, the Monafiqeen-e-Khalq (MKO), is to remain on the new list of European Union terrorist groups. Last December The European Court of Justice annulled the EU decision to include the group on the proscribed organisations register in 2002 due to a procedural irregularity.

The Monafiqeen-e-Khalq had sought to legitimise itself by insisting that the court rejected the decision, yet as EU officials noted, the court did not fault the decision itself, just the manner in which is was taken.

Any other decision would have fundamentally undermined the EU's international credibility.

Oliver Stone Ahmadinejad Documentary

Interestingly the Hollywood filmmaker Oliver Stone plans to direct a long documentary about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Stone has made a formal request for permission from Ahmadinejad's office to launch his work.

Iranian film director Alireza Sajjadpour told ISNA, "The request was made some three months ago. Stone is a professional filmmaker on social and political issues. As a filmmaker I'd like his request to be accepted." Alas, I suspect that unlikely. After all the Iranian authorities regarded his film Alexander pornographic. Even so it will be interesting to see Stone's documentary; I hope it addresses why he is so popular in Iran; rather than solely focusing on his relations vis-a-vis the West.

Human Rights Abuse Masquerading as Human Rights Advocacy

Amnesty International professes concern about human rights in Iran, yet this very organisation maintained a wall of silence about Shahist Iran, which was one of the most brutal regimes, if not the most brutal, of the Twentieth Century. Whatever one may think of the Islamic Republic of Iran, no country has improved its human rights record as much as Iran has since 1979. Whilst undoubtedly human rights abuses do still occur in Iran; it was the Islamic Revolution that introduced both democracy and civil liberties to Iran: there were neither under the despotic Western backed Shahist regime.

Amnesty International's claim to be a non-governmental organisation are palpable nonsense; throughout its history it has been indirectly funded by various Western governments, and certainly promotes Western interests. This is particularly so in the Middle East. Amnesty International is a resolutely pro Zionist organisation, which fuels its hostility towards the Islamic Republic of Iran - the only independently autonomous Islamic State.

Thus Amnesty International devotes far more energy in opposing the legitimate democratically elected government of Iran than it does any other government, even though Iran has the best human rights record of any country in the Middle East and is the only democratic State in the region. Amnesty International rarely censors illegitimate and undemocratic governments supported by the West, such as the Saudi and Israeli regimes.

The conflict of interest and inconsistency is all too obvious. Amnesty International's report, "Iran: the last executioner of children", is testament to that. The Iranian government and judiciary has resolutely said that Iran does not execute children; yet Amnesty International, which is able to exhibit no evidence to the contrary, still would has us believe that Iran does, notwithstanding that the organisation has neither offices nor investigators in Iran.

Thus Amnesty International makes these claims without corroboration or any means of reliable validation. To do so is undeniable racist, since they Amnesty would not adopt such low standards before accusing a Western government of lying. In fact, Amnesty International fails to point out that in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, children are routinely executed without trial by the occupying forces.

However, a more startling piece of hypocrisy is that Amnesty International lionise Shirin Ebadi and even have gone so far as to suggest that she is a human rights lawyer. Nothing could be further from the truth; she was personally appointed by the Shah to serve as a judge at the age of 27, six months after graduating in law. Thus she has never been a lawyer of standing in Iran; rather, she acquired her position through nepotism.

More importantly, she served in the judiciary under the Shah for ten years before the Islamic revolution. The judiciary under the Shah were complicit in the torture and murder of millions. Political prisoners, including children, were: tortured to near madness on Apollo machines, sexually mutilated, raped and sentenced to death in absentia. This is the standard of justice and human rights that Shirin Ebadi, Nobel laureate, supported in Iran throughout the seventies, which is why she will always be loathed in Iran.

Prisoners were not maltreated and statements were not coerced

The recently released British Royal Marine Commandos and Royal Navy Sailors detained by Iran for illegal entry into Iranian territorial waters, were "paraded" in front of the British media to deliver scripted speeches, in a press conference blatantly stage-managed by the Ministry of Defence. Contrast this to their statements given to al-Alam, that were by the former prisoners' own admission unscripted and freely given.

Moreover, their self-described treatment at the hands of Iran was by any military standard, exemplary. They were not physically coerced; threatened with physical coercion; subject to sleep deprivation; stress positions; or cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, they were only blindfolded when transported and adequately cared for. Segregation of suspects during interrogation and plea bargains are not unreasonable.

However, the British claims of harsh treatment are undermined by the recently released Iranian video.



And least we not forget; they were arrested for entering Iranian water. A point the British government can no longer sensibly contest, it now having been revealed by Royal Marine Commando Captain Air that their mission was to gather intelligence on Iran. A point buttressed by Royal Navy Lieutenant Carman's admission that Occupation forces have only made sixty-six boardings in a four week period in the Persian Gulf. Tellingly, the Royal Navy has now ceased all boardings. Carman admission that the HMS Cornwall is tasked with guarding vital Iraqi oil platforms, which are situated outside Iraqi territorial waters, cast further doubt on the British claims to be operating within Iraqi water.

Furthermore, there is no internationally recognised border between Iran and Iraq in this waterway; a point that has been clarified by the United Nations. Thus the British government suggestion to the contrary is manifestly untrue.

All of which seems to have escaped the ever compliant British media.

Prisoner negotiations

The Royal Navy and the U.S. 5th Fleet have been playing chicken in Iran's territorial waters for sometime, Iran responded to this posturing with its own, hence the recent Iranian war games and the Pasdaran's recent etching of their symbol on to a U.S. warship situated in the Persian Gulf.

However after the abduction of Iranian diplomats who were serving members of the Pasdaran, the U.S. elevated it security levels and warned Britain to do the same. So it is curious they did not and continued to violate Iranian water, particularly as Sartip Dovom Qassem Suleimani, the commander of the Pasdaran al-Qods force stated that Iran would respond to these abductions. Thus the capture of 15 Royal Marine commandos and Royal Navy sailors in Iranian waters should come as no surprise.

Moreover, Iran has always been very clear that this was a preplanned move, Sartip Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of the Pasdaran, gave the order to intercept Royal Navy and U.S. Navy vessels that stray into Iranian waters the day before. Iran has been equally clear that the intent was to deliver a message that Iran would not tolerate such violations anymore. Iran has positively avoided conflating this issue with the release of the abducted Iranian diplomats, which is of considerably less concern to Iran than violations of its territorial waters. The release today of the Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, who was abducted by the 36th Commando battalion - a death squad that operate closely with U.S. forces - was welcomed by Iran but ultimately inconsequential.

Furthermore Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei, ordered that the matter should be dealt with by the Supreme National Security Council, hence contrary to British claims, the Foreign Office was well aware that the matter was being dealt with by Ali Larijani, yet they maintained the facade that they was confusion. In any event, negotiations could have taken place through the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki. Britain choose not to pursue this route.

Britain miscalculated, believing Iran would not respond to these repeated provocations, then was ill-prepared to deal with the consequences when Iran did. Blair found it politically inconvenient to acknowledge that the Royal Navy has for some considerable time been operating illegally in Iranian waters, thus he has produced a cacophony of allegations and claims, none of which he can substantiate.

The British government, for reason best known to itself, sought to internationalise the conflict and vilify Iran. Yet this was to no account. The issues was expediently resolved once British Foreign Office issued a letter to the Iranian foreign ministry, giving assurances that such an incident would not occur again and that Britain would respect Iran territorial sovereignty. Hence, agreeing not to operate inside what Iran regards as its territorial waters.

The Missing American

The U.S. media is reporting that a former unnamed FBI agent has disappeared in Iran on the island of Kish. FBI spokesman Rich Kolko suggested, "at this time, there are no indications that this matter should be viewed other than as a missing-person case," and U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "we have been monitoring this situation for a couple of weeks now." Citing privacy concerns, McCormack declined to divulge the man's name, age or occupation.

