A State Within A State

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that in 1999 the Met Police Anti-Corruption squad unlawfully tapped the telephone conversations of Chief superintendent Ali Dizaei, the Met's most senior Muslim officer and legal adviser to the National Black Police Association, in 1999. The operation - codenamed Helios - was directly overseen by Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, back when he was deputy commissioner.

The team of 40 officers monitored over 3,500 phone calls made by Ali Dizaei from Kensington police station and the NBPA offices. Ostensibly the investigation was looking into unfounded allegations that Dizaei was an Iranian spy, although Keith Jarrett, president of the NBPA, cast doubt over the sincerity of the investigation:

“The significance of this judgment is to tell the Met that they can’t treat people in this way. It was an attempt to destroy the NBPA, not a corruption inquiry.”

At the time Dizaei was advising officers who were suing the Met for racial discrimination and victimisation. Moreover, despite the fact that this was the biggest police corruption case ever mounted, costing millions, it failed to substantiate any criminal allegation against Dizaei. A token prosecution was brought for an alleged £270 false expense claim but Dizaei was acquitted.

What is most alarming about this case, is not that the Met Police Commissioner headed an unlawful racist and political motivated investigation or indeed that the Met Anti-Corruption squad is itself tainted by racism and corruption; it is that the Prime Minister and then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, would have been fully appraised of the details of operation Helios yet still approved Sir Ian Blair's appointment as Met Police commissioner. This signals an approval of what amounts to a state within a state.

Iraq Study Group Report is Delusional

Iraq politicians have been decidedly nonchalant about the Iraq Study Group's report; the Iraqi media even more so and most the public are unaware of it. Their disregard is well founded. Even if the report does make a bleaker assessment of the situation in Iraq than the US Government has hitherto been prepared to acknowledge, it is still a reiteration of many of the usual accusations, fabrications, distortions and half-truths. It is either spectacularly dishonest or spectacularly delusional in avoiding the underlying reality; namely, the United States is exacerbating the anarchy in Iraq by both its presence and continued interference. Whilst the reports acknowledges that Iraq is currently not governed as a unitary state and is quick to criticise Iraq's politicians for being sectarian, it fails to point out that the United States has been deliberately fermenting factional conflict.

Even the lexicon of the report owes more to propaganda than reality - the Shia, Sunni, Kurdish, Taqfiri and Baathist factions all have their militias, they are all involved in ethnic-cleansing and all have divided loyalties - yet in the report Shia militias are described as "death squads", the Sunni Militias as "insurgents" and the Kurdish militias as "security forces". The United States has consistently opposed the Shia majority; it is this more than anything that has led to the present state of anarchy.

It is quite apparent that the current Iraqi government - a government in name only - it is simply incapable of imposing central rule. In fact, Iraq is no longer a unitary State. Yet the United States is still trying to impose central rule. This is dangerous myopia. Yet whilst acknowledging that the situation is spiraling out of control, the report continues to advocate propping up the defunct al-Malki Government. Hence it is delusional.

The two most powerful men in Iraq are Sayyed al-Hakim (SCIRI) and Sayyed al-Sadr (Sadrists). Sayyed al-Hakim, like the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani (PUK), Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Malaki (Dawa) and Kurdistan Regional Government President, Massoud Barzani (KDP) supports the dissolution of Iraq. Whereas Sayyed al-Sadr, like the Sunnite Iraqi Vice President, Tariq al-Hashimi (IIP) and Sheikh Harith Al Dhari (Association of Muslims Scholars) support centralism. Yet al-Malaki, like the previous elected Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, is dependent upon the support of Sayyed al-Sadr, which was withdrawn last week, after his meeting with Bush in Jordan. Therefore the United States will have to reappraise its relationship with the SCIRI and its Badr militia, since the al-Malaki Government is dependent upon the goodwill of Sayyed al-Hakim, without which it will fall.

The report calls for an international regional conference, a move that is strongly resisted by Sayyed al-Hakim and Jalal Talabani, since contrary to US claims, it is Saudi Arabia that is actively destabilising Iraq; not Iran or Syria. In fact, Iran is the only stabilising force in Iraq, a point that both Jalal Talabani and Sayyed al-Hakim have made last week. The report should have recommended that, as a matter of imperative, the United States should desist from making baseless accusations against Iran, since the propaganda is fuelling the Shia-Sunni sectarian conflict and undermines the current Shia led Government. Therefore until the united States is prepared to move beyond the limits of its own propaganda; it is far from clear what the Iraq Study Group expects to be gained from direct talks with Iran and Syria: the United States is certainly not about to request Iran dispatch the IRGC into Basra to bolster the Badr numbers, so that they might drive the Mahdi Army out of Southern Iraq.

Dutch Courage

The Dutch were honour bound to fight and if necessary dieThe Netherlands prides itself on its alleged tradition of liberalism, yet the reality is a tradition of oppression, religious intolerance and Xenophobia. For its large Muslim minority, the Netherlands is arguably the most illiberal and repressive State in the European Union. However, it is not for the persecution of Muslims at home that the Netherlands is despised in the Muslim World. It is for it complicity in the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, when a Dutch UN peacekeeping forces, stood idly by when 8,000 Muslim men and boys were abducted in what was supposed to be a UN safe haven and executed by the Bosnian Serb forces led by General Ratko Mladic.

Of course the Dutch plead impotence and pointed out that they did not have the cover of air support to repel the Serb irregulars. Hence rather than carry out his duty, Tom Karremans, the Dutch commander at Srebrenica, was to be photographed socialising and drinking with his host General Mladic. The Dutch bargained away the lives of these 8,000 for the release of 14 kidnapped peacekeepers, they knew what was happening and did nothing to prevent it.

Civil Wars are always brutal. Genocide is to be expected. However what was not expected, was that having committed itself to defending this UN safe haven, the Dutch would display such cowardice. The indifference of the Dutch towards Bosnian Muslims may in part be explained by a national loathing of Islam but it was nevertheless a gross dereliction of duty: the Dutch were honour bound to fight and if necessary die. Their failure so to do, not only reflects badly upon the Netherlands, it reflects badly upon the United Nations.

Thus, when Henk Kamp, the Dutch defence minister honoured these soldiers with medals, he not only made a laughingstock of his country - which will ever after been known as a nation that rewards cowardice - he has signalled the value that the Netherlands place on Muslim life.

British interference in Lebanon

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett's intervention in Lebanese politics is delusional and insipid, she described her visit as "a chance to extend Britain's backing to the efforts of the Lebanese government in order to help protect the country's stability and democracy," described the Siniora's Government as "elected by the people of Lebanon and a government which has the constitutional authority that election gives it". A preposterous statement given that both the Lebanese President and Speaker have declared the Siniora Government to be illegal and in violation of the Lebanese constitution.

Moreover contrary to Beckett's assertion, this regime was not democratically elected. How could it be? Lebanon is not a democracy; rather it is a sectarian plutocracy established by the French to guarantee a disproportionate share of power for Lebanese Christians and to supress the Muslim majority. Lebanon only has the illusion of democracy. Hence Siniora's Government was elected with fewer votes that the opposition, yet still has a Parliamentary majority. Of the three main sectarian groups, the largest the Shia are the least represented.

The 800,000 to a million protestors (quarter of the Lebanese population) that took to the streets in protest against this illegitimate regime are demanding greater representation; a government of national unity; and an end to Western interference in Lebanese affairs. Whereas Siniora and the Hariri gang represent the status quo: an undemocratic Western sponsored tyranny, a regime that pampers to Zionist interests and will not defend its own borders.

There can be no doubt, that if Lebanon had democratic elections today, Siniora and his government would be ousted and that Hezbullah, Amal and Tayyar Al-Watani Al-Horr would form the government, hence the reason that Siniora is not prepared to go to the ballot box. Thus Beckett's comments would have been imbecilic had she made them in London, since they are patently untrue; however to make them in Beirut is deliberate attempt to interfere in Lebanese national politics and can only further exacerbate tensions. It is yet another example of Siniora's Western backers trying to impose their will on Lebanon and prop up an unpopular regime with no democratic mandate.

As General Michel Aoun said:

"Today we seek to liberate the free decision making. The decision is here when we meet as united Lebanese and agree on our internal, external and defense policies. Thus we make our free decision. A free decision does not change according to geography from a Lebanese area to a non Lebanese area. That’s why we will always seek to maintain our friendships and we want to be friends with everybody in the East and the West provided they respect our national will and let us deal with our problems on our own. We consider that any factional support to the government coming from any country whatsoever is not a friendly support but it is a support that creates confrontation in the society as conspiracy looms over the nation and its unity."

Sayyed Nasrallah call for mass popular demonstration

We appeal to all Lebanese, from every region and political movement, to take part in a peaceful and civilized demonstration Friday to rid us of an incapable government Al Manar reports,

"The Lebanese opposition called for mass demonstrations Friday in support of its demands for government of national unity but the pro-Western cabinet swiftly rejected the move. 'The opposition forces, on the basis of their constitutional rights, call on all Lebanese, whatever their religious confession, to demonstrate peacefully in an open-ended sit-in from 3 pm Friday for a national unity government,' said an opposition statement. 'The opposition forces appeal to demonstrators to brandish only the Lebanese flag and authorized slogans,' the statement added.

