Video: John Bolton wants the US to hit Iran

Ledeen on 'talking to Iran'

Good article here. Some excerpts:

For some time now, the chattering classes have debated whether the United States should negotiate with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both sides have endowed the very act of negotiating with near-mythic power.

The advocates suggest that "good relations" may emerge, while opponents warn it is somehow playing into the mullahs' hands. Both seem to believe that the three recent talks in Baghdad are historically significant, since they are said to be a departure from past practice.

That claim is false. Every administration since Ayatollah Khomeini's seizure of power in 1979 has negotiated with the Iranians. Nothing positive has ever come of it, but most every president has come to believe that a "grand bargain" with Tehran can somehow be reached, if only we negotiate well enough....

...The current administration has maintained the pattern. Despite a considerable volume of criticism of the mullahs, and open warnings of undefined consequences if Iran did not become more cooperative, various American officials and the usual private emissaries have explored the possibilities of better relations.

In 2001 and early 2002 we negotiated the future of Afghanistan after the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and although some diplomats praised Iranian "cooperation," military intelligence had hard evidence that the mullahs had sent killers into Afghanistan to attack our troops. Meetings were subsequently held with Iranian representatives in Geneva and Cyprus, and just last September, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Mr. Gonzales to try again. He returned to Tehran, and emerged empty-handed.

The current negotiations are thus part of a well-established pattern. If anything, there is far less reason for optimism than in the past, since our knowledge of Tehran's war against us--notably in Iraq and Afghanistan--is broader and deeper than before. The Europeans' failure to make any progress at all in their diplomatic efforts to convince Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons program should further convince an honest observer that the mullahs intend to build an atomic arsenal and use it against us and our allies.

As Jonathan Swift put it, you cannot reason a man out of something that he did not reason his way into. The Iranian war against the U.S. rests upon fanatical convictions, and Tehran has no interest in resolving it at a conference table.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards join US terrorist list

That's good news - hopefully the US can be more active against them now...

The Washington Post and New York Times are reporting that the US is preparing to "designate" Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a foreign terrorist organisation allowing it to target the organisation's finances among other things.

The Guards work independently of Iran's armed forces and have long been connected to many terror organisations in the Middle East most notably Hezbollah in the Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza.

More recently the US and Britain have accused Iran of using them in Iraq and Afghanistan to supply the insurgents and Taliban with weapons and training.

That said this move is a provocative one as the Guards are still an officially sanctioned unit of the Iranian state even if they are more a clerics private army. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is said to be behind the move, according to the New York Times.

iran-us@war.com

Michael Ledeen: On the brink...

Good article, which can be found in full here.

Some excerpts are below...

President Bush is annoyed that Afghan President Karzai and Iraqi President Maliki are both speaking about Iran in words reserved for an ally, rather than the main engine driving the terror wars in their countries. But if you look at the world through their eyes, it is easy enough to understand. They fear that the Americans will soon leave, and the Iranians will still be there. They know that Iran is a mortal threat, and they are now making a down payment on the insurance costs that are sure to come if the Democrats in Washington have their way. For extras, Maliki has certainly noticed that the United States is paying off the Middle Eastern Sunnis, hoping that the Saudis, Jordanians, and Gulf States will manage to contain Iran in the future. This cannot be good news in Baghdad, where the Shiites are struggling to put together a government capable of managing the country's myriad crises....

...That the Iranians are at the heart of the region's violence is proven most every day. So while Karzai was publicly kissing up to Tehran, Colonel Rahmatullah Safi, the head of the border police along the Iranian frontier, told the London Times "it is clear to everyone that Iran is supporting the enemy of Afghanistan, the Taliban," and U.S. Army Colonel Thomas Kelly confirmed that the infamous EPFs, the new generation of explosive devices that can penetrate most American armor, are now coming into Afghanistan. Col. Kelly notes that these devices "really are not manufactured in any other place to our knowledge than Iran."