However what is curious, is that the U.S. State Department has also not divulged this information to the Iranian government, the U.S. would be obliged to providing his name, flight details, passport number if they wished Iran to try and locate him. They have thus far failed so to do. Another curious aspect is that it is admitted that this mystery man has previously served in the FBI, which would have precluded him entering Iran, without U.S. approval and would be grounds for arrest and detention if discovered by the Kish authorities.

Iranian Propaganda

The Western MSM is incensed by Iran's blatant use of the captured Royal Marine commandos and Royal Navy sailors for propaganda purposes. The occidental chauvinism and hypocrisy is astounding. one would never have thought that it was in fact the British media who first sought to use their personnel for propaganda purposes; that the British media, without any evidence, followed the British Foreign Office line that the prisoners were detained illegally in Iraqi territorial waters, failing to accurately report that Iraqi territorial waters have yet to be established and consequently the British claims have no merit in international law; the Royal Navy acknowledged that the waters they were detained in are claimed by Iran.

Instead the British media ran stories about Faye Turney and vilified Iran for holding a mother hostage. Of course, forgetting to mention that had an Iranian mother been on the crew of a fully armed Commando team entering British water, she too would have been detained. Iran's response was a calculated quid pro quo. Iran is on the one hand showing how these prisoners are unharmed and well treated, yet on the other how vulnerable and helpless they are. Knowing that this places pressure on the British government to resolve the issue.

However, having seen that despite being obviously scripted the World's media would eagerly report what they said, Iran has adeptly used the prisoners to convey messages to the World public. As much as the Western media will never admit it; it own anti-Iranian propaganda has been shamelessly, thus it is hardly surprising that Iran would respond in this way. Moreover, despite Western claims there is no treaty that prevents it. They are not prisoners of war, and whilst the environment they are in is coercive, there is no evidence of physical coercion. I imagine that Iran will continue to exploit the prisoners for propaganda purposes, whilst the British government continues to do the same.

Brinkmanship Unwise in Uncharted Waters

Consortiumnews.com has published a rather good article on the eight RM Commandos and seven RN sailors detained by Iran for illegal entry into Iranian waters questioning the sense of the British strategy.

The frenzy in America’s corporate media over Iran’s detainment of 15 British Marines who may, or may not, have violated Iranian-claimed territorial waters is a flashback to the unrestrained support given the administration’s war-mongering against Iraq shortly before the attack.

The British are refusing to concede the possibility that its Marines may have crossed into ill-charted, Iranian-claimed waters and are ratcheting up the confrontation. At this point, the relative merits of the British and Iranian versions of what actually happened are greatly less important than how hotheads on each side—and particularly the British—decide to exploit the event in the coming days.

Call that humiliation?

Terry Jones writing in the Guardian quips,

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

Iran replies to Blair's sabre rattling

Faye Turney in her own words:

"My name is Faye Turney. I come from England, I live in England at present. I have served on F99. I have served in Navy nine years, I was arrested on Friday on 23rd of March which obviously has passed internal waters.

"I was treated friendly and hospitable they are nice people, they explained why we were arrested, and there is no aggression, no hurt, no harm, they are very very compassionate."

Rarely has the Pasdaran been described such. When members of the British created Jundallah terrorist group were captured they were asked to reveal all they knew, in turn they were offered a swift execution for this information: most willingly accepted the offer, which was how Iran was able to prove British links. The old adage is true, everyone talks.

The Iranian government was under no illusion that Turney appeared terrified: she was supposed to be. The purpose of the interview was not to comfort the British public; rather it was to demonstrate the reality of the Royal Marine Commandos situation: one of desperation, helplessness and fear, that it might pressure the British government to resolve this situation with an apology. Instead, of maintaining it current unnecessarly confrontational stance.

Blair's bellicose has proved counterproductive; maintaining the extraordinary fiction that they were in Iraqi waters, when they were in Iranian waters, and threatening to elevate the situation to the "next phase", has demonstrable improved Iran's international standing. The Iranian Foreign Minister received a late invite to the Arab summit after the event occurred and received support from Saudi Arabia, no less, over its position. Both Russia and China have warned The United States against military action and contrary to U.S. claims of conducting war games, the Occupation forces are being decidedly less provocative.

Britain threat to take the matter to the security council, led to Iran threatening to retract its goodwill gesture of releasing Faye Turney. It may be possible to expedite the release of the prisoners by the return of the Iranian diplomats abducted by the United States, although I am doubtful: Iran wants a straight admission that the British forces were in Iranian waters. However Blair is not prepared to do that at this stage, thus he is unnecessarily jepordising the safety of those 15 Royal marines Commandos and sailors.

British Sponsored Terrorist Release Iranian Prisoners

Jundallah, the Wahhabi terrorist group released the three members of Iran's Disciplinary Force (police) that it abducted in eastern Sistan and Baluchetan, earlier this month and then took into Pakistan, where they were held hostage.

Meanwhile Blair has suggested that if the British commandos being detained by Iran for illegally entering Iranian water are not released presently, the situation will move into a "new phase".

Iran has said that Jundallah has links with British SIS, which of course Britain denies. However the release of these hostages would suggest otherwise.

Iraqi General confirms that Royal Navy were in Iranian waters when captured

IRIB reports

The Commander of Iraq’s Coastal Guard Brigadier General Hakeem Jassem, in an interview with al-Alam News Network Saturday, condemned the illegal entry of British forces into Iran’s territorial waters and said the 15 British troopers were detained outside Iraq’s waters by Iran’s naval border guards.

The Iraqi Commander termed the intrusion of British forces into Iran’s coastal regions as questionable, making it clear that his forces cannot support the British claims that their forces were captured by the Iranians in the Iraqi side of the waterway.

He disclosed that British marines and sailors stopped a commercial ship inside Iran’s territorial waters and boarded it, forcing the Iranian border guards to interfere and arrest the British troopers.

The detained British forces have confessed to their illegal entry into Iran’s territorial waters.

15 Royal Navy and Royal Marines Captured in Iranian Waters

15 Royal Navy sailors and Royal Marines from the frigate HMS Cornwall have been arrested by the Pasdaran for illegally crossing into Iranian territorial waters when they boarded a merchant vessel in the Arvand rud.

The Royal Navy routinely encroaches into Iranian territorial waters without incident. Thus the capture of these servicemen - given that the incident is set to coincide with tomorrow's UNSC vote on a resolution against Iran and President Ahmadinejad's speech before that body - was undoubtedly preplanned, set to serve as a timely reminder of the vulnerability of Occupation forces in the region. The Pasdaran etched their symbol into an U.S. warship on the 15 February 2007, a symbolic act to demonstrate their ability to sink the vessel.

Much of the Western MSM are already reporting that the incident occurred in Iraqi territorial waters, without acknowledgement that Britain dispute Iranian territorial waters in the Arvand rud, or explanation as to why the Royal Navy would be patrolling that water. They are certainly not there to prevent smuggling operations or cross border infiltration.

Iran may be prepared to trade the British servicemen for the Iranian diplomats illegally taken hostage by the United States, however I think that doubtful.

Ahmadinejad to respond to UNSC in person

The draft resolution of sanctions against Iran agreed by the five permanent members of the UNSC and Germany, that has been submitted to the non-permanent members for consideration, will no doubt be approved. To say the additional sanctions are weak is an understatement. The resolution ammounts to little more that an unenforceable restriction on Iran exporting arms yet no ban on the sale of arms to Iran; an asset freeze on Bank Sepah, which will have little impact; an utterly meaningless call on nations to end all financial assistance and loans to Iran, save "for humanitarian and developmental purposes", which will be promptly ignored; and in the event that Iran refused to forgo its legal right to rich uranium (which of course Iran will) the matter will be returned to the UNSC for possible further "non-military" sanctions.