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah called for a massive turnout. 'We appeal to all Lebanese, from every region and political movement, to take part in a peaceful and civilized demonstration Friday to rid us of an incapable government that has failed in its mission,' he said in a television broadcast.

But Communications Minister Marwan Hmedeh said that his unconstitutional government had no intention of giving in to pressure from the street. The opposition factions had threatened to take to the streets last week but postponed their plans after the November 21 assassination of anti-Syrian industry minister Pierre Gemayel. As well as Hezbollah, the opposition factions include the Amal Movement of parliament speaker Nabih Berri, the Free Patriotic Movement of MP General Miche Aoun, the Marada Party of former Minister Suleiman Franjiyeh, the Lebanese Democratic Party of former Minister Talal Erslan, the Syrian Nationalist Socialist Party, the People's Party of former MP Najah Wakim, the Islamic Front of cleric Fathi Yakan and many other powers and former leaders.

Lebanese Army Commander Michel Suleiman ordered his troops to be fully prepared to fulfill their role of 'protecting freedom of expression and preventing riots and attacks on public and private property.' Suleiman ordered soldiers to 'keep the same distance from everyone and safeguard the security of all citizens, including the pro-and anti-government parties.'"

Gemayel Assassination Looks like an Inside job.

Al-manar reports:

"Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel was shot dead in a street in a Christian suburb of the capital Beirut and rushed to hospital, Lebanese media reported. Gemayel was a member of the Phalange Party and son of former president Amin. Witnesses and reporters quoting Gemayel's bodyguards said the minister was shot in his car in Jdeideh on the northern edge of Beirut, with a silencer. The footage of the car that Gemayel was driving suggest that the perpetrator shot the minister at close range, as several bullet holes were seen on the door window. News reports said that the assassin managed to escape. Reports also said that Gemayel had a large number of bodyguards with him, but the way the assassin managed to get near the car and shoot the minister without any reaction by them is still unknown. Reports quoted sources in the Phalange party suggesting that the bodyguards of Gemayel may be infiltrated."

The implication is obvious, only those with access and influence to his bodyguard entourage, could have orchestrated the assassination: hence more likely friend than foe.

The Assassination of Gemayel

The assassination of Pierre Gemayel, an inconsequential Lebanese industry minister and leader of the Kataeb (Phalange) party, in the Christian Sin el-Fil neighbourhood of Beirut, has been presented in the Western media as a catastrophe for Lebanese democracy and unity, which is ironic, since Pierre Gemayel is a fascist, like his grandfather and namesake, who formed the Kataeb movement, having being inspired by the Nazis in 1936. This movement has little influence amongst the Christian minority, let alone with the majority of Lebanese. Pierre Gemayel (the Grandson) recently described the majority Muslim Lebanese as inferior to minority Christian Lebanese, so he was hardly a voice of moderation, liberalism or democracy.

Moreover the Western media has rather unsubtly implied that Syria is responsible for the assassination and have reported the allegations of Saad Hariri to that effect. Notwithstanding that there has not been a scintilla evidence to substantiate these claims, and that the Hariri gang also has a motive for the assassination: Gemayel has proved more useful dead to the Hariri gang than he did when he was alive. It is simply not possible in the absence of evidence to say who murdered Gemayel.

The myth of Lebanese democracy

Hezbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah stated, "There are two solutions to resolve the crisis -- either the formation of a government of national unity, in which all political movements take part, or early parliamentary elections...We cannot have any confidence in this government because it answers to the decisions and wishes of the American administration".

As much as the Western media and politician would like to present the Siniora regime as a legitimate and democratic, it is neither. Siniora is but a figure head for the Hariri gang, Paris and Washington; he has no political mandate, for Lebanon is not a democracy, its election process is a farce. Lebanon is governed by a tripartite system imposed upon by colonial France, which results in a Christian President, a Sunni Muslim Prime Minister and a Shia speaker of the house. Seats in the Parliament are allocated along these sectarian lines; rather than proportionally. The Shia (Hezbullah and Amal's political base) are undoubtedly Lebanon's largest sectarian group, possibly even the majority of the Lebanese population, yet Shi Muslims are effectively barred from holding either the post of President or Prime Minister.

If Lebanon was a democracy, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah would be its leader and Hezbullah and Amal would be in government. Instead, Lebanon is run by a pro-Western oligarchy of gangsters and fascists, proped up be Western militarism. The anti-Syrian Hariri gang that sat idly by whilst Israel perpetuated a genocide against Lebanon, which was facilitated greatly by the earlier withdrawal of the Syrian Arab Army from Lebanon. It was Hezbullah that rose to the challenge and it was Hezbullah's stunning victory against Israel on the battlefield that thwarted the Zionist colonisation of Lebanon.

Therefore it is little wonder that Hezbullah enjoys the support of 70% of Lebanon according to recent polls. Despite what the Western media might say, Lebanon is asserting its independence from French, US and Zionist imperialism. The majority of Lebanese want a Government of national unity; they do not support the undemocratic and illegitimate, Western backed Hariri gang or the ineffectual Siniora.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said to the Lebanese people "We must psychologically be ready to take to the streets". The number of protesters at any the planned rally against the illegitimate Lebanese government are likely to number in excess of a million: a clear demonstration of who really represents the will of Lebanese nation.

However, the Siniora regime will not concede to the democratic will; it will instead look to its Western backed for a military solution and take Lebanon into another civil war.

Saddam Hussein's Death Sentence

the mother of all kangaroo courtsThe trial was a farce, it was flagrantly a political instrument of the United States; it was so heavily partisan that one judge resigned and one judge was removed, it was, to use the cliche, the mother of all kangaroo courts. It was the current Prime Minister, Al-Maliki's, Islamic Dawa party that claims to have organised the plan to assassinate Saddam, which precipitated the murders of a 148 people in Dujail in 1982, for which Saddam was tried with crimes against humanity. The death sentence was a forgone conclusion.

This notwithstanding, it is right that Saddam should be executed, Saddam's crimes against Iraqi Shia and Kurds are exceeded by his invasion of Iran, the war not only cost over a million lives, Saddam fought it at the behest of Britain and the United States, to oppose the spread of Islam in the region and keep the oil reserves out of indigenous Muslim control. For the great harm that he did Iraq and Iran, for the crimes against the Muslim Ummah, Sunni and Shia alike, his execution is necessary. Since, although his execution will enrage his supporters and undoubtedly exploited by the Wahhabis and most Iraqis were demanding it.

Manufacturing Dissent

Despite serving two terms as President, Khatami is a forlorn figure in Iranian politics, his policy of engagement with the West and economic reforms failed. It was due to this policy of appeasing the West that former President of Iran, was presented with an honorary doctorate in law from the University of St Andrews. In support of the award, the University of St Andrews Students’ Association said,

"While it would be easy to oppose Khatami's award on the basis of tensions which existed in Iran during his presidency, we believe Khatami himself predominantly adopted a brave stand to promote liberal values. This personal courage, combined with his subsequent work in building inter-faith dialogue and communication, coupled with his notable achievements as a scholar, make him a very suitable candidate for such an award."

The BBC reports a dozen or so demonstrators turned up to protest the conferment of the honorary degree, which the BBC, rather disingenuously, described as a mixed reaction. There are an estimated 130,000 Iranians living in the UK, and at least 20,000 who are declared opponents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, nearly all of whom left Iran whilst Khatami was president. So the protests, could be best described as notably insignificant. Hardly a mixed reception.

However this conferment has been pilloried in the British press; the Guardian goes so far as to publish the spurious allegations and anti-Iranian drivel of notorious xenophobe, Islamophobe and proven liar Peter Tatchell, who is incidentally, a known supporter of the genocidal religious cult Mujaheddin-e Khaliq (a proscribed terrorist organisation).

Tatchell quotes the claims made by Safa Einollahi and Ali Ebrahimi of rape and torture in Iran under Khatami by agents of the state. This unsustained claims have been dismissed by the Met Police, "we consider there are insufficient grounds to make an arrest and there is not sufficient basis for a criminal investigation'', the latter part of the statement means that there is no evidence that the crime took place.

Tatchell also tellingly refers to Khuzei Arabs as "Ahwazis", anyone who uses this term either is ignorant or supports British imperialism, for it is a British term and not common amongst Khuzei, whether Arab or otherwise. Tatchell of course would not know this as he has never been to Iran nor dopes he have any contacts within Iran. He suggests that the "Ahwazis" were ethnically cleansed under Khatami, which is nonsense. Most of the Khuzeis who were forcibly displaced in Iran are not of Arab descent, in any event they were not ethnically cleansed, they were forcibly displaced due environmental necessity.

Tatchell has a proven track record of lying about Iran. He claimed that Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni were executed for homosexuality citing ISNA as a source when they said no such thing. In fact, the two men were executed for a series of rapes of young boys in Mashad, the oldest victim, a 13 years old, gave evidence during their trial. When it was revealed that this was the case and Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the European Union and the United Nations all dismissed these false claims, Tatchell continued to maintain them and suggested on the OutRage Website, that the 13 year old victim had probably consented to have sex. The website was pulled off line shortly afterwards.