The same holds true in Iraq, where these devices accounted for a third of American combat deaths in July (99 such attacks were directed against us--an all-time high). General Odierno blamed 73 percent of attacks on Iranian-supported Shiite terrorists....

...In simple English, there is so much poverty in Iran that the minister wants to change the reporting requirements so that nobody can really know the full dimensions of the Iranian people's misery. Even their current language (what is "the absolute poverty line" anyway?) is designed to mislead.

Iranians are not stupid people; they know they are ruled by tyrannical incompetents. Listen to the words of one Reza Zarabi, in the August 5 Jerusalem Post: "Iranians have become accustomed to dictators, yet an incompetent despot that bases his economic policies on the future benevolence of the coming Islamic Messiah is another thing altogether. . . It is quite remarkable for such economic damage and global ridicule to be heaped upon a nation in (so) short a time. Yet the policies of the current Iranian administration have left nothing for the imagination."

I ask you, is this not a perfect description of a revolutionary situation? And you reply: So why aren't we doing anything about it? Which, I think, is precisely the question our military leaders in Iraq, and the people of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, are aiming at Washington.

Ayatollahs’ lobby In Washington offering human rights as a negotiating item

Interesting article on how the mullahs' lobbyists use human rights as a bargaining tool.

Binding accountability for Iran’s suppression of its population to nuclear issues and Iran’s meddling in Iraq amounts to doing the bidding of the ruling ayatollahs.

The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and its president Trita Parsi have organized a panel in the US House of Representatives on July 26th, 2007, titled “Human Rights in Iran and US Foreign Policy Options.”1 According to the published agenda, representatives from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch will participate. The sponsors of the program (NIAC and Trita Parsi) are key players in the lobbying enterprise of Tehran’s ayatollahs in the United States. The Iranian regime’s violations of human rights have reached unprecedented levels. Its barbaric suppression of women, workers, students and dissidents, and the stoning of a man after 11 years of imprisonment, have been the subject of broad international condemnation. The reason Iran’s lobby is organizing the program is twofold:

1. To present “human rights” as a negotiating item on the “engagement” table with hopes of having human rights entities argue for Tehran-friendly rapprochement, easing of sanctions, and tolerance of a nuclear Iran. In a nut shell, the lobby’s message is that the more the West pressures the regime, the more violent it becomes; hence, lift the pressure.

2. To keep the Ayatollahs’ friends and inner circle in control of international reaction to Tehran’s human rights abuses.

The Iranian regime’s lobby has continuously tried to justify Iran’s clerical behavior and especially its record of human rights violations, by arguing that its causes are external factors and coercive US policies. If Iranian-American scholars are arrested, blame the US administration for allocating funds for Iranian activists. If Ahmadinejad has embarked on a policy of total repression inside the country and antagonism abroad, blame the US administration for the famous axis of evil speech and not supporting Khatami.

Gingrich, Thompson and the presidency

Gingrich says it was not ever that likely he would run. Now he adds that if Thompson runs successfully, it will make it even less likely that he'd run. He may even sign on as an advisor to Thompson's campaign...

Publicly, Gingrich has been sending signals making clear that a presidential candidacy for him is becoming less likely. Privately, he and some of his closest advisers have been meeting with — and, in at least one prominent case, going to work for — the lobbyist-actor and former Tennessee senator.

“I’ve always said it was unlikely I would run,” Gingrich said in an interview last Friday with The Associated Press. And, he added, if Thompson “runs and does well, then I think that makes it easier for me not to run.”

The same day that Gingrich made his comments, his former communications director, Rich Galen, disclosed that he had signed on as an adviser to Thompson’s campaign in waiting. In an interview, Galen termed the coincidence “an unfortunate confluence of events,” denying that there was any link.

Iran 'training Iraqi mortar men'

Here's some evidence, but will anybody ever prosecute the Iranian regime?

Looks doubtful.