Yet as weak as this document is, there is every sign that Iran will reciprocate robustly, President Ahmadinejad responded thus:

"They have created a body named the Security Council and they say that it is responsible for defending world security. But thanks God, the curtains of lie were unveiled and everyone saw this council has no role but trampling upon nations' rights and voicing support for the crimes and policies of certain arrogant powers, and all nations have now found out that this council is just a tool."

"They say that they want to impose sanctions on us. But when have we asked them for anything. Have you ever rendered any help to us that you want to take it back? You must know that we will never seek your help and assistance. You boycotted us and we gained nuclear technology, now if you impose sanctions on us, you will see the Iranian nation taking the next steps of progress."

"You must know that every resolution you pass, you create more problems for yourselves and move away from the settlement of the issue."

"What Iran is doing is 100 percent legal. The Iranian people will continue their path with much power and might and no one can backtrack from this path even for an inch."

Furthermore, President Ahmadinejad has submitted a formal request to be heard in person at the UNSC meeting when the resolution is passed. There is no doubt that his intent is to respond to the resolution; such a response is likely to be significant. It is certainly not inconceivable that he plans to announce Iran's intent to withdraw from the NPT and thus hasten the inevitable. It would be advantageous to do so, when the likely consequence is an escalation in economic and political sanctions; not the use of military force.

Coming to Terms with Iran's Nuclear Programme

Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons and less still of using them
Michel Rocard, the former prime minister of France, leader of the Socialist Party and member of the European Parliament writing in Haaretz contemplating military action on Iran, states:

"First, resorting to force is simply not realistic. A nuclear strike would have incalculable consequences, and the Muslim world would in this case stand together. Nor is a conventional attack possible, as Israel has no common border with Iran and most of the American army is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq."

He further opines:

"The only possible framework for negotiations is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), concluded in 1968. Iran was one of the first countries to sign and it cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for more than 30 years - a relationship that deteriorated only in the last three years. But the current climate of mutual wariness between Iran and the self-proclaimed triad of Germany, Great Britain and France (with sporadic U.S. support) is not propitious to effective negotiations.

The West's aim, announced by the U.S. and adhered to by the triad, is to force Iran to give up uranium enrichment. Yet the NPT is clear: Any signatory that gives up nuclear weapons and accepts the IAEA's absolute and unconditional control is entitled to produce electric energy from civil nuclear sources, and to receive technical and financial support from the international community, if necessary. Iran's oil resources are not infinite and it wants to have complete control over the civil nuclear field - a basic right as an NPT signatory.

I cannot see how a negotiation aimed at getting Iran to unilaterally renounce a right recognized for all NPT signatories simply in order to build confidence in the West could be successful. Uranium enrichment is certainly the first condition for making bombs, but the level of enrichment must reach about 95 percent, compared to the 3.5 percent needed for energy production."

The solution to the current nuclear dispute is remarkably simple: the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany need to put aside their Zionist foreign policy agendas and look at the situation logically: Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons and less still of using them. Iran does however have a legitimate need and desire to produce its own nuclear energy. Thus the U.S. and the European troika could end this crisis, which is entirely manufactured, by simpling accepting Iran's nuclear energy programme. To do so would no doubt involve some loss of face, however there is no appetite in the United States or Europe for a war with Iran, therefore any deal that ends the crisis and averts this possibility would be widely welcomed as a victory for diplomacy.

Teachers protest against Hashemi Rafsanjani

Hundreds of teachers staged a sit-in demonstration in front of Majlis building today, in protest of the Assembly of Experts failure to address their demand for a pay increase. The teachers hold the Assembly of Experts Chairman, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, personally responsible.

It has been reported in the Western media that Hashemi Rafsanjani is in ascendancy and that President Ahmadinejad has become increasingly unpopular. In fact, the reverse is true, Ahmadinejad is more popular on the Street now, than he was when he gained 17 million votes in the 2005 presidential election, defeating Hashemi Rafsanjani. It is in the Majlis that Ahmadinejad is deeply unpopular - he always was - he represents neither the Conservative nor Reformist wings. He is Iran's political outsider.

In the Western media, Iranian politics is reduced to Conservatism versus Reformism -or "Mullahs" versus "secularists". Yet the reality is both are from the clerical classes and both support the Islamic revolution and the current Iranian model of Islamic democracy. Where Ahmadinejad differs to the Iranian political elite is that he is of the people and for the people. This in itself antagonises the clerical elite, however his rejection of oligarchy and his avocation of the redistribution of wealth, egalitarianism and ethical trade is an intolerable affront to that elite, which is represented by Hashemi Rafsanjani and Sayyed Mohammad Khatami. The alliance between the two is certainly a threat to Ahmadinejad and Iranian democracy.

However, it is utter nonsense that Iran's current diplomatic confrontations with the West have been instigated or exacerbated by Ahmadinejad; it was Britain, under directions from the United States, that sabotaged the EU troika negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme, which incidentally the West believes to be a peaceful nuclear programme. The West willfully tried to torpedo the reformists and advance the presidential hopes of Hashemi Rafsanjani in the the belief that Hashemi Rafsanjani was a "pragmatist" (i.e. corruptible) and therefore was more susceptible to Western bribery.

This strategy failed as anyone with an once of intelligence and the slightest knowledge of Iranian politics ought to have foreseen. President Ahmadinejad was elected on domestic issues - the nuclear dispute was not a feature of the 2005 presidential elections. The current confrontation with the West plays to Ahmadinejad's advantage. Iranians have seen a war with the United States and its clients states on the horizon since the invasion of Iraq: it does not unsettle them. To report the ascendancy of Hashemi Rafsanjani or forecast that he will succeed Ayatullah al-Uzma Sayyed Khamenei, as Supreme Leader, as many Western media outlets are doing, is once again, to misread Iranian politics. It is most improbable that the Assembly of Experts would entertain the idea of electing him Supreme Leader, since he does not have the support of the Street and could not command the loyalty of the Basij or Pasdaran.

The Arrest of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim

Commenting on Friday's arrest and 11 hour detention of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim - the son of SCIRI president and United Iraqi Alliance leader, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim - spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Lou Fintor said:

"What I can tell you is that at this point we understand that Mr. Hakim was arrested by soldiers who were doing their duty. He was not singled out, and we understand the soldiers were following standard procedure since the border was closed."

This is simply untrue. Sayyed Mohsen Al-Hakim, said that his older brother was unlawfully arrested and detained along with several bodyguards in Badre, located in the border between Iran and Iraq on the pretext that his passport had expired, even though it expires in September 2007 and that in any event, it is not the responsibility of the Occupation forces to check passports at entry points; that responsibility belongs to the Iraqi police. Moreover, both the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and President of the Kurdistan Regional Government Massoud Barzani, have denounced the arrest as illegal.

Talabani’s office issued a statement declaring:

"President Talabani judges that the treatment of Seyyed Al-Hakim was uncivilized and indecent, and he has demanded that the American leadership hold those behind it responsible".

Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim said of his arrest and detention: "Senior (U.S.) officials intended to arrest me, and these officials gave instructions to personnel at the site." He also asked: "Is this the way to deal with a national figure? This does not conform with Iraq's sovereignty".

This was undoubtedly a deliberate preplanned act of aggression against the SCIRI, the United Iraqi Alliance, the Iraqi government (including the PUK and KDP), Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and the Shia. The United States has publicly accused Iran of interfering in Iraq's internal affairs and supporting the insurgency. A claim that was dismissed on Saturday by Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim as "unfounded and mere propaganda," and has never been supported by the Iraqi government, President or Prime Minister. Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim also stated that Iran is a friend of the Iraqi people and a benevolent country.