United States waging war on the Iraqi Government

"If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition"
The United States had begun to contemplate that which they previous said was unthinkable, defeat in Iraq, for that is what withdrawal will be. Iraq has been a military disaster: the invasion was ill-conceived and the occupation was more so. Today in an interview with Reuters, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, made it clear that the United States is responsible for the Iraqi Government's current state of paralysis and is instrumental in exacerbating the violence.

He dismisses the tired response of Washington and London that their withdrawal is not favoured by the Iraqi government: "They think building Iraqi forces will need 12 to 18 months for us to be in control of security. We agree our forces need work but think that if, as we are asking, the rebuilding of our forces was in our own hands, then it would take not 12-18 months but six might be enough." Thus the Prime Minister of Iraq is suggesting that the Occupiers should not need to be Iraq for any longer than six months.

Moreover, he unambiguously blames the occupiers for the current instability and chaos in Iraq: "If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition. I am now prime minister and overall commander of the armed forces yet I cannot move a single company without Coalition approval because of the U.N. mandate. So those who have the authority and could move the forces are also responsible. This should be clear". Thus dispelling the notion that Iraq is now governed by a democratically elected Government. In reality, it is administered rather than governed (under the auspicious of the UN) by an incompetent, brutal and repressive US military junta.

This is important, because if one was inclined to believe the spin comming out of Washington and London, they are the friends of the Iraqi government; this could not be further from the truth, they have sought to undermine the democratic process at every stage, the Occupiers are waging war on the Shia government, opposing both SCIRI and the Sadrists, the bulk of the government, the major part of the coalition party that al-Maliki is a member of. It was Sayyed al-Sadr, who put al-Malaki in office. The Occupiers attacks on the the Mahdi army and the Badr Brigades are a direct assault upon the sovereignty of the government.

Al-Maliki points out that the threat to Iraq does not come from the Shia militias, as the United States suggests: "Terrorism and the militias are separate issues. There is a political plan aimed at making the militias the priority." Moreover, Al-Maliki noted that Sayyed al-Sadr has forbidden the "use of force against the government and the Coalition forces" and that they are both in full agreement: "the efforts for all political groups should be focused on the most dangerous challenge, which is al Qaeda and the Saddam Baathists...At least we can talk to the militias, we know who they are. They follow Moqtada al Sadr, the Dawa party, Badr etc. We can talk to them but who are terrorists loyal too and who do they follow?"

This is point, that is infrequently mentioned that the United States is in effect siding with al-Qaeda and the Saddam Baathists insurgency in Iraq, by declaring open war on the Shia in Iraq. In fact, by trying to impose a secularist pro-Western government, the United States has abandoned any pretense of favouring democracy, and is once again trying to restore a brutal oppressive autocracy, no different in nature to the Saddam Baathists regime. To this aim the United States has re-centred its focus on targeting the Shia Militia, which is describes as "death squads" ignoring the fact that exponentially more Iraqis have died at the hands of Wahhabi, Kurdish and Baathist "death squads", than have died at the hands of the Shia militias, and that the current wave of reciprocal violence in Iraq, is the corollary of the present security situation. The truth is that without the Shia militia the South of Iraq would be ungovernable and that many of the Sunni militias fulfil the same function in the North.

The United States also operates "death squads", and on a far greater scale, al-Malaki accuses the United States of effectively engaging in terrorism: "Do you send in planes to arrest one person? There is no problem with the principle of arresting criminals but you should not harm people in the way you go to arrest people, spreading horror and at the risk of sabotaging political actions we have worked on."

When Washington and London say they are in Iraq supporting a democratically elected Government, this is simply untrue; they are waging a war against that Government and against the Iraqi people.

Belgium Foreign Minister criticises senators for supporting terrorism

Following a protest from Iran, Belgium's foreign minister Karel de Gucht, has condemned utterly the meeting between Belgian senators and Maryam Rajavi, leader of the Paris-based terrorist group the MKO.

Belgian news agency, BELGA, quoted de Gucht as saying such measures undermine Belgium's position in fight against terrorism.

Belgian foreign minister expressed regret over the meeting between Belgian officials and leader of the MKO terrorist group, saying Monafeghin group have carried out terrorist operations and have practiced torture in different parts of the world while they are on the US and EU terrorist list.

De Gucht added Belgium cannot permit the wastage of its diplomatic credit through gestures which do not serve the cause of democracy and undermines the consistency of Belgium's policy.

The Argentinian Libel

The Argentine public prosecutor has once again accussed Iran of involvement in the 1994 bombings at the Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires, despite having failed to convince an Argentine court and having a British judge lambaste the Argentine government for failing to provide a shred of evidence during the extradition hearing of the then Iranian ambassador to Argentina, Hadi Soleymanpour.

In fact, former MI5 agent David Shayler revealed that the both Britain had firm intelligence that Mossad carried out the 1994 Israeli embassy bombing in London, which Jack Straw suppressed, and that this bombing was linked to the Buenos Aires bombing.

Argentina has the largest Jewish community in Latin America and close connections to the Zionist regime and the United States, the timing of this allegation is designed to coincide with the Security Council debate on imposing sanctions against Iran. Therefore one can expect the European Union, who had grown decidedly wearily of this allegation, to give it undue credence. Notwithstanding that there is not government in Europe that does not know that Mossad carried out this bombing.

Reporting Iran

Most of what is reported in the Western media about Iran is negative - how much of that do you suppose to be true? How much racist, how much propaganda and how much analysis from those who have never so much as visited Iran?

For instance, lets look at Human Rights: the British media heavily quotes Amnesty International's and Human Rights Watch's plethora of reports on the country.

Yet ask the authors of these reports, how many Iranian jails and cities they visited in the course of their research. You might be surprised to find that the answer is none!!!

A fact normally obscured in a small footnote, as it is on the USA State Dept report on Iran. All these stories on Iran cite dissidents. In other words, individuals like former SAVAK agent, Amir Taheri or dubious characters like Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji, who are not above sharing a platform the MeK and the KDPI, who are erronously described as "opposition groups". Although neither of these terror cults has any political support in Iran. They are no more an "opposition" in Iran than the 7th July bombers are in Britain.

Thus AI and HRW reports are awash with factually inaccruate stories about terrorists, murderer, rapists and traitors, who have been sentenced to death. You might have seen petitions on the net.

Would the British government release Ian Huntley because of a petition signed by a million Iranians?

The purpose of the petition is not to get the convicted criminal reprieved; it is a propaganda exercise, the purpose of which, is to manipualte those who sign the petition into developing an emotional involvement, so they will be less likely to question the facts, and more suspectible to anti Iranian propaganda.

Trevor Phillips adds fuel to the fire

Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the CRE has suggested that the teaching assistant, Aishah Azmi, suspended by Dewsbury's Headfield Church of England Junior School School for refusing to remove her veil in front of a male teacher, "would be doing everybody, including herself, a great favour were she to decide either that she were to comply with the requirements for teaching in the classroom or to decide she didn't want to do that job."

The employment tribunal held that she had not be discriminated against but had been victimised by the school and also recognised the serious subjudice issues in this case.

Whilst, one might on the face of it think that Phillips has a point, his remarks where inconsistent with his office, he is the chair of a government agency, with statutory legal powers on race equality. This intervention, is extraordinary; he is urging a woman to abort a civil suit in the national interest.

In fact, not only does she have the right to pursue her case - all things being equal - she has every prospect of success. In fact it is startling that neither Blair nor Woolas have been held in contempt of court - unquestionably their comments were subjudice -for this reason alone, the case is a more than worthy of being a test case. Government ministers (the Prime Minister no less) really ought not to be indulging in subjudice, no matter how politic.

Hang Kobra Rahmanpour

Iranians rightly regard this interference as a form of Western imperialism; an act of tyranny
In Iran, there is considerable resentment to the imbecilic, disingenuous and imperialist attitude of Western chauvinists to Kobra Rahmanpour imminent death sentence - sentence that is long overdue - she has been in custody for six years and under sentence of death for four, she has exhausted the appeal process.

A process, that the Iranian judiciary has diligently applied, and perhaps allowed to drag on too long. Rahmanpour murdered her mother-in-law, she had due process, she was convicted upon the evidence. Her pleas of victimisation are nauseating, self-pitying and unrepentant:

"I want to live! I am a human being just like you. I do not want to die. However I am now a sol less body who in fear of the execution rope has forgotten how to laugh and be happy. A lot of people say to me how come your case has been so much publicized but you are still in prison? I have to tell them that I am only steps away from execution. I too like all of you am afraid of dying. Please help me so that this would not be my last letter.

People, friends!

My mother, father and handicapped brother are very worried about me. Your supports so far have been such a comfort to them. I wish my life was different. I wish I had finished my pre-university education. I wish I did not have to be a servant for my husband. I wish I had not reached insanity. I suffered a lot and was intimidated. I am a true victim. Now they are about to hang the victim. This was not and is not my destiny.

In these dark days of fear, I urge you once again to help me. I thank all mass media and all people who supported me before. Now, may be for the last time, I urge you to do everything you can to free me from execution. I like freedom. I dream about my freedom and a good life.