Militias firing rockets and mortars on Baghdad's heavily protected Green Zone have become more accurate because of training in Iran, the US military says.
The comments were made by Lt-Gen Raymond Odierno, one of the top US commanders in Iraq.

It is the latest in a series of accusations made by the US about the alleged training and arming of Iraqi Shia militiamen by Iran.

American investors tell Shell to get out of Iran

That's welcome news. Somehow I doubt you'd find people that logical and 'right'-headed amongst Europe's larger asset managers. The full Monte is here, and an excerpt is below.

A political row threatens to overshadow tomorrow what promises to be one of the best sets of results from Shell for months after it emerged that a group of US pension funds have called on the group to scrap a £5 billion project in Iran.

Some of America’s most influential institutional investors have written to Shell and other seven international energy companies warning they may suffer international sanctions because of their ties to the pariah state.

The investors include New York City’s five main pension funds and the California Public Employee’s Retirement System.

A two-page letter sent to Jeroen van der Veer, Shell's chief executive, and his peers at Gazprom, France’s Total and five other energy companies referred to Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism”.

The letter added: “It is increasingly likely that the the worsening situation and tightening economic sanctions will negatively impact companies doing business there.”

Shell and Spain’s Repsol hold a prelminary agreement with Iran to develop two phases of the country’s huge South Pars natural gas field.

Mr van der Veer has continually refused to clarify Shell’s intentions, stating only that a final decision is at least a year away.

What's the point...

...of 'talking' to the Iranian regime, if afterwards we criticize them for what we already knew was true? These thugs only understand things in their own language.

The news item I'm referring to can be found here: US accuses Iran after Iraq talks.

Iran has increased support for militia groups in Iraq in recent months, the US ambassador in Baghdad has said.

Ryan Crocker spoke after meeting his Iranian counterpart for rare talks on Iraq's security crisis, only the second direct meeting in almost three decades.

Washington blames Tehran for fomenting violence in Iraq, while the Iranians are demanding the US withdraws troops.

2 articles on Iran from NRO

1. Tea with Iran (by Peter Brookes): this piece provides some background information about my earlier post on this subject. However, he is not so black & white as me, and adds a little twist at the end of the article...he thinks it may actually do some good to placate the naysayers of not 'engaging with Iran'...methinks not, but I understand where he's coming from.
2. Are We France? (by Thomas Sowell): he compares our pacifism on Iran to France's pacifism / appeasement of Hitler. Worth a skim.

US acts against groups aiding Hezbollah

Some movement from the Bush administration. Funny, it always seems to come from the financial side of things...god forbid they actually try to do something overtly & directly against the mullahs and for the Iranian people...

The Bush administration took action Tuesday against an Iran-based foundation, including its U.S. branch, for allegedly providing support to Hezbollah, a terrorist group the United States has blamed for bloodshed in the Middle East.

The Treasury Department's action covers the Martyrs Foundation and Goodwill Charitable Organization of Dearborn, Mich., which the government identified as a fundraising office for the foundation.

"We will not allow organizations that support terrorism to raise money in the United States," said Stuart Levey, the Treasury Department's under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.

The government also moved against al-Qard al-Hassan, a Beirut firm that the U.S. government believes was used by Hezbollah "as a cover to manage its financial activity."

Two Lebanese people - Qasem Aliq and Ahmad al-Shami - also were covered by Tuesday's order.

Michigan is the next state in the US to tackle pension investments benefitting Iran

Good for them.

A few updates on this front:

1. Michigan Latest State to Target Sudan
2. Pension $'s In Pockets of Terrorists
3. Pension Funds Weigh In on Iran (Wall Street Journal)

More evidence of Iran's deconstructive activities in Iraq

Anyone listening? Doesn't appear so.