In fact, the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has previously accused the Occupation forces of destabilising region, saying: "If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition".

Moreover, if there was ever any question as to the United States implacable hostility towards Shia Islam and the Islamic Republic Iran, President George W. Bush, spelt it out in his State of the Union Speech 2007 when he stated: "In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East." Bush also attributed much of the blame for this too the Islamic Republic of Iran, notwithstanding that the elected Iraqi government is predominately Shia and pro Iranian, hence the very people whom Bush refers to as "Shia extremists". In fact, not only is the United Iraqi Alliance pro-Iranian, so too are the main Kurdish parties, the PUK and KDP.

Far from supporting the elected Iraqi government, the Occupiers are actively undermining it. The United States is not interested in stabilising Iraq; quite the reverse, the United States is opposed to an autonomous Shia government of Iraq - much of the anarchy in Iraq can be attributed to this. Thus General Sir Richard Dannatt statement, "we can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life", applies not only to the insurgents in Iraq but also to the elected "Islamist" Iraqi government.

Over eighty percent of the popular vote in Iraq's last national election went to political parties with close political connections to Iran and the Shia constitute over sixty percent of the electorate and even more of the population - individuals of Iranian descent were denied Iraqi citizenship under Saddam Hussein, a policy that has been continued by the Occupiers. Conversely the United States is regarded as a colonial occupier, which has fermented ethnic and sectarian factionalism.

Recent U.S. allegations that Iran's Pasdaran Qods force has supplied EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) to Iraqi insurgents, which have been flatly rejected by the Iraqi government, are part of a concerted propaganda campaign to demonise Iran. The United States has used these allegations as a pretext to carry out illegal raids on an Iranian diplomatic mission in Arbil, in which five Iranian diplomats were abducted, and on an SCIRI compound, in which two Iranian diplomats were abducted. Moreover, earlier this month, U.S. warplanes attacked a PUK guard post in Mosul killing eight Pesh Merga after President Talabani visited Iran. These acts were all clearly designed to serve as warnings to Iraqi politicians not to engage with Iran.

The arrest and detention of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim has to be seen in the same light: as a warning to his father, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, vis-a-vis his strong political relationship with Iran. However, the United States massively underestimated the significance of abducting Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim. The reaction from within the Iraqi government has been robust and defiant. President Talabani demanding the culprits be punished and the SCIRI calling for the occupiers to leave Iraq has ended all pretense that the Iraqi government and the United States are on the same side. The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad was forced to issue a speedy apology and to preposterously claim that the United States did not "mean any disrespect to Abdel Aziz al-Hakim or his family". It is very significant that Kurdish and Shia politicians have rejected the apology and explanation; the balance of power has now firmly shifted into Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim favour.

British Surrender of Basra

The announcement of the British surrender of Basra to Iraqi forces and the announcement of a phased troop withdrawal serves as a timely refutation of the U.S. claims that Iran is arming the insurgency and the much touted prospect of a U.S. military attack on Iran. If either was true, then it would be pure insanity for British forces to scale down or hand control of Basra over to Shia militias, when the city is situated on the Arvandrud - the easiest cross-way for Iran's Pasdaran (IRGC) to enter into Iraq.

State sponsor of terrorism

Deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security Commission, Mohammad Nabi Roudaki said of Wednesday's terrorist attack in Zahedan, which martyred eleven and injured thirty-one members of the Pasdaran (IRGC), "the arsenals used in the criminal act were US-made, while the documents and proofs show that the terrorists were supported and led by the US."

The Security Operations chief in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchestan, Brigadier general Mohammad Ghaffari had previously stated that three of the terrorists have admitted under questioning links to the United States and British intelligence services.

Nasrollah Shanbe-Zehi one of the principle perpetrators was publicly hanged in Zahedan on Monday morning, after he confessed on national television and admitted to British and U.S. involvement.

War with Iran

Despite the Bush administration’s sabre rattling, it is far from certain that the United States will go to war with Iran; in fact, there is every indication that it will not be able to do so during George W. Bush’s presidency. For it is important to recognise that for this current U.S. administration, diplomacy is war by other means. Their belligerence is not incidental, it is intentional; this administration is fundamentally Zionist and hegemonic, and have repeatedly demonstrated a disinclination for diplomacy where they believe strategic or ideological objectives could be realised through force of arms alone. Furthermore this administration is committed to the overthrow of the legitimate and democractically elected Iranian government (Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005). From the Bush administration’s perspective, they are already at war with Iran; in fact, George W. Bush used his State of the Union Speech to emphasis that point, broadening the enemy to Shia Islam. Thus, this begs the question: why has this U.S. administration not already launched an attack against Iran?

If one sees the United States as already at war with Iran, as this administration does, then it is clear that they are losing. U.S. diplomacy and economic warfare has failed to prevent Iran from enriching uranium and will not stop Iran from continuing its nuclear fuel programme, as both the Bush administration and European Union have already conceded; in fact economic warfare has shown that Iran does not need European investment or European custom. Conversely, the European Union and Turkey are very venerable to an Iranian oil and gas embargo. Hence the avoidance of military action to date is very telling. It would be extraordinarily naïve to think that Bush has thus far been prevented from trying to emulate Alexander the Macedonian by the niceties of international law, which he ignored when he waged war on both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In fact, whilst the Bush administration has been able to manipulate a series of confrontations and fabricated confrontations with Iran to its advantage in the English speaking media – hence they have been able to present an image of Iran (and thus Islam) as inherently evil - there is still little domestic support in the United States for military action against Iran - U.S. public opinion is very much opposed to military action against Iran. Moreover, the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi has stipulated, George W. Bush categorically does not have the legal authority to launch a military attack on Iran, without the House’s approval. Thus the likelihood of war with Iran during George W. Bush’s presidency is not a measure of his intent; it is a measure of the willingness of the House of Representatives to authorise such a course. The Iranian government does not believe that they would and with good cause: any attack would run contrary to the U.S. national interest unless it brought about regime change in Iran and regional stability to the Middle East, which even the most optimistic of Pentagon military strategists do not envisage.

The U.S. military is currently hampered by its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; even were this not so, any U.S. force invading Iran would be heavily outnumbered. Moreover, whilst 52% of the U.S. military consists of badly trained and poorly motivated reservists and National Guard (46% of the US army in Iraq in 2005), Iran conversely has a highly motivated and well trained army, Pasdaran (IRGC), and Basij (volunteers), as well as an armed civilian population, with nearly every man having served two years in the military. The recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon saw the Iranian trained Hezbullah guerrilla force, outnumbered 20 to 1, yet they defeated the U.S. armed Israeli army in the battlefield within 34 days. That is a good indicator of the utter infeasibility of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran - the United States simply does not have the military capability.

Moreover, not only would the United States need exponentially more men under arms to occupy Iran than it presently has to commit, the likely reduction in Iranian oil and gas production on its own would send the energy markets spiralling out of control, however the consequences of an invasion are likely to lead to anarchy and insurgency throughout the Middle East. There are 200M Shia in the World over 100M situated in the Middle East, as the map indicates Shia are sitting on the majority of the World’s oil and natural gas reserves. Even most Saudi oil is situated is the predominately Shia Eastern Province, in the Qatif and Abu Sa'fah oil fields. A Shia uprising would certainly disrupt Middle Eastern oil and natural gas exports - most the World’s natural gas reserves are held by Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan – and both the U.S. and European economies are utterly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. For this reason, any U.S. military attack on Iran that threatens Middle Eastern oil exports would be economic suicide.