I have suffered enough. Help me to get rid of the nightmare of execution which wakes me up all the time. Do what you can. There is not much time left. Every minute takes me nearer to the rope. Please help me! I am afraid of the rope and death. I hate the rope that is waiting for me on the crane. I want to live. All other doors are closed to me. Nobody helps me. My only hope is the people. I want to hold my mother and father in my arms.

I want to thank my mother, father and all who have supported me.

Kobra Rahmanpoor

From Evin prison, Tehran, Iran Shahrivar 1385 (September 2006)"

She wants to live, so too did her mother-in-law whom she brutallymurdered, with malice aforethought, repeatedly stabbing her to death with a knife. In Iran there is little sympathy for this murderess. Iranians support the death penalty. It is not hard to see why the lives or murderers would be forfeit; Iran is not the only country to apply such logic. For Iranians, it is a private matter for the victims family whether they are prepared to accept the diyeh (blood money) or demand that the sentence be executed.

It would seem that the family are adamant that Rahmanpoor should hang. Iranians will respect that, it is a pity that so many Islamophobes and Western chauvinists will not. Iranians rightly regard this interference as a form of Western imperialism; an act of tyranny.

Straw Unveiled

A visible statement of separation and of differenceIt began with Jack Straw’s comments that the veil was "a visible statement of separation and of difference" but then it descended into a government attack on British Muslims under the pretext of social cohesion. Straw’s comments were banal and bordering on imbecilic; of course it is a visible barrier – that is what a veil is - yet it is a barrier between Muslim and non-Muslims, it is a barrier between male and female, like other garments of clothes. It is a personal choice that affected him not in the least. In fact, wearing the veil could not be a more non-injurious to others. The claim that this is a barrier to social inclusion is pure sophistry; for most British Muslims, the tone of their skin is a veil. Discrimination, compounded by legal inequalities, is not limited to women, who wear the veil; it is a pervasive British Muslim experience.

Jack Straw has been feted for bring the debate to the forefront, yet is far from clear what this "debate". It cannot be the debate as to whether Muslim women ought to be allowed to observe the veil, since the government has categorically stated that it has no intention of introducing any proscriptive legislation in this regard. So what is this debate about?

The government voicing its disproval of the veil is not a debate, particularly when the government are committed to women having the choice whether they veil or not; it is nothing more, than a thinly veiled pretext for a staunchly anti-Islamic government, to yet again criticise the "British Muslim community". Whether a small minority of Muslim women choose to wear the face veil makes not a jot of difference to social cohesion and integration.

Medicines Sans Frontiers Accuse Israel of War Crimes

Zionist regime attacked the Lebanese people in a bid to stop popular support for the Hezbollah


Medicines Sans Frontiers has strongly rejected Amnesty International claim that the Zionist regime did not deliberate target civillians. It said in a report carried by the German news agency DPA that the Zionist regime did not differentiate between Lebanese civilians and Hezbullah fighters during their 33-day invasion of Lebanon, which it described as a gross violation of human rights.

The report noted that, contrary to international regulations prohibiting attacks on civilians, the Zionist regime attacked the Lebanese people in a bid to stop popular support for the Hezbollah.

Lebanese President Accuses US of Conspiring Against Lebanon

The US government would present itself as a friend of the Lebanese people, a peace broker, looking to support liberal democracy and wrestle the state out of the hands of an undemocratic Hezbullah. This Could not be further from the truth; Lebanese President Emile Lahoud last week accused the United States has orchestrated a full-size U.S. conspiracy against Lebanon.

During her visit in Egypt on Oct. 3, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the "New Middle East", as the US vision of a "future Middle East in which there is a democratic Palestine living in peace with its democratic Israeli neighbor". Lahoud derided the claim that the United States had any interest in democracy or peace, pointing to the latest press reports that over 600,000 people have died as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, he said, "I wonder whether this was the new Middle East they are talking about".

He urged the Lebanese people to stay united and consolidated against this US conspiracy to undermine their democracy and sovereignty. In other words to reject the pretensions of the US puppet, Prime Minister Seniora and the Hariri gang.

Despite US claims to the contrary, Sayyed Nasrallah and Hezbullah are more popular than they have ever been, were there to be a genuine democratic election in Lebanon, rather than the existing tripartite sham democracy, Sayyed Nasrallah would be Prime Minister.

British Army Chief Endorses Crusade Against Islam

Britain’s new chief of the general staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, in an interview in the Daily Mail made two interesting concessions about the "War on Terror". The First, a concession that the Occupation of Iraq is a failure. Contrary to the assertions of the British government, he argued that the British presence in Iraq, "exacerbates the security problems...Whatever consent we may have had in the first place...has largely turned to intolerance," and that "the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them".

The analysis is hardly startling - it is self-evident - were it not for the fact that this is being said by the Chief of the British army. However there was also another frank admission that the war on terror is being fought against Islam, "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". This is far more significant because The Chief of the British army is acknowledging that this is a crusade against Islam.

It is clear from his comments that he perceives the British mission as opposing Islamism, yet the Saddam Baathist regime was secular; it is the present Iraqi government is Islamist. Thus we can infer that the British mission in Iraq is to oppose the Iraqi national Government.

Supporters of Endless Wars in Congress, II

Many of the MEK supporters were not even Iranians

By Paul Sheldon Foote

Al-Jazeerah, September 18, 2005

In my article, Supporters of Endless Wars in Congress (http://www.aljazeerah.info/ , September 13, 2005), I expressed my opposition to the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who have sponsored or have co-sponsored the Iran Freedom Support Act. If this act becomes law, then the American taxpayers will be paying millions of dollars to support Iranian groups claiming to be pro-democracy.

The American neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) in the American Congress support America's use of military force and of other means to impose communist or totalitarian governments in the world in the name of democracy. Vice President Richard Cheney has been discussing the possibility of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran. Any Iranian living outside of Iran who supports America's dropping nuclear bombs on Iran should be deported to Iran so that they can enjoy America's exporting of nuclear bomb democracy, too. Vice President Cheney and the evil members of Congress who support the Iran Freedom Support Act should not be supported by any Iranian, American, or by any person in the world who possesses an ounce of decency.

With my satellite dish, I was able to watch the MEK channel's coverage of the MEK protest near the United Nations on September 14, 2005. I was able to see the large number of red and white MEK flags with communist symbols being waved by the MEK supporters. Many of the MEK supporters were not even Iranians. As Kenneth Timmerman has shown in his posted photographs, the MEK paid large numbers of non-Iranians from other countries to come to America for a free trip. Now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, there are no longer millions of dollars of money being given to the MEK through the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program. Who is financing the MEK now? You still have nearly 4,000 MEK fighters in Camp Ashraf, Iraq who must be supported.

Unfortunately, Americans who watch the evening television news or read their local newspapers are unlikely to have seen the communist flags of the MEK flying in New York City.

Fortunately, Kenneth Timmerman took photographs of two protest groups (the MEK and the monarchists) and reported the names of the other protest groups protesting at different times or locations near the United Nations. Please see: http://www.iran.org/news/24-Irandemos.htm

As Kenneth Timmerman noted, the MEK is on the terrorist list in America for a good reason. The MEK has a long history of acts of terrorism, including the murders of Americans in Iran and a terrorist attack in America in 1992. MEK fighters at Camp Ashraf, Iraq have held annual celebrations of the murders of these Americans. In Iraq, the MEK's terrorist acts and war crimes include forcing Iraqis to stand in roads so that MEK tanks could run over and crush to death innocent Iraqis. MEK leaders wanted to save all MEK bullets for the invasion of Iran. Why does the MEK need to invade Iran? The reason is that there is nearly zero support for the MEK in Iran.

Unlike Kenneth Timmerman, however, I have only contempt also for the Iranian monarchists. I was in Tehran, Iran in the summer of 1976 when the late Shah of Iran explained on Iranian television why he had abolished all political parties and had replaced all Iranian political parties with one party, the Resurgence Party. After the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom forced Reza Shah to go into exile and placed the Shah of Iran on the throne, the Shah of Iran promised the Iranian people that he would give them a constitutional monarchy similar to that of the United Kingdom's. The Shah of Iran lied. The Shah of Iran gave the Iranian people a one-party state with an absolute monarchy and a lot of corruption.

I do not support one-party systems of government anywhere in the world. The neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and American members of Congress who claim that the MEK and the Iranian monarchists are pro-democracy are liars.

President Ahmadinejad received the votes of a very large number of Iranians. There never was an election of Maryam Rajavi. Why do MEK leaders lie by claiming that she is the president-elect of Iran? MEK supporters were very active in the brutalizing of American hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran, Iran. When I was a doctoral student at Michigan State University, I attended MEK meetings. Some of the MEK students left the university to return to Iran to help the MEK supporters holding Americans hostage.

The MEK was founded in 1965 to oust the Shah of Iran from power. The Shah of Iran executed or killed in gun battles most of the original MEK leaders, except for Massoud Rajavi. The MEK is opposed to all Iranian governments except for a communist totalitarian state under the rule of Massoud Rajavi. Even the New York Times has reported about the future Pol Pot of Iran:

"This past winter in Iran, when such a popular outburst among students and others was still just a dream, if you mentioned the Mujahedeen, those who knew and remembered the group laughed at the notion of it spearheading a democracy movement. Instead, they said, the Rajavis, given the chance, would have been the Pol Pot of Iran."