Here's the story: "US: Weapons Smugglers with Iran Links Nabbed in Iraq"

And another: "Chinese Missiles Smuggled Through Iran into Iraq"

Bush and Brown to chat about Iran crisis

That's the difference with the UK. Their puppets change, but their foreign policy remains the same. Let me guess. Brown will say, you know George, you can't go doing so silly and premature as attacking Iran. And Bush will say...well, we never know what they say behind closed doors. We just hear the public version. I just hope Bush is listening to Bolton (see end of quote below).

UPDATE: maybe I spoke too soon? "UK's Brown Won't Rule Out Military Action in Iran"

...At the summit, Brown intends to reassure Bush in person that Britain remains a staunch ally of America. Senior American officials expressed concern about the appointment of Lord Malloch-Brown, the former UN deputy secretary-general, as a foreign office minister, and a speech in Washington by Douglas Alexander, the international development secretary, which was widely interpreted as being antiAmerican.

Brown and Bush are likely to focus on joint efforts to combat terrorism, fears about the resurgence of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Iran’s destabilising regional influence. Climate change, trade and economic issues will also be discussed.

John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN, said he hoped America would take military action against Iran. “Clearly the diplomatic and sanctions route has failed,” he said. “Iran has not been deterred from seeking nuclear weapons.”

You have to laugh...

...when you see headlines like these (of all places, on Fox News!).

"US to Set-up Regional Security Subcommittee with Iran and Iraq"

Needless to say, there is 0% chance that the Iranian regime would actually help the US with the security issues in Iraq and the region as they are the ones causing the major problems on a national level. This is the classic two-faced strategy of Iranian politics, which I can't believe anyone - especially the US - is still falling for. Wake up guys!

British banks fight US over Iran embargo

They want to do business with the mullahs, just like they always have...and the City of London views the US approach as a great bit of annoyance. They don't care where there money comes from, or how many innocent people die because of it at the end of the day. They're banks - their job is to make profits. I have a feeling the US will have more success with HSBC because it has significant US-based operations which the US can leverage against it if things get dirty...

The Guardian has the story...

A mounting US crackdown on foreign companies and banks doing business with Iran is provoking serious opposition in the UK and Europe, where diplomats are warning that the action could lead to a new trade war.

Congress wants all international companies to end their investment in Iran now and is pushing through a bill that would penalise companies that fail to do so. The British government, along with other European governments, views the US approach as draconian and are lobbying hard against it.

The US move reflects frustration at the failure so far of western diplomacy to persuade Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, which the US, Britain and others suspect is a step towards achieving a nuclear weapons capability. Iran denies it has ambitions to build a nuclear weapon.

A senior British banking source said today there was a great deal of annoyance in the City with the US approach. The two British banks most frequently mentioned in Washington in relation to Iran are HSBC and Standard Chartered.

Another Israeli has it right

Here's what Meridor said:

Israel's ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor, said Wednesday that Israel and the free world are under attack by Iran, with a combination of fanaticism, terrorism and nuclear capability posing the most serious threat since the 1930s.

"We must prevent this nightmare," Meridor said at the "Night to Honor Israel" event, part of the second annual Christians United for Israel summit in Washington, D.C. "The world must act and act now."

Meridor said Israel would take any steps necessary to ensure that Iran does not develop a nuclear bomb. "All options are on the table, and no matter what, they will not be able to get a nuclear weapon," he said.

Great article from Michael Ledeen: 'Listen to the Military'

I would highly recommend reading his latest instalment on the current situation of the Middle East. You can find the full article here. Some excerpts are copied below for convenience.

In short, the president sees that it is a regional war, as it has been from the beginning, just as our enemies in Damascus and Tehran publicly told us it would be, even before a single American soldier set foot in Iraq. The two biggest causes of casualties in Iraq are non-indigenous: suicide bombers and constantly improving explosive devices deployed in and alongside roads. Eighty to ninety percent of all suicide bombers are foreigners (mostly Saudis who are trained in Syria), not Iraqis, and the explosives have long been known to be of Iranian design to contain Iranian components, and often constructed in Iran (see the latest intelligence news about al Qaeda reconstituting in Iran).