Therefore the most likely scenario for a U.S. military attack would be an aerial assault against the nuclear facilities in Bushehr, Arak, and Natanz in the aim of destroying them. However, it is hard to see what strategic benefit this would be: at the most this would only set Iran’s nuclear energy programme back, although the Israeli attack on the Iraq nuclear facilities in Osirak in June of 1981 failed to set back Iraq’s nuclear programme. Iran would still have the technology and would be able to resume its nuclear energy programme unabated outside of the auspicious of the IAEA.

Moreover, Iran would almost certainly respond militarily. Iran has already demonstrated this week the ability to sink U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf at will and thus block off the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. The situation in Iraq is precarious enough for the U.S. military, were the United States at war with Iran, the Shia population would rise up and the situation would be unmanageable. Furthermore, Iranian forces can easily cross the border into Iraq, should they so desire and U.S. military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan are venerable to Iranian missile attacks. Even were Iran only initially to target the U.S. military in Iraq, the potential for escalation is obvious. Thus once again raising the prospect of a conflict that would destabilise the entire Middle East, which the United States cannot afford. Hence it is more likely that the Bush administration will to continue to support terrorist attacks in Iran by groups like Monafiqeen-e-Khalq and Jundullah under the guise of the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005, since these are deniable and unlikely to provoke a severe response.

Recalling the Bush administration’s view that diplomacy is war by other means - whilst attacking Iran would require an even greater degree of folly than the occupation of Iraq – the more unlikely it is, the keener they will be to inflate the possibility. This strategy is foolhardy and risks the law of unintended consequence. This said it is still hard to envisage the House of Representatives disregarding all reason and authorising a military attack on Iran during Bush’s presidency.

Iran demonstrates ability to sink US warships

President George W. Bush would have done well to heed the advice of the old British proverb, "talk of the devil, and he is bound to appear".

Yesterday the commander of the Pasdaran Ground Forces, Nur Ali Shushtari, announced that the Pasdaran emblem was etched onto US warship stationed in the Persian Gulf by the crew of a submarine that had managed to reach the warship undetected. The purpose of which is to demonstrate the capacity to sink the US vessel had Iran so desired.

Commander Shushtari also stated that in the event of a confrontation, all US forces in the gulf as well as targets inside the United States would be subject to reprisals.

US and Britain behind terrorist attack in Iran

It was confirmed that the bombing of a Pasdaran (IRGC) bus in Zahedan, which resulted in 11 deaths and 30 other casualties, was carried out by the Jundullah terrorist group. The Security Operations chief in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchestan, Brigadier general Mohammad Ghaffari said that three of the perpetrators were arrested in a raid on one of the groups safe houses. The three have admitted under questioning links to the United States and British intelligence services. British SIS have previously orchestrated terrorist attacks in Khuzestan.

Iran and nuclear proliferation

George Carty:

How would you respond to those who oppose a nuclear Iran because it might lead to further nuclear proliferation?

There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon programme and even were Iran to develop one in the future, Iran still would be a long way off from being able to produce a nuclear warhead and even further away from reaching nuclear polarity with the Pakistanis and Israelis, let alone the United States. Hence Iran does not present a nuclear threat to regional enemies.

Were Iran to develop several nuclear reactors, Iran would be in a position to realise Ahmadinejad's stated aim of supplying domestic energy consumption whilst significantly reducing petroleum and gas production. Moreover, it is also Iran's stated intention to share nuclear knowledge with other NAM countries. Iran is not alone in it assessment that the possession of a nuclear energy programme will be a strategic necessity in the future. None of theese indicates an intent to acquire a nuclear arsenal.

Furthermore, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are de facto US military outposts, which would be transformed into launch pads for US nuclear missiles in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack; in fact, Israel already has a nuclear arsenal. Moreover, neither Turkey nor Saudi Arabia would acquire nuclear weapons without the express consent of the United States.

Therefore, I view the argument as based on three false premises: namely, that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme; that US vassals are without a considerable nuclear deterrent; and that the United States would permit these vassals to acquire an independent nuclear arsenal in any event.

US fails to prove Iran is Arming Iraq Militias

The United States pledged to produce evidence that Iran was arming Iraqi militias fighting the US and British Occupiers: yesterday they risibly failed so to do. However, they produced ample evidence of how divorced form reality the claims of the United States government have become in the "war on truth".

Holocaust Denial Laws

Do those who favour the criminalisation of Holocaust denial and justification, also favour criminalising denial or justification of all other genocides?

If not why not?

European Holocaust Denial Law Scuppered

Germany's attempts to use the EU presidency to persuade all 27 member states to criminalise any dissent from Germany's official "Holocaust" narrative looks set to be be scuppered. Whilst Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Poland, Romania and Spain have various denial laws vis-à-vis acts of genocide committed during the Third Reich, and all member states endorsed the UN Grand assembly resolution passed this Friday, which unreservedly rejects "any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end", they are unlikely to endorse "denial laws", which most member states view as draconian and in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. This Friday, the Italian Parliament rejected such legislation, after it was adamantly opposed by some 200 historians upon the grounds of suppression of academic debate and infringement of freedom of speech.

It is well that this is being resisted: the Holocaust is a conflation of the certain with the uncertain; the rational with the irrational; the subjective with the objective. There never was a "Holocaust" - the Holocaust is an illusory moral and religious interpretation of acts of genocide committed during the Third Reich. Holocaust denial laws are not concerned with the historical episode; they are concerened with State mythology.

Bush declares Shia are the enemy

President George W. Bush, State of the Union Speech 2007:

"In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East.

Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbullah -a group second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat.

But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes.

They want to kill Americans... kill democracy in the Middle East... and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale."

There are an estimated 215,959,328 Million Shia Worldwide, there are over 80 million in Iran and Iraq alone and over another 30 million in the Middle East. Shia certainly wish to have political power proportionate to their numbers: a concept known as democracy and self-determination, both of which the United States is adamantly opposed to. If the Shia are a threat to the United States it is so due to the latter waging war on the former. It is the United States that is a threat to democracy and financing terrorism in the Middle East.

Growing Opposition to Ahmadinejad

The BBC reports:

"There are signs of growing opposition in Iran to the policies of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

The needless assertion of "hardline" underpins the fact that the State owned BBC is neither independent nor impartial from the British government. The BBC does not refer to the "fascist Prime Minister Tony Blair" or "fanatical President Bush", yet both are equal valid and subjective characterisations.

However, leaving aside the unprofessional and biased reporting; the entire piece is propaganda. The BBC suggests that:

"Surprisingly some hard-line newspapers have started criticising the president in recent days, asking why he has spent so much of Iran's foreign exchange and complaining about the confrontational language he uses on the nuclear issue."

Why should this be surprising? There is no such movement in Iran as hardline: there is Conservative and Reformist and Ahmadinejad is neither, although generally regarded as a religious conservative, he is an socio-economic ultra leftist. Knowing this is important, if one does not, one cannot hope to analyse Iranian politics. Moreover, the press (conservative and reformist) has never been keen on Ahmadinejad, Ayatullah-al Uzma Khamenei in 2006 rebuked various press outlets for their harsh and politically partisan criticism of Ahmadinejad's government.

The BBC, et. al., confidently predicted a landslide victory for Hashemi Rafsanjani in the 2005 Iranian Presidential election as did much of the Iranian press - much of it owned by Hashemi Rafsanjani - the conservative media outlets predicted that Qalibaf would win. Conversely, I - like many ordinary Iranians - correctly predicted the reverse; that Hashemi Rafsanjani would suffer a landslide defeat and that Ahmadinejad would win.