--Elizabeth Rubin, "The Cult of Rajavi", New York Times Magazine, July 13, 2003

The neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who support the Iran Freedom Support Act are the worst terrorists in the world today. They threaten to drop nuclear bombs on Iran and impose another Pol Pot. Pol Pot was able to murder only approximately 25% to 33% of his people until the communist government of Vietnam sent its military to stop the genocide by the communist Pol Pot.

America does not want to bomb Iran and to impose the MEK because of democracy. Instead, the Iranian people want to be free to (1) sell their oil in Euros instead of using American dollars and (2) to start an oil exchange in 2006 instead of using oil exchanges in New York.

The truth is that there is more capitalism and democracy in Iran and in many other countries today than there is in America. America's political leaders are attempting to impose a communist government in Iran today (just as they did in 1959 in Cuba with Fidel Castro, the "George Washington of Cuba"). America is making these threats against Iran (and warnings against people in other countries who dare to be free). Most Americans do not understand yet how the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) in the Democratic and Republican parties are destroying America. They do not know that countries other than Iraq and Iran will stop using the American dollar or making investments in America. When there is a major depression in America or another terrorist attack in America, American dupes will have a choice: become educated and oust the neo-conservative (neo-Trotskyite) Democrats and Republicans or respond by bombing every country in the world refusing to hold American dollars and have American-supported totalitarians as their leaders.

Recommended Books on the MEK (Rajavi Cult)

Singleton, Anne, Saddam's Private Army: How Rajavi Changed Iran's Mojahedin from Armed Revolutionaries to an Armed Cult, Iran-Interlink (UK), 2003. ISBN: 0-9545009-0-3.

Available from the United Kingdom: http://www.iran-interlink.org/files/child%20pages/book_I-I.htm

This is the best single book available today on the MEK. Unfortunately, no American publisher is promoting this book in America. You must order it from the United Kingdom. The British author and her Iranian husband spent approximately 20 years inside the MEK, including time at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. She included extensive discussions of cult techniques and of why it is difficult to leave the MEK (Rajavi Cult) even in the United Kingdom.

Banisadr, Masoud, Masoud: Memoirs of an Iranian Rebel, Saqi Books, 2004. ISBN 0863563740


Available from many sources in America, such as: http://www.amazon.com

This Iranian author spent nearly 20 years of his life in the MEK, including at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. He described brainwashing and torture of MEK cult members at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. Unlike some MEK cult members, he did not die from the punishment. After leaving the MEK (Rajavi Cult), he wrote a lengthy book explaining exactly how the MEK finds new members and how it brainwashes and tortures its members. Abrahamian, Ervand, The Iranian Mojahedin, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1989. ISBN 0-300-05267-7

Available from many sources in America, such as: http://www.amazon.com

While this book has not been updated since 1989, it contains the scholarly research of an Iranian-American professor who interviewed Massoud Rajavi and other MEK leaders.Democracy Betrayed: A Response to U.S. State Department Report on the Mojahedin and the Iranian Resistance, Foreign Affairs Committee, National Council of Resistance of Iran, B.P. 18, 95430 Auvers-sur-Oise, France,1995.Available for free downloading from some Web sites of the MEK or of MEK supporters, such as: http://www.iran-e-azad.org/english/special/dembet.html

This is my favorite of the free books the MEK and its front groups have posted online because: (1) this book is an excellent example of how communist groups claim to be democratic. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China are examples of totalitarian countries claiming to be democratic (2) this book contains some of the names of the members of Congress the MEK likes, such as Senator John Kerry, 2004 Democratic Party candidate for President.

Recommended Web Sites about the MEK (Rajavi Cult)

Inter-Interlink http://www.iran-interlink.org

This is Anne Singleton's Web site in the United Kingdom. The content includes extensive documentation about the MEK (Rajavi Cult), stories of cult members who have escaped from the MEK, and a lot of European documents the American neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) do not want Americans to read. Iran Didban http://www.irandidban.com/

This Iranian Web site contains massive amounts of documents on the MEK (Rajavi Cult) in English, French, Arabic, and in Persian (Farsi).

Traitors USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/


My Yahoo! Group contains all of my postings plus the postings of members who choose to join the group.

At Traitors USA, I welcome researched postings by MEK supporters and opponents. I look forward to seeing your researched posting at Traitors USA.

Khoda hafez shoma,

Professor Paul Sheldon Foote

California State University, Fullerton PO Box 6848 800 North State College Fullerton, CA 92834-6848 USA

pfoote@fullerton.edu

Christian Terrorist Hijacks Plane

Hakan Ekinci, a Christian convert and deserter from the Turkish army, motivated by Pope's anti-Islamic speech, hijacked a Boeing 737 flying out of Tirana, Albania to Istanbul, Turkey. In a letter to the Pope on 30 August 2006, he had declared "I am a Christian and I don't want to serve in a Muslim army," although Turkey is a secular state ruled by a notoriously anti-Islamic military junta, so clearly the army is not Muslim.

The Pope's defamation of Islam was obviously going to lead to greater political tension between Christians and Muslims, thus it was entirely foreseeable that his words would be interpreted as an endorsement of political violence against Islam.

It will be interesting to see what the Pope's reaction will be.

Media Fabrications

Reporting from Iraq is perilous, particularly for Western reporters, therefore it is perhaps no surprise that the Times would resort to embellishing the briefings they receive from the Occupation Forces. However, this is article is pure fabrication; there is no one in the Mahdi army who would call themselves Abu Bakr!

This article is a testament to the fact that the Times is inherently dishonest, and spectacularly ignorant of Islam and the Middle East.

Al Shia regard Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, as a usurper, who opposed the Prophet's (saw) chosen successor, Imam Ali (as). For this reason Abu Bakr is a detested by al-Shia.

Who is really to blame?

The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called on the international community "to help restore law and order in both Iraq and Afghanistan by ending occupation".

Iraq is in in the midst of a civil war that is fast spiraling out of control and in Afghanistan the Pashtun tribesmen in the South are rebelling against the occupation. They are not, as is widely reported, the Taliban or al-Qaeda, they are the majority ethnic population in Afghanistan.

The Occupation is central to the violence in both countries. The Occupation forces are not bringing stability, they are roundly despised. Every time a soldier from the occupying forces is killed it is met at home as a tragedy, yet in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is one less occupier. It could not be clearer: the Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are an abject failure and always were going to be.

Merkel's extremism

German Chancellor Merkel:

"Self-censorship out of fear is not tolerable."

She was of course not referring to Germany freedom of expression laws, which must rank amongst the most draconian in the World. This after all is state-censorship. Rather, she was referring to the decision of Deutsche Oper not to deliberate offend Muslims, or Christians, in the wake of the Pope's remarks.

No threats have been made against the Deutsche Oper, but they considered imprudent to needlessly engage in faith-baiting to increase the rather poor attendance of a production that has received unfavourable reviews.

The German Chancellor, suggest that this is mistake, perhaps she will feel the need to intervene further, and insist that the production goes ahead.

Chancellor Schroeder, to his credit, understood Germany's economy depends upon gas and oil. Merkel on the other hand is a verciferous critic of Islam; she has also been one of the most vocal supporters of sanctions against Iran, notwithstanding that such a measure would amount to economic suicide. Merkel is more than impolitic; she is an extremist.

The Bombing of St Mary's

On Monday morning, two car bombs went off outside the Assyrian Orthodox Church of St Mary. Typical Western media response "Muslim extremist reacting to the Pope remarks".

They failed to consider the possibilty that as Iraq is in the grips of civil war they might have been an altogether motive. Even the Assyrian Christians reject that this has anything to do with the Pope's speech.

The Assyrian Orthodox Patriarch recently visited Kurdistan, which invoked critisism from Christians and Sunnis alike. Both are effectively at war with the Kurdish militias. It was a warning to the Patriarch.

The Quagmire in Afghanistan

The very public spat in the United States between General Pervez Musharraf and Hamid Karzai and exemplifies how myopic and ill-conceived US foreign policy in Afghanistan is. General Musharraf is a military dictator trying desperately to cling to power, and Hamid Karzai is little more than the US governor of Kabul, who rather pretentiously refers to himself president of Afghanistan: it was not a position he was elected to in a dmemocractic election and it is not a position he occupies.

In truth, the North of Afghanistan remains under Northern alliance control, and in the South there is a Pakhtoon uprising. It is the Pakhtoon tribesmen, which are disingenuously referred to as the Taliban. NATO is not fighting the Taliban nor are they fighting terrorists, they are fighting the indigenous population.

Little wonder then, that so many NATO countries are reticent to commit troops to the current quagmire in Afghanistan. This is not a war that NATO is going to win.

Spread by the Sword

American author James Michener in his article ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ that carried by Reader’s Digest in its May 1955 issue, says:

"No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West thought that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience."

This reason that Islam spread so widely was that it differed from Christianity in two regards: firstly, the majority of Christians were illiterate their relationship with their religion was not through a personal knowledge of God or the Bible it was through the teachings of the Church; secondly, Christianity was the religion of empire. Whereas in contrast Muslims, had a personal relationship with God through the Qu'ran; and Islam was the religion of the people. In short, Christianity was imposed by Rome, it was the oppressor religion, Islam was the religion of liberation.

