Thanking America ....

The mullahs' head honcho, at least as far as the clueless foreigners are concerned, Ahmadinejad, made an "historic" visit to Iraq this past week, March 1, 2008, and the Americans were there in the Green Zone to "protect" him (Reuters, March 2, 2008). Nevertheless, and despite the fact that it was the US invasion which springed Saddam Hussein from power and cleared the way for his visit to the land he had never before visited, he declared that "The Americans have to understand the facts of the region. Iraqi people do not like America."

He also said, "A visit to Iraq without the dictator is a truly happy one," without thanking the Americans for this (Reuters).

What do you say?

The mullahs' march ... to extinction? Or, strategizing?...

With the "progress" by the so-called P5+1 on the issue of nuclearization of the mullahs at a stand-still, the mullahs in the meantime are progressing rapidly toward the very aim- Ahmadinejad now insists that his nuclear folks are spinning 18 rows of 164-linked centrifuges in unison and soon will be "industrialized"- for this and more, you may want to read Elaine Sciolino's article in IHT (NYT) here (November 29, 2007).

The level of desperation is evident; considerable white noise is being broadcast over the mass media channels that fissures have developed between Iran and Syria, over the action of Syria to attend the Annapolis love fest last week in the US- see, for instance here. It is being channelized as a US/Israel policy of marginalization of the mullahs by bringing the Syrians into fold and in trying to cut off the mullahs' logistics route to much of Lebanon and the Palestine. Perhaps, Israel is even ready to give up the Golan Heights to ward off its "existential threat". But perhaps, as the IHT article cited above makes clear, the mullahs are on the level strategizers as the Israelis: since 1982, they have built up assets in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and of course, Syria. To think, that suddenly after, largely thanks to the US, a complete makeover of Iraq in the hands of the mullahs, the topology of events in the middle east, visa-a-vis, Iran, is going to change, is a holiday wish. It's more like an act of desperation.

What is clear, however, is the following: talking, negotiating, cajoling the Iranian mullahs' is a flight of fantasy; let's give that up! The last time the US "talked" with the murderers in Iran, it gave them all sorts of weapons to kill more people, not to mention a colt and a bible. Sanctions, even the ones that target the Pasdarans, have only a workable regime, if they are aligned with a massive soft intervention on behalf of the Iranian people. The P5+1 won't and don't have the resources and ability to fully dislodge this regime- they need help. This help can only come from those who have the support of the people of Iran and can affect the outcome, also after the regime is gone. There is a solution at hand.

The right thing to do and the very wrong thing ...

The Secretary of State, Dr. Condi Rice, yesterday finally announced what in effect must have been done a very long time ago- that the Iranian mullahs Special Ops, the Revolutionary Guards Qods Force, is indeed a terrorist organization, read here. This is a very good thing to do. It is the right thing to do. The Revolutionary Guards are the regime's anchors. They are the support mechanism for the murderous mullahs. They have been at the vanguard of the regimes outward aggression and are the spearheads for the inward oppression. They deserve to be on the list of Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Now comes the very wrong thing... The existential threat to the mullahs since their forceful installation on the Iranian people has been the Iranian Resistance, who lost more than 100000 in the mullahs dungeons, and many many others jailed, tortured, and uprooted. They are also, as a way of the previous administration favor to the so-called moderate regime of Khatami- remember him, were put on the same terrorist list.

Thus, we now have an absurd situation in which the State Department faces itself with having the very opposition movement to the correctly designated Qods Force, also as a terrorist organization. The friends and the enemy are on the same list. What does it do to the intent and purpose, we fail to understand. The one obvious conclusion is that the Iranian Resistance does not belong on this list.

Birth pangs of an attack?!...

Surely, we're joking. Do we see evidence for the coming of a military attack on the mullahs? First, Enghadinejad (yes, Ahmadinejad) is "invited" to speak at that great caulderon of New York establishment, we're talking about Columbia, of course. Next, there are protests and calls to "uninvite" him. Columbia refuses, and goes on with the show, circa Monday, Sept. 24, 2007. Next up, demonstrations, talk shows, call shows, you name it. "The Evil Has Landed" - with a sub-title -"Hate spewing Iran prez speaks today at Columbia." (New York Daily News), "Go to Hell", "hosting Hitler", "petty and cruel dictator", add your apatite here. All of which may or may not be correct, but they point to the stage being set.