Anyone with a handle on Iranian politics knows that Ahmadinejad's popularity is running at an all time high and conversely (and consequently) his popularity in the Majlis is at an all time low, despite the result of the recent municipal elections which saw his conservative rivals do well and the reformists trounced. This was never a test of his personal popularity and the only candidate he endorsed during that election, Parvin Ahmadinejad, won a seat on the Tehran municipal council.

Thus the fact that as the BBC reports a "150 MPs have signed a letter urging the president to base his next budget on realistic assumptions - for example, about future oil prices which are key to Iran's economic forecasts" is no measure of unpopularity; rather it is the opposite. Even the notoriously anti-Iranian, Amir Taheri (the Shah's chief propagandist) acknowledges Ahmadinejad's popularity on the street:

"Ahmadinejad would rather people lived like him. He says we are not in this world to have a good time, we are here to serve God, to fulfil a mission. This has angered the fun-loving middle classes, but resonates with the so-called dispossessed."

In truth, those in the Majlis and Northern Tehran have a lot to fear from Ahmadinejad; he is a believer in ethical economics: he is anti corruption, anti the acquisition of wealth, pro redistribution of wealth, protectionism and self sufficiency. His economic policies are to the benefit of the masses and to the detriment of the elite. He came to power with a pledge to take on the establishment and that is exactly what he has done. Whether he can continue to do so remains to be seen, yet he is losing no support on the street for so doing; rather the reverse. Nor as the BBC suggest is he losing support for his anti-Western speeches, which are very well received in Iran and throughout the Middle East.

The Price Of Posturing

The abduction of Sheikh Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji, a spokesman for Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr, was more evidence of US posturing; al-Darraji has no military role, as well the US knows, however he is a visible face of the Mahdi army and Sayyed al-Sadr. Thus the United States saw some propaganda capital in taking him and his two cousins (since released) prisoner; a move which was not sanctioned by the Iraqi government. However, unlike earlier posturing in Um al-Maalef where the Mahdi army were prepared to play along, this incident, which led to the death of a bodyguard, caused real annoyance.

Falah Shanshal a Sadrist legislator reminded the Government that it was in breach of the deal to halt "attacks targeting Al-Sadr's movement," and demanded al-Darraji's immediate release. Following which, 19 US servicemen were killed in Karbala and Eight British troops were injured in Basra injured in reprisal attacks by the Mahdi army.

It is also noteworthy, that since the United States illegally abducted five Iranian diplomats, over 30 US soldiers have been killed by forces the US claimed that Iran was supporting. The US justification for taking this diplomats hostage was to prevent attacks on US soldiers, even though the Iraqi government recognises that the Iranian diplomats were not involved in any such activity.

Thus this US posturing has resulted in the forfeit of more Occupation forces and further weakened the US Government's already untenable position in Iraq. I said in an earlier post:

"This is little more than posturing and ill-advised: posturing has not served the United States well in Iraq - it has resulted in the death of over 3,000 US military personnel."

Crackdown on the Mahdi army or posturing?

"The first causality in war is the truth"
On Wednesday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said 400 fighters from the Mahdi Army army had been arrested over the past several weeks. Although, Yassin Majid, a senior al-Maliki adviser, denied earlier reports that dozens of senior militia leaders had been detained were incorrect.

In fact, US Occupation forces and the Iraqi army raided Um al-Maalef, a Shiite neighborhood in south Baghdad, on Tuesday and, detained every man who was able to carry weapons - about 400 people in all - nearly all who have been subsequently released. The Mahdi army did not respond under orders from Sayyed al-Sadr and no weapons were recovered. US troops did not enter civilian houses during the raid. No one was killed during this raid. Compare this with the raid in al Haifa street (a Sunnite stronghold) where over 50 were killed in one day.

Al-Tikriti and al-Bandar executed

Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, Saddam's half-brother and head of the Mukhabarat and Awad Hamad al-Bandar, the chief judge of the Baathist revolutionary court were executed by hanging in the early hours of this morning. Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti was decapitated in the process.

The United States had initially refused to hand over the men seeking to prevent the execution, as they had done with Saddam. However, the United States, aware of al-Malaki's low standing in Da'wa let alone with the rest of the United Iraqi Alliance and mindful that the Iraqi government has strongly protested the US abduction of five Iranian diplomats, relented and handed them over to the Iraqi government, who immediately executed the two men.

The Martyrdom of Ayatullah Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr

This is a translation from the account given by one of the security officers present during Saddam's execution of Shaheed (martyr) Ayatullah Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and Shaheeda (martyr) Sayyida Bint ul Huda:

"They brought Sayyid Al-Sadr to the office of National Security in Baghdad and they bound him in chains, then Saddam arrived and said in Iraqi slang 'Muhammad Baqir, are you trying to make a government?' and then he started hitting his face and head with a strong rod. So the Sayyid said to him 'I have left the government to you' and then an argument broke out between them about this and about the Islamic revolution in Iran, which led Saddam into a fit of rage, so he ordered his henchmen to torture Sayyid Al-Sadr severely. Then he ordered the lashing of martyr Bint Al-Huda - after she had been tortured in another room - they brought here in unconscious and they were dragging her, so when the Sayyid saw her, he became upset and angry at her plight. He said to Saddam 'If you are a man, then undo my restraints'. But Saddam took a rod and began hitting the martyred Sayyida and she was senseless, then Saddam ordered for her breasts to be cut, which caused the Sayyid anger and he said to Saddam 'If you were a man, you would have faced me face-to-face and let my sister go, but you are a coward, between your bodyguards'. Saddam flew into rage and took out his gun and fired on the Sayyid and then his sister and then left like an insane man cursing and swearing"

US Abduction of Iranian Diplomats Denounced as Illegal

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zibari has described the abduction of five Iranian diplomats by The United States Occupation forces as "unacceptable" and stated that the government of Iraq is urgently working to secure the release of the five hostages and that the Iranian diplomatic mission was working with the full knowledge and support of the Iraqi Government, and had existed in the Kurdish region for over ten years.

The leader of the Iraqi Kurdish party and President of the Kurdistan Regional Government, Massoud Barzani has also condemned the US military raid on Iranian consulate building, denouncing all the US claims regarding the Iranian consulate as untrue. KDP spokesmen Shokat Bamerni said:

"The Brazani forces due to none coordination of this operation by U.S. forces have condemned this issue and prevented the air transfer of the detained Iranians. Therefore U.S. forces were forced to transfer the detained via road and the latest news is that they have been given in to Iraqi forces in Baghdad."

The city of Arbil issued a statement accusing saying the Iranian building had diplomatic immunity and demanded the immediate release of the five hostages, adding that "Kurdish citizens will never accept such behaviours which jeopardise security in their province".

The Russian Foreign ministry said, "it is absolutely unacceptable for troops to storm the consular offices of a foreign state on the territory of another state," adding, "this is a flagrant violation of the Vienna convention on consular relations. It is also not clear how this fits in with American statements that Washington respects the sovereignty of Iraq."

United States Posturing in Iraq

The Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq is peripheral to the real power struggle between Sayyed al-Hakim and Sayyed al-Sadr. The Shia are an estimated 63-66% of Iraq but that power struggle, should it become an open war, would not involve the Shia; all of Iraq would be drawn into the conflict. The Sunni Arabs would mainly supporting Sayyed al-Sadr whilst conversely the Kurds would support Sayyed al-Hakim.

Ayatullah al-Uzma al-Sistani has been trying to defuse this conflict and consequently flatly rejected the US plan. Last Sunday he summoned Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr to his Najaf residence and asked for his support, he had previously conveyed to Sayyed al-Hakim that Sayyed al-Sadr must not be sidelined.