What is it to be British?

I was born free,
free of land, free of property,
free of the shackles of ownership,
but I was not free.

I was born into bondage,
I was born in Britain,
so the white Queen laid claim to me.

"I own the land, I own all that is in it,
I own you, mind, body and soul,
you are mine," she said.

But Iranian blood,
runs through my veins,
so the Shah of Iran laid claim to me,

"I own the father, I own the son,
I own you, mind, body and soul,
you are mine," he said.

Like a sheep I was branded,
like a sheep I was owned,
but I was no sheep,
owned, mind body and soul.

Sheep are herded and sheered,
penned in and content,
they watch big brother,
and pay their taxes.

What is it to be British,
to be a slave of the white Queen?

Sayed Hassan Nasrallah - Victory Speech

Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Lebanese Islamic Resistance Movement, was greeted by a million strong crowd, at a ceremony celebrating the Lebanese resistance's victory over the Zionist regime. He said to the crowd,

"We are the children of the Imam who said I don't fear death, Nasrallah said downplaying the threats the Zionist officials have made to terror him.

Peace of Allah be upon you, your wounds, your wounded, your tears, your husband-less women, your father-less children, your destroyed homes".

"Which human mind could believe only a few thousand fighters stood against the bombs which were transferred from America to the Zionist regime and from there upon the Lebanese cities? Lebanon's fighters made the enemy hide like mouses."

"This was was an American war, with American weapons and American plan and decision."

He stated that the victory belongs to all Lebanon and all the free people of the world not only to Hezbollah.

Nasrallah castigated Arab states who yesterday, begged for peace in the UN:

"The Lebanese nation's resistance teaches all the nations that resistance works and that only if they are resolved they can free Palestine."

Nasrallah said that it was ilogical to forever keep the weapon of resistance but it would only be possible to abandon them after forming a powerful government to protect Lebanon, something which he said the current echelon is not competent of doing.

Nasrallah vowed to keep weapon of resistance, adding the weapon serves the nation.

The Cross and the Crescent

Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury, in his speech, "The Cross and the Crescent", posits the following question:

"So allow me to ask an awkward question which I believe was hovering in the background of the Pope’s thesis and which many westerners are asking frequently these days: ‘Why is Islam associated with violence?’"

Had he rephrased his question, 'Why are Christianity and Judaism associated with violence', he would have his answer.

Islam is perceived as violent, when it reacts to Western (principally Christian and Jewish) aggression. Islam is the religion of the invaded, the occupied and the dispossessed; it is the religion of resistance; and the religion of the enemy. So long as Muslims are the victims and adversaries of Christian and Jewish imperialism, then this will remain the case. There is nothing very complicated here.

Lord Carey could look to his own statement:

"It is the firm view of most Muslims that the invasion of Iraq in 2004 is solely about oil. It is important to disabuse them of that notion by a rigid commitment to stand alongside Iraq until its infrastructure is rebuilt and there is a return to something approaching normality in that ancient land."

Thus, Lord Carey, the former spiritual leader of the Anglican Church, is giving succour to a Crusade; for what else is it when Christian nations invade a Muslim country and try and impose their values and doctrine on it? He appears not to have considered that this is Christian violence.

He then addresses the issue of martyrdom in Christianity:

"I find it difficult to understand the argument that a person can be a blessed martyr if, in the cause of his conflict, he knowingly kills innocent people. Christian martyrdom is unlike this. We have no martyrology which honours people who kill innocent people. The martyr, for Christians, is one who does not kill but is killed for her or his faith. She or he suffers for God and his people and does so, not be fighting or killing, but by suffering. A terrorist by definition cannot be a martyr."

The corollary here is startiling, if anyone who kills innocent is a terrorist, then this collectively applies to the British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is interesting since he reveals that at the age of 18 he too served in an occuaption of Egypt and Iraq.

John Simpson on Iran's nuclear programme

John Simpson, a longtime critic of Iran, writing for the BBC says,

"For almost 30 years, the West has concentrated on the religious, fundamentalist aspect of Iran's Islamic Republic...We have forgotten that Khomeini's revolution was also a declaration of independence from British and American control."

He also goes on to dismiss Israel's justice minister, Meir Sheetrit, preposterous suggestion that Iran plans to build a a nuclear bomb. Simpson says:

"But, if President Ahmadinejad wants to attack Israel, there are simpler ways than building a nuclear bomb.

Iran's close ally, the Lebanese Shia movement Hezbollah, armed and trained by Iran, launched a highly successful brief war against Israel.

A guerrilla movement, well supplied with low-tech weapons, out-fought and outmanoeuvred a big conventional army using tanks, planes and artillery."

He also points out, somewhat controversially given the BBC line, that Ahmadinejad is popular throughout the Muslim World:

"Instead of the old Sunni-Shia hostility, there is a new unity."

He goes on to quote Prince Hassan of Jordan:

"The populism of Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah is an alternative to civil society in the Middle East...By recruiting the poor and disenfranchised, they are closer to people's needs than governments are. Which is why they have this enormous following."

This is quite a diversion from the usual BBC line, that routinely suggest that the West believes that Iran has a nuclear weapon programme. The reality is they do not. No Western government has suggested that Iran has nuclear weapons, nor have they produced any evidence that the Iranian nuclear programme is to be used for anything other than civil purposes. This is nothing short of a pretext for belligerence towards the most powerful Islamic nation.

Even in Iraq, where the United States ostensibly invaded to bring about regime change, it now is an occupier denying Iraq the Islamist government that it voted for. The United States oppose any political manifestation of Islam calling it extremism, yet supports a political manifestation of Judaism in the same region. Its belligerence towards Iran has to be viewed in this context: the context of an anti-Islamic Crusade.

"Death to America"

Why do Iranian's chant "Marg ba Emerika" (death to America)? This question was asked by Time magazine of president Ahmadinejad. His answer goes someway to explaining it:

"When they chanted that slogan, it means they hate aggression, and they hate bullying tactics, and they hate violations of the rights of nations and discrimination. I recommended to President Bush that he can change his behavior, then everything will change."

The TIME reporter then suggests:

"But if Americans shouted "Death to Iran", Iranians would feel insulted."

Ahmadinejad response:

"If the government of Iran acted in such a way, then the American people have this right."

Whilst this will be understood all over the developing World, in the US it will be seen as no more than evidence that the Iranian president is an adept rhetorician. There will be no attempt to see that such an anti imperialist slogan - for that is what it is - is directed at the USA for good reason. Reasons that hardly need spelling out. Yet ask most American when the USA illegally invaded sovereign Iran and they will assume you mean Iraq. In truth, any American who has heard of "TP Ajax" ought to be able to answer that question.

The chant is similar to burning the Stars and Stripes; if American can salute it and swear allegiance to it and for what it stands; others can burn it and curse it for what it stands. In the World today the United States stand for hegemony, genocide, tyranny, occupation and oppression. Ideologically "Death to America", means the same as "They shall not pass". They are anti imperialist and anti fascist statements.

It is notable than when Hugo Chavez's bestowed Venezuela's highest emblem, the Liberator Medal, upon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he said,

"now is the time when free governments and nations of the world should stay united against US imperialism and its bullying."

Ahmadinejad described Iran and Venezuela are "pioneers in the cause of global independence, freedom and justice" and said:

"The future belongs to the unrelenting and resistant nations of the world and oppressors have no choice but defeat."

That is what "Death to America" means!

Freedom of the Press

The United States has long been a critic of Iran's restriction on the press - this despite the fact that the US Gov have asked congress for an additional $75,000,000 to spend on aggressive propaganda to facilitate a coup in Iran - yet the United States today prevented Iranian journalist traveling with president Ahmadinejad, form entering the United States in violation of intenrational law.

According to a treaty signed by Washington with the United Nations, Washington has committed itself "not to impose any impediment" to the entry of officials of UN member countries to its territory to attend conferences of the world body or for UN business.

IRNA Managing Director Ahmad Khademolmelleh said,

"As the host country of the UN, the US is sacrificing goals of the global media by refusing visas to Iranian reporters who were to cover discussions and debates at the 61st annual session of the UN General Assembly"

Comming to terms with a nuclear Iran

"Things have changed and they have to know it. They can scold us, they can shout at us, but they cannot damage us."

This is what President Ahmadinejad said to Kofi Annan regarding the United States and Britain. The meeting was not an easy one for Annan, Ahmadinejad made no pretense that the UN Secretary General was anything more than a messenger boy for the United States.

Moreover, in an interview with Time magazine, he was asked why Iran refuses to suspend uranium enrichment as a confidence-building measure. His answer was "whose confidence should be built?" The interviewer replied "The world's?". Ahmadinejad then responded by saying,

"The world? The world? Who is the world? The United States? The U.S. Administration is not the entire world. Europe does not account for even one-twentieth of the entire world"

In fact, NAM has strongly supported Iran's right to the use and development of nuclear energy. Thus Iran can argue that numerically, the World supports Iran position not the United States'.