Moreover, the spinal column of the terror army in Iraq is intimately linked to Iran and Syria. As U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner recently put it, our recent successes in Iraq have been accomplished despite ongoing resistance from al-Qaeda, proxy groups like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and their Lebanese Hezbollah surrogates. Bergner stressed that the activities of these Iranian forces, and joint instruments of Iran and Syria such as Hezbollah, are relentlessly increasing. “we’ve actually been very forthright in explaining the role that those groups are having and they are an increasing problem — one that’s having an increasingly destabilizing effect on both the government of Iraq and creating more problems for us to deal with.”

With all that, Bergner insisted “that there is no question that al Qaeda is the principle fueler of violence and sectarian attacks,” and is therefore our main target. But it is indisputable — and further information is emerging every day to confirm this — that al Qaeda itself is hardly an independent actor. Several years ago, Spanish judge Baltazar Garçon noted that the leaders of al Qaeda reconstituted their headquarters in Iran after being driven from Afghanistan. I wrote at the time that Osama bin Laden and key members of his family had gone to Iran, and other key figures, such as Zarqawi (the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, lest we forget), had created an international terror network from Tehran. I have no doubt that when we finally unravel the terror network, we will find that people like Zarqawi repeatedly went back and forth between Iraq, Syria, and Iran, as did — and does — arch terrorists like Imad Mughniyah of Hezbollah....

...Yes, our troops are magnificent (as New York Times reporter John Burns so well put it), and the Iraqi people are also magnificent (their courage and patience are inspirational, and if the Nobel Committee were up to its task, it would award the Peace Prize to the Iraqi nation, excluding the terrorists of course). But fighting brilliantly in Iraq alone cannot possibly win such a vast war. Bill Kristol knows that, which is why he says “we will have to do more...but we can.” Yes, we can. But will we? There is still no sign of that, and there are screams of horror at the very thought that we might support freedom in Iran, where significant numbers of people daily demonstrate their willingness to fight their oppressors.

Instead, every new revelation about Iran’s role in the terror war is greeted with the pathetic mantra “but this does not prove that the regime itself is involved.” As if General Suleimani of the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force would dare launch operation after operation against us in Iraq without the explicit approval of his commander-in-chief, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Do our analysts not know that the Revolutionary Guards were created for the explicit purpose of responding to the whims of the Supreme Leader? Whenever the Guards move, they do so precisely because “the regime” has willed it.

Big wars require big strategies, and we do not have one. Yet. I believe the country would support one if the case were made clearly and honestly. Taking the war to our enemies in Damascus and Tehran does not require troops on the ground or bombs from the air, except in the limited cases of terrorist training camps and weapons factories. It requires, above all, two things: support for the democratic forces in Syria and Iran, and the will to confront our enemies. That will can be easily expressed, but no president has had the coherence and courage to do that. Iran has been at war with us for nearly thirty years, but no president has ever said we want an end to the terror regime in Tehran.

It’s long past time to hear those words.

The US finally says something

Text of Press Statement bySean McCormack, Spokesman for the US Department of State

July 16, 2007
Iran: Crackdown on Students

The United States is deeply concerned by reports that Iranian authorities have increased their repression of student activists. Six students were beaten and detained on July 9 for participating in a sit-in commemorating the arrest of eight students earlier this spring; nine other students and a mother of a student were beaten and detained when authorities broke into the office of their student group, Office for Consolidation Unity. These repressive actions by the regime highlight an ongoing and alarming trend of intolerance toward any expression of independent views by the Iranian people.

The United States stands with all students and civil society leaders in Iran, who courageously struggle for their universal rights and justice in their country. We continue to work with the international community through the United Nations, foreign governments, and international NGOs to focus attention on the Iranian regime's abuse of its own citizens. We call on the Iranian government to improve its own human rights situation before more Iranians suffer for attempting to exercise their universal rights and freedoms.