A deal has been provisionally reached where the United States deploys an additional 21,500 troops in Baghdad and Anbar province, whilst there is a redeployment of Iraq troops to Baghdad. Hence, the United States is withdrawing and despite its bravado about taking on the Mahdi army in a finally push, this is unlikely; the US cannot possibly hope to take on Sayyed al-Sadr with a positive result, nor would al-Malaki have the support to do so.

It is likely that the US will do as it did this week in in Hafia, concentrate on the Sunnite areas and leave Sadr city ostensibly to the Iraqi army but in reality it will remain firmly in the grasp of the Mahdi army. There may be some limited token clashes to give the appearance of even handedness, however it is preposterous to think that the United States envisages being able to destroy the Mahdi army with these reinforcements; there are two-and-half million in al-Sadr city, so an additional 17,500 US troops (4,000 are to be deployed in Anbar province) is not nearly enough. This is little more than posturing and ill-advised: posturing has not served the United States well in Iraq - it has resulted in the death of over 3,000 US military personnel.

British crocodile tears over Saddam

The recent criticism of the manner of Saddam's execution by members of the British government are nothing short of a politically motivated fraud. Firstly, Britain is guilty of complicit negligence, since Blair implicitly endorsed Saddam's death sentence, when he failed to secure a guarantee off Bush that Saddam would be tried in the Hague as the price for Britain's participation in the invasion of Iraq. In failing so to do, it was not only foreseeable, it was inevitable that Saddam would be executed if captured alive.

The manner of the execution can come as no surprise, Saddam was led to the scaffold, where a noose was put around his neck. Several of the witnesses chanted "Moqtada" and Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowafaq al-Ruba’i, shouted, "Long live Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr," then the trapdoor fell as Saddam was reciting the shahada, his neck broke and he died instantly. If this execution was undignified then it is because execution is undignified.

Secondly, the United States (through its client states Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt) has sought to exacerbate division in Iraq by presenting this as an Iranian Shiite execution of a Sunnite Arab leader. The Saudi media has claimed that the two hooded executioners flanking Saddam were Saadah al-Hakim and al-Sadr. The British criticism has been very much in keeping with this theme of Shia vengefulness.

Thirdly, the execution was brought forward after it was discovered that the United States was trying to ferment a deal with the Saddamis, which would have seen Saddam held in custody outside Iraq. Had Saddam not have been executed before Eid, the Mahdi army would have tried to lynch him in US custody.

Although such an assault would be easily repelled by the United States, al-Malaki's position would have become untenable if he was perceived to have prevented Saddam's execution.

Thus this execution was thrust upon the Occupation forces and signals their inability to control events. The compromise was that only the edited version of the execution be released to the World. Hence the Occupiers anger at the unedited version being put on the Internet, as British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's remarks illustrate "To get this kind of recorded messages coming out is totally unacceptable and I think whoever is involved and responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves." He does not express anger at the execution but at those who released the footage.

The Pope's Crusade

After a meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, the Pope was at pains to stress that the Holy See "not as a political authority but as a religious and moral one" and did not comment on the undoubtedly unconstitutional resolution passed by the UN Security council, which was drafted by three ostensibly Christian countries (Britain, France and German) and driven by another ostensibly Christian country (the United States). The pontiff could have but did not condemn Christian violence and occupation in Muslim countries; he could have but did not denounce Christian belligerence towards Iran and Syria. Instead he chooses today - Eid al-Ghadir - to engage in politics and rebuke Iran.

The Pontiff suggested that trust in the region will also improve if, "a country like Iran, especially in relation to its nuclear program, agrees to give a satisfactory response to the legitimate concerns of the international community," despite the fact that the resolution has no legal basis in international law and not a scintilla of evidence has ever been produced that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.

This is self-evidently not an apolitical statement and will no doubt be referred to by those who wish see a genocidal Crusade against Iran next. If he is suggesting that the "international community" (the 15 countries that sat on the UNSC as opposed to the majority of the nations of the World) have legitimate concerns about Iran nuclear programme, he is implicitly legitimising any response by the "international community" if Iran fails alleviate these concerns, which of course it will since they are bogus.

He also suggested that such action on Iran's behalf "would surely help to stabilize the whole region, especially Iraq, putting an end to the appalling violence which disfigures that country with bloodshed."

Iran would surely have preferred that he had just offered his felicitations; perhaps expressed a modicum of gratitude for Iran's stabilising role in Iraq; and a mite of regret for the chaos caused by the Christian Occupiers. The linkage between the Iranian nuclear issue and the stability of Iraq is quite alarming: the obvious implication is that those opposed to the Iranian nuclear programme are destabilising Iraq. Hence he is suggesting the Occupiers and their allies in the region are opposing the Iraqi Shia at least partly due to their concerns over the Iranian nuclear programme - which is complete nonsense - yet even if it were true, he is not suggesting that those destabilising Iraq should desist; he is suggesting that Iran should give a "satisfactory response".

The Death of Tyrant

There is much to say about the death of Saddam. I could give an account about the Basij; the Iranian civilians shelled in Bandar-e Anzali (where my family is from); the murder of Ayatullah al-Sadr and Ayatullah al-Hakim; the succour Saddam received from the West, Israel and the Soviet Union; the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Iraqi Shia and Kurds; or the betrayal of Saddam by his Western allies.

However to do so offers no great insight or explanation why a man should be killed for his crimes and why so many in Europe should find it abhorrent and so many in the Middle East should rejoice.

The difference is one of perception; in Western Europe judicial executions do not take place and have not done so for many years. Very few people in Europe have witnessed a public execution. Therefore there is a false expectation about what takes place. Even many of those that support the reintroduction of the death penalty were sickened by the images of Saddam's death.

In truth, Saddam's execution was more dignified than most. The condemned is not executed for the sake of the law - he is executed for the sake of justice - so that those whom he has wronged may have a tangible sense of it. Thus he dies in front of those who revile him and for whom he is the personification of his crimes. Therefore when the condemned meets his death it is to the sound of jeers of derision, then finally to roars of applause, as his body twitches, passing from life to death.

In Europe such a scene is an anathema to justice and utterly inconceivable. For this Tony Blair will never be forgiven since this death sentence will remain an indelible mark upon New Labour Government and makes a mockery of its pretensions of an ethical foreign policy.

Blair's culpability is undeniable, for Saddam's death was as an inevitability the moment Blair failed to extract a guarantee that Saddam would be tried in the Hague as his price for Britain's participation in the invasion of Iraq. Had he have done so, Saddam would not have hung.

USA forced to relase Iranian hostages

The United States Government was exposed making fraudulent claims about Iranian interference in Iraq, when it was itself guilty of violating Iraq's sovereignty and hostage-taking.

Following a raid on a SCIRI compound, without the Iraqi Government's approval, the United States announced that it had captured senior Iranian military officials who were "meddling" in Iraq. The two senior Iranian military officials were in fact diplomats and thus had diplomatic immunity so could not be detained by the United States. Moreover far from meddling in Iraq, they were official State guests; personally invited over by President Talibani.

President Talbani furiously denounced the hostage-taking and demanded his guest immediate and unconditional release. The United States has been forced to concede that the abductions were illegal and has stated that the Iranian diplomats have been released, which is yet to be confirmed.

The Demolition of Jamiat Police station

Over a 1,000 British occupation, with a token Iraqi Army presence, raided and demolished the Jamiat Police station in Basra, the home of the Serious Crimes Unit and the police station that British forces raided in a botched attempt to free two undercover SAS troopers in September 2005. The detained SAS troopers, much to the embarrassment of the British government, were caught trying to plant an explosive device with the intent of killing Iraqi civillians.

That the Serious Crimes Unit is aligned to the Sadrist faction and is without doubt, and this no doubt was the motive for this raid that followed the abortive attempts to form a coalition government without the Sadrist movement. British Occuaption forces are undoubtedly trying to provoke a clash with the Sadrist movement.