President Chirac's has recently broken ranks with the United States, Britain and Germany by accepting that a suspension of uranium cannot be a pre-condition to negotiations:

"We must first find an agenda for negotiations, then during these negotiations I suggest that, on the one hand, the six [the US, the UK, France, Germany, China and Russia] renounce involving the security council and Iran renounces uranium-enrichment during the negotiations."

What is still unclear is what a temporary suspension of enrichment would achieve; Iran is not going to concede its nuclear rights an a long term or permanent basis and is not minded to do so on a temporary basis. The Iranian position is not that it will agree to suspension, as has been reported in much of the Western media, it is that suspension can be discussed during the negotiations.

Herein lies the problem, the West is incapable of persuading Iran to give up its nuclear rights through the threat of force, sanctions or the offer of economic sweeteners. Therefore, the United States has three course open to it: impose sanctions; go to war; or accept a nuclear Iran. Of the options only the last is realistic and it is the one that the United States has at present been forced to accept, albeit grudgingly.

The problem for the Bush administration, is having so talked up the Iranian nuclear issue, to now publicly accept a nuclear Iran, amounts to an admission of defeat, which he finds inconceivable. he is further hampered by the fact that this dispute cannot run indefinitely with no action. So the US is desperately looking for sanctions, that Chirac has conceded would be ineffective, simply to save face.

The Pope was not taken out of context

The Vatican has been at pains to point out that the Pope's comments during his lecture at University of Regensburg have been taken out of context and that he did not intend to malign Islam. In his apology the Pope states:

"I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought."

Yet unlike president Ahmadinejad, the Pope was not misquoted nor have his comments been misrepresented in the Muslim World. The Iranian newspaper Jamejam says,

"In a speech titled "Piety, Wisdom and Universities: Memories and Reactions" delivered Tuesday at Regensburg University in the German state of Bavaria, the pontiff claimed that unlike the Christian faith Islam rarely follows the rules of logic. Quoting a book titled "The Byzantine Empire," the Pope said the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) had enjoined Muslims to spread their faith even by "such means as the sword." The Pope also ridiculed the ideas of Jihad (holy war) and other holy Islamic rituals."

Those who are taking his words out of context are those who have come to his defence. Whilst the Pope's is unequivocal that all "violence is incompatible with the nature of God", he is also equally unequivocal that Islam is violent,

'The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".'

Thus he is at pains to assert that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) endorsed violent conversion, which is untrue, and to dismiss surah 2, 256, which contrary to his assertion in held to have been written 624 or 625, when the Prophet (saw) was in Medina. Hence it was written from a position of strength not weakness.

Moreover, the Pope clearly argued that Islam is irrational,

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent."

Again this assumption is incorrect; Christianity came to learn of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, through the writings of Islamic philosophers such as Ibn Rashid and Ibn Sina.

Thus the Pope is accusing Islam of being "contrary to the nature of God", because he holds it to be violent and irrational; and:

"Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures."

The Pope is of course entitled to his view; however maligning Islam and calling it evil and inhuman, will not lead to constructive dialogue between the two faiths. The Pope seems unclear as to what position he wants to take towards Islam: one of mutual respect or one of conflict.

What Ahmadinejad Really Said

In an earlier post, I pointed out that the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, did not call for "Israel to be wiped off the map", and that Western news agencies were aware of this when they falsely reported that he had. He, in fact referred to the Qods Occupier regime, and in any event quoted Imam Khomeini (ra), adding,

"This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise."

Thus, it was the Qods Occupier regime that he suggested must be wiped from the map. Moreover, President Ahmadinejad was not saying anything new, this is not only the stated view of Imam Khomeini (ra); it is the view of Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, and the official position of the the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Had "Qods Occupier regime" been used in the Western translation, instead of Israel, very few people would have had any difficulty grasping, that he was calling for regime change. Nor would any person who read the totality of his speech, perceive that he was suggesting that Iran has any intention of attacking Israel.

In fact during that conference, "A world without Zionism", he said:

"The Palestinian issue has not ended. It would end when a government belonging to the Palestinian people takes over, the homeless return home and a free election is held to form a government representing all people."

A point later repeated during his speech at "The Third International Conference on Qods and Support for the Rights of Palestinian People":

"Only a government chosen by the people can resolve the problem of Palestine and the people of the region. The right to govern belongs to all people of Palestine and they must decide the governing model of their choice and elect their own officials. For this purpose, there must be an opportunity for all genuine Palestinians; be they Muslims, Christians, or Jews, residing in Palestine or in Diaspora, to participate in a referendum to decide the political system of their choice and elect their leaders."

"Ever since the Palestinian nation focused attention on promotion of an Islamic atmosphere and attitude, day-to-day success and progress have been witnessed among Palestinians."

Hence what he was calling for was democracy, and the right of return; yet suggesting that Palestinians would bring this about through their own endeavor; particularly, since they had turned away from the Arab Nationalism of Fatah and turned to the Islamic political movements. He also described the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," designed to elicit recognition of the Zionist regime of Israel, from Islamic states.

He warned,

"The world arrogant powers founded the Zionist regime at the heart of the Muslim world as a base for their own expansionist intentions."

Moreover, what President Ahmadinejad said on the demise of this "fictitious regime" was no more or less than he said during his speech at "The Third International Conference on Qods and Support for the Rights of Palestinian People":

"The young tree of resistance in Palestine is blooming and blooms of faith and desire for freedom are flowering. The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with a storm."

"A regime based on injustice and threat cannot survive. Today all conditions for the freedom of Palestine are on hand and available. Vigilance, unity and resistance are the keys to victory."

The truth then, is that his opposition is to a Western imperialism and a "Jewish State", which excludes the religious and racial identity of the majority of the indigenous population. He is not talking of the destruction or exclusion of Jews from Palestine; far from it, he is talking of integration; it is Israel that is committed to apartheid, ethnic-cleansing, genocide and belligerence.

Blair not welcome in Lebanon

Lebanon`s most senior Shia cleric, Grand Ayatullah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah has said in a statement that Fuad Siniora's government should have told

"Blair that he is not wanted in Lebanon, so that he, and those like him, would know that we are not so naive as to welcome him when he has contributed to killing us and slaughtering our children".

This is significant, Blair might like to think he can ignore a man whose spiritual authority extends beyond the borders of Lebanon but Grand Ayatullah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah is Marja (spiritual guide) to millions and is one of the most respected Shia scholar in the World today.

Siniora, already tarnished, will not be forgiven for receiving Blair, unless he has the courage to publicly denounce him. Therefore, it is hard to see what Blair is looking to achieve; his visit presence is exacerbated tensions in a volatile region. One might suspect that Blair is courting martyrdom.

Israel: " Wiped off the Map"

"Imam ghoft: 'een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad'."

The official translation of what president Ahmadinejad said in October 2005 during the "A World without Zionism" conference is: "Imam said: 'This Qods occupier regime must be eliminated from the surface of the Earth'."

In fact, an exact translation would be "Imam said: 'This Qods occupier regime must be eliminated from the pages of history'" the offical translation is based on what Ahmadinejad intended to say rather than what he did say. He intended to say "Imam ghoft: 'een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az sahneh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad'" but instead misquoted nad used Imam Khomeini (ra) and used "safheh-ye" instead of "sahneh-ye". There are disputes whether this ought then to be translated as "wiped off the map"; although give the official translation of: "eliminated from the surface of the Earth," I can see no objection. However, what is clearly beyond dispute is that he did not say "Israel".

The statement is available here in Farsi:


After almost a year, the Western media are finally addressing this deliberate mistranslation, largely due to an article by Jonathan Steele in the Guardian. Steele became aware of the issue after it was highlighted in the blog of professor Juan Cole, however as he points out, even the Zionist propaganda service MEMRI, concedes in its translation (available since the 28 October 2005) that President Ahmadinejad did not say Israel; preferring, "this regime occupying Qods". Steele also suggests that the BBC were aware at the time of publication, that he had not called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

In fact, the BBC received many complaints over its translation. I provided the official translation in the comments section of a BBC article posted on the net; this comment did not pass the censor, nor did any other comments with the official translation. This lie, for this is what it is, has been often repeated in BBC broadcasts, from news programmes to the Moral Maze, all without being checked. However it was not only the BBC, which as an apparatus of British state propaganda might be forgiven for using the British foreign office mistranslation; it was a lie carried by every mainstream British and US media broadcaster or publication that cared to comment on the matter.

This ought to be shocking; that is, if one believes that Britain and the United States do not have a media that would deliberately disseminate Zionist propaganda to galvanise public into supporting wars in the Middle East. However, I doubt many people would be shocked to learn that there is a pernicious Zionist influence in the British and US media, or come to that, in the British and US governments.

It is interesting that now this lie has been exposed in the mainstream media. Ethan Bronner, writes in the New York Times, one of the publications that perpetuated this lie, still finds himself incapable of honesty:

"So did he call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."

This is after he concedes that Ahmadinejad did not mention the word Israel, thus no amount of obfuscation or sophistry, can change the fact that he simply did not call for "Israel to be wiped off the map". This is not the first groundless accusation made against President Ahmadinejad or Iran, they are made are a daily basis.

Not only were President Ahmadinejad's words deliberately mistranslated they were flagrantly misrepresented. After quoting, Imam Khomeini (ra), he added:

"This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise."

Thus, it was the Qods Occupier regime that he suggested must be wiped from the map. Moreover, President Ahmadinejad was not saying anything new, this is not only the stated view of Imam Khomeini (ra); it is the view of Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, and the official position of the the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Had "Qods Occupier regime" been used in the Western translation, instead of Israel, very few people would have had any difficulty grasping, that he was calling for regime change. Nor would any person who read the totality of his speech, perceive that he was suggesting that Iran has any intention of attacking Israel.

In fact during that conference, "A world without Zionism", he said:

"The Palestinian issue has not ended. It would end when a government belonging to the Palestinian people takes over, the homeless return home and a free election is held to form a government representing all people."

A point later repeated during his speech at "The Third International Conference on Qods and Support for the Rights of Palestinian People":

"Only a government chosen by the people can resolve the problem of Palestine and the people of the region. The right to govern belongs to all people of Palestine and they must decide the governing model of their choice and elect their own officials. For this purpose, there must be an opportunity for all genuine Palestinians; be they Muslims, Christians, or Jews, residing in Palestine or in Diaspora, to participate in a referendum to decide the political system of their choice and elect their leaders."

"Ever since the Palestinian nation focused attention on promotion of an Islamic atmosphere and attitude, day-to-day success and progress have been witnessed among Palestinians."

Hence what he was calling for was democracy, and the right of return; yet suggesting that Palestinians would bring this about through their own endeavor; particularly, since they had turned away from the Arab Nationalism of Fatah and turned to the Islamic political movements. He also described the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," designed to elicit recognition of the Zionist regime of Israel, from Islamic states.

He warned,

"The world arrogant powers founded the Zionist regime at the heart of the Muslim world as a base for their own expansionist intentions."

Moreover, what President Ahmadinejad said on the demise of this "fictitious regime" was no more or less than he said during his speech at "The Third International Conference on Qods and Support for the Rights of Palestinian People":

"The young tree of resistance in Palestine is blooming and blooms of faith and desire for freedom are flowering. The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with a storm."

"A regime based on injustice and threat cannot survive. Today all conditions for the freedom of Palestine are on hand and available. Vigilance, unity and resistance are the keys to victory."

The truth then, is that his opposition is to a Western imperialism and a "Jewish State", which excludes the religious and racial identity of the majority of the indigenous population. He is not talking of the destruction or exclusion of Jews from Palestine; far from it, he is talking of integration; it is Israel that is committed to apartheid, ethnic-cleansing, genocide and belligerence.

Rise in anti-Semitism or rise in anti-Zionism?

The British media in response to an All-Parliamentary Committee against anti-Semitism report, indicated that there has been an alarming rise in "anti-Semitic incidents" what they avoided doing was pointing out that this Committee rejected Police evidence in favour of the militant Jewish group, the Community Security Trust, who in fact report that there has been a 14% decline in "anti-Semitic incidents" since 2004 falling to 455.

Moreover, the media were less keen to identify that this Committee's definitions of incident and anti-Semitism and are enormously problematic. The word incident does not indicate a criminal offence; rather anything than a Jewish person finds offensive, including legitimate criticism of Israel, Zionism, modern Judaism and various Jewish individual and organisations. Hence had the committee talked of "criminal incidents" for 2005, it would have been reduced to talking about the 10 or so incidents. In short, one detective could deal with all the anti-Jewish criminal incidents in this country, with time to spare.

Furthermore, the committee itself was undeniable anti-Semitic, it failed to identify that Arabs are Semites, therefore if it the committee view that Jews are Semites and they are the victims of anti-Semitism, then the prejudice would apply equally to Arabs, if not it cannot be racism, it has to be something else: Judeophobia perhaps - a loathing of Judaism and Judaic culture. However, the focus of this committee was nearly entirely based on anti-Zionism. The committee was in effect trying to silence criticism of Israel and Zionist political organisations and lobbyists in this country and abroad.

In November of last year, in response to the same fictitious claims of a rise in anti-Semitism, I wrote the following article: "Lies Lies, and Damned Statistics"

Clare Short's call for Democracy

Clare Short MP, has been threatened with expulsion from the Labour Party for the following statement:

"My conclusion is that the key to the change we need is a hung parliament which will bring in electoral reform. Then we would have a second election. Labour - with existing levels of support - would have one-third of the seats in the Commons, the Tories something similar, and we would be likely to see some Greens and others added, creating a plurality of voices and power centres in the Commons. British politics would then change profoundly. Parliament, and in turn the people, would have to be listened to, Cabinet government would return, the error-prone arrogance of Number 10 would end, and we would have a chance of creating a new politics, a more civilised country and a more honourable role in the world."

Just so that there is no doubt, what she is advocating is democratic reform. For Tony Blair was not elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland nor was her Majesty's Government democratically elected.

The Labour party, was invited to form the government by the Queen, it was not elected to do so. Constituency elections are just that, Members of Parliament are elected to represent a constituency, nothing more. Of course, the majority of voters vote for the political party not the candidate, since we are denied any legal mechanism for us to elect the Head of State, the Prime Minister or the government.

However it is palpable nonsense to suggest that this is democratic: our constituencies are not equal in population or land mass; and have they been manufactured to give an electoral advantage to the incumbent Labour government. This is not democracy; it is election rigging. The Labour Party has a majority in Parliament, yet failed to win the support of even a quarter of the electorate. They achieved a third of cast votes, less than the number of abstentions.

Whatever one thinks of Clare Short and her motives; any political party that would expel a member for urging democratic reform, is itself undemocratic.

Ahmadinejad Criticises Western Militarism

During the second 'International Conference on Mahdaviyat Doctrine' in Tehran, Iranian President, reiterating the point he made on the 29 August Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said,

"those who claim to be harbingers of democracy and human rights and allege to represent the whole world do not enjoy even the minimum level of acceptability in their own nations. But they are wrong. They do not represent the world community, and we cry out our opposition to the current method of managing world affairs, as it is based on oppression, deceit and injustice. We are opposed to the looting of the world resources by the United States and Britain."

President Ahmadinejad further asked,

"Why do you wish to resolve all the world issues through force and by deployment of weapons, why do and your nuclear arsenals form your characters?"

In reference to his recent offer to participate in an uncensored televised debate with the US President, George W. Bush, to present their respect viewpoints to the entire planet, President Ahmadinejad said,

"We have voiced our preparedness for attending a debate with those who allege to be the advocates or flag bearers of human rights, democracy and freedom in order to present our views about the world problems, but they refrained from presenting a proper response in this regard."

Whilst such a televised debate might seem unlikely, the purported purpose of the UN is to provide a public venue where nations may debate and resolve their differences. Therefore it is entirely appropriate that such a debate does take place whether at the UN or elsewhere.

Yet, the Bush administration and the European troika have repeatedly shied away from an open debate of the Iranian nuclear energy issue. The Western powers have bemoaned Iran for its intransigence, when in truth Iran has only insisted on its exerting its minimal rights under international law. The reality of the nuclear crisis, is one of Western belligerence and bellicose, passing as a foreign policy. Hence the desire that to avoid a public debate, and the preference for sabre rattling.

Consequences for Iran's Defiance

"There will be consequences for Iran's defiance"

"There will be consequences for Iran's defiance". Or so President Bush has decreed. Iran must face the consequences for asserting its national sovereignty and international rights under the NPT. Iran is to be held accountable for refusing to acquiesce to the caprices of the United States; for refusing to surrender to Zionist hegemony in the region and for being an unabashed Islamic State. In short, Iran has dared to challenge the imperial authority of the United States; so in the parlance of the Bush regime, it is a "Rogue State".

Iran shall once again be associated with Islamic fanaticism, although for the Bush administration, which is itself open to accusations of religious fundamentalism and extremism, the preferred phrase is Islamic fascism. Of course the term is intellectually vacuous: it would be far more sensible to do away with the hyperbolic and pejorative suffix and simply refer to Iran as an Islamic State.

However, no amount of sophistry or religious malediction will obscure the fact that US imperialism lacks political credibility in the World today. The Bush doctrine of a "clash of civilisations" (or more accurately a clash of ideologies) in the terms of good and evil is nihilistic; it leaves no room for compromise.

The problem with this worldview is that it is dependent upon two key factors: the first that the rest of the World is prepared to be polarised along these lines; and secondly that the United States can win this conflict. This is where it falls down, even if the United States could walk the rest of the West into this apocalypse – which it was unable to do with Iraq – the US has proved more effective at projecting its power through diplomacy and intimidation than through military might.

This is where we are in the Iranian nuclear dispute; the bombast and rhetoric of the Bush administration does not veil US impotence: they are utterly incapable of preventing Iran from continuing with its nuclear energy programme, as they are well aware. All that they can do is engage in diplomacy with Iran, yet due to the ideological fanaticism at the core of the Bush administration, the US is unwilling to do this. In fact, this conflict is entirely of the United States making, yet paradoxically, having stage-managed the crisis, the US finds itself unable to resolve it.

Undoubtedly there will be consequences for Iran's defiance but they are unlikely to be to Bush's liking.