This act was a flagrant disregard for the rule of law. The Basra Municipal Council vote to suspend cooperation with the British occupation forces was predictably - Mohammed al-Abadi, chairman of the Municipal Council demanded an explanation of why the British forces ignored the rule of law and destroyed an "Iraq government building flying the Iraqi flag" and removed suspected terrorists. However, it is the reaction on the Street that matters.

UN Passes Diluted Sanctions Against Iran

The United Nations Security Council voted to impose sanctions on Iran and as largely suspected the draft resolution presented by the European Troika (Britain, France and Germany) was heavily diluted.

The resolution demands that Iran halt uranium enrichment and heavy-water projects. A demand that has no legal basis under the NPT. This is reflected in the weakness of the sanctions it imposes.

It freezes the financial assets of twelve named individuals and eleven groups, including the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, although it not clear if any such assets are held abroad. Instead of a travel ban, it call for member states to "exercise vigilance" regarding the international travel of the twelve Iranian officials and sets up a monitoring committee that will report in sixty days. The IAEA is also required to present a report in sixty days on Iran's compliance with the illegal order to halt all uranium enrichment and heavy-water projects.

Thus the resolution is in effect a deferment of the case for sixty days. There is no expectation that this resolution will have any effect, it is designed to buy the United States and the European Troika some political breathing space, without eliciting too much of response from Iran - although that remains to be seen.

U.S. Acting Ambassador Alejandro Wolff said, "we are sending Iran an unambiguous message". Indeed there are: one of utter impotence.

Iranian elections a rejection of the Western Imperialism

Unlike the Presidential elections, turnout for the Assembly of Experts and municipal council elections in Iran is usually low. In 2002, just 12% of the electorate voted in the municipal council elections. Therefore the 60% turnout last Friday is staggering. The record turnout in Iran undoubtedly was a response to the United States, whose President, George Bush, encouraged Iranians not to vote as a sign of protest against the Islamic Republic, as did the US sponsored MKO cult and Shahists. Thus the elections not only proved that Iran has a vibrant democracy, equal to any in the West, it was a rejection of Western imperialism: Iranians firmly demonstrated their continued commitment to the Islamic revolution and the Velayat-e faqih.

Early indications show that the pro Faqih (Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei) Conservative wing has trounced the Reformists. Despite the reformist wing forming a single coalition, they were still unable to take a single council. Conversely, the Conservatives, who were broadly divided into two factions dominated the municipal council elections. The Conservatives have won a massive majority on the Tehran municipal council, which is divided by supporters of the Tehran Mayor Qalibaf and President Ahmadinejad. In effect, President Ahmadinejad's supporters are now the largest opposition to the Mayor on the Tehran council. The reformists have once again been pushed into the political wilderness.

Moreover, former President Ayatullah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was defeated by President Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential election was resoundingly elected to the Assembly of Experts, as was his rival Ayatullah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, yet both are conservatives, which demonstrates that Tehranis have rejected reformism. This is a stinging rebuke for Ganji, the current darling of the MKO and the West, and for the Argentinian Government that have both made unsubstantiated allegations of Ayatullah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani involvement in political assassinations and terrorism, whilst he was President of Iran.

Much to the consternation of the Western imperialists, the biggest winner of these elections was the Faqih and the conservative movement that now dominates Iranian politics. There are healthy political disputes within the conservative camp but the reformist movement has wilted. This is unsurprising, Ahmadinejad has achieved more in a year, than the reformist did in eight. Three years of negotiations with Western imperialists over the nuclear issue led to nothing but Iran's three year voluntary suspension of its nuclear energy programme. Ahmadinejad's rejection of appeasement has brought dividends; Iran has completed the nuclear cycle and is now enriching uranium.

Reality is not changed through its denial. Western support for regime change is as forlorn as it is insipid; Iran is not about to abandon the Islamic revolution or Velayat-e faqih and will resist Western imperialism.

The Tehran Holocaust Conference

Qu'ran Sura 5, Aya 32:

مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَلَقَدْ جَاءتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيراً مِّنْهُم بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فِي الأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ

Pickthal's English rendition:

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth."

Hence there is no greater or lesser morality in the murder of more or fewer.

A point made by Rabbi Aharon Cohen of the Neturei Karta at the "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision" held in Tehran:

"The figure of six million is regularly quoted. One may wish to dispute this actual figure, but the crime was just as dreadful whether the millions (and there were millions) of victims numbered six million, five million or four million. The method of murder is also irrelevant, whether it was by gas chamber (and there were eye witnesses to this), firing squads or whatever. The evil was the same. It would be a terrible affront to the memory of those who perished to belittle the guilt of the crime in any way."

History is littered with genocides; many of equal and even greater magnitude than the Nazi one; for instance, the two genocides perpetrated by the British government against Iran during the Twentieth century, which remain the subject of D notices.

To question the dogmas of the Nazi "Holocaust" is not to deny the German genocide; rather it is to ask pertinent questions. Why, for instance, is the religious terminology holocaust used for this genocide? Why has this particular genocide acquired a mythological status? What makes the genocide unique? Why the focus on Jewish victims to the exclusion of all others?

To not ask these questions is an affront to reason.

It is also pertinent to question why an extrapolated figure of six million has become such an unchallengeable dogma. It is logically absurd, to place such faith in a necessarily unreliable extrapolated figure. Where is the margin of error?

Yad Vashem, "The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority" in Israel can list only 3.2 million potential Jewish victims of Nazi genocide. Therefore it is impossible to say with any accuracy that six million died.

What of the path to genocide? Was it pre-planned or the corollary of Lebensraum? Did it begin with Kristallnacht?

And what of the role of Zionism in the Nazi genocide?

Another pregnant question is how and why this genocide came to be thought of as the rasion d'etre for the existence of the Jewish state? Certainly this was not so in 1948; only much later in the 1960s did the "Holocaust" came to dominate European and North American politics.

To address these questions is neither to diminish the suffering of the victims or to justify the perpotrators of this gencoide. The reaction of Western governments to the "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision" conference in Tehran was evidence - if any was needed - of their rank hypocrisy, fanaticism and dogmaticism.

President Ahmadinejad in the Lion's Den

When President Ahmadinejad gave a speech in Amir Kabir University, he was standing on what should have been hostile ground. The Amir Kabir University student's association is heavily linked with the reformist movement, yet the reformist President Khatami received a hostile reception during his last speech there. His movement, would therefore have expected president Ahmadinejad to receive an even more hostile reception.

However this was not to be, much to the consternation of the reformist movement, there were only a few dozen protestors, with placards saying "Down with Dictators", to which President Ahmadinejad responded, "Given the scars inflicted on the Iranian nation by agents of the US and British dictatorship, no one will ever dare to initiate the rise of a dictator."

And when some students burned his photo he stated, “Everyone should know that Ahmadinejad is prepared to be burned in the path of defending freedom and truth.”

Commenting on the Western funding of anti-Iranian terrorist groups, president Ahmadinejad said:

"My response to the opponents of our ruling system is that the nation is aware of their tricks and will not be deceived by them. Iranians will never give up their ideals".

His speech received a rapturous reception from most of the students, who began chanting his name.

The implications for the reformist movement cannot be overstated. Their hatred of Ahmadinejad is greater than their hatred of Rafsanjani. Yet even in Amir Kabir - what was their ideological heartland - there much touted demonstration amounted to less than 50 protestors. During the presidential elections the reformist had the bloggers; Ahmadinejad had the street. They underestimated then and they underestimated him now - the Basij Student Organisation is by far the most prominent student organisation in Iran. The reformist movement is dead.