The stage we're talking about is the the preparation of a mass hysteria, numbing of public senses on the society's Achilles Heel- the overwhelming tendency that because the West was late in noticing the Jewish Holocaust, it must act preemptively. Not to mention the warring calls by the "I don't want to be late to the game" Mr. Bernard Kouchner, the French FM. He found the nuclear mullahs to be "unacceptable." (International Herald Tribune, Sept 21, 2007). Lest the reader has forgotten, he is still the co-founder of Medecins Sans Frontieres (www.msf.org). Mr. Robert Gates, the US Secretary of Defense on the day after Admadinejad spoke at the UN, asked the Congress for an additional $43 billion in war funding, saying that "money is necessary to refurbish equipment and consolidate bases in Iraq." (WashingtonPost, Sept 28, 2007). What consolidation you ask, well, the US had been building several new bases near the border crossings with Iran and manning them each. Did we mention the hapless Democratic candidates who are falling over trying to up each other on how best to get rid of a "nuclear Iran"? Iran is not going nuclear, only the mullahs are.

The stage is being set.

Ahmadinejad is a lot of things; he is not a dictator. He does not run the show in Tehran and is only the hardened public face of the Iranian mullahs, much the same way Khatami was the softened public face of the regime some years ago. He is, however, a bon-a-fide mass murderer, and an executioner par excellence. Many Iranians were executed on his order or by his hands.

People of Iran, who want the regime gone, in their hands, are being forgotten.

UK hands Basra over to Iranian Mullahs...

The remarkable impotence that defines the US-UK axes in Iraq entered a new phase, we might add, on the same day that Bush, Gates and Rice- pretty much the only people in favor of US troops deployment left in the US- were visiting Iraq.

The British handed over the administration and governance of southern Iraq to the mullahs' goons in Basra. Gordon Brown- the clueless British PM- called it not a "defeat" (BBC, September 3, 2007). He said that the withdrawl was ""pre-planned and organised". We ask if the Iranian mullahs had done the planning and arranged for the organization of this defeat! He went further to say that the handover of the Basra province- that is the rest of Southern Iraq- to the Iranian mullahs and their henchmen was not scheduled for this fall.

We live and learn!

Meshkini is gone ... who will follow?

Ali Akbar Meshkini, a prominent mullah who was at his last official position, the chairman of the mullah-made Assembly of Experts, an expert terror organization par excellance, died on July 30, 2007. One of the question that shall be answered is whether his deputy, Rafsanjani, the former mulhas' president, and lately Ahmadi-nejad's nemesis, will become the chair of the Assembly.

The bigger question, which we have is the following: how many other mullahs, will follow Meshkini (by choice or force) to hell. Here's wishing a few (in no particular order):

- Rafsanjani
- Khamenei
- Ahmadi-nejad
- Khatami
- Fallahian
- Moussavi Ardebili
- Eshraghi
- Mohammadi Gilani
- Younessi
- Mohtashami
- Shoushtari
- Jannati

Mullahs' "surge" is working...?

The second round of ambassadorial talks between the United States and the Iranian mullahs on the future of Iraq ended yesterday in Baghdad. According to the news reports, it became roughly a shouting match between Crocker- the US talking head- and the mullahs' terrorist-in-chief in Iraq, Kazemi Qomi (USA Today, July 25, 2007), whereby the American Ambassador accused the mullahs, correctly we add, of supporting division and fomenting violence. Little more can be said on this, although much more will be fruitlessly added; the United States provided the initial opening for the genocidal mullahs to begin operating freely in Iraq. There seems to be little disagreement between the pundits, that the American "surge"- the new acronym for infusion of additional troops- has largely been ineffective where it matters the most; i. e. checking the mullahs influence in Iraq.

According to Riad Kahwaji of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis (Christian Science Monitor, July 25), "The Iranians are running the ship in Iraq, not the Americans. They also have [many] more chips on the tables in Iraq than the US,". In a nutshell, the mullahs' "surge" is working in Iraq.

The model of influence peddling which the mullahs have implemented in Iraq is a carbon-copy of what has been attempted in Lebanon, in manufacturing the Hezbollah into the most influential force there, in Afghanistan Herat province, in building infrastructure- roads, hospitals, schools, parks, and fire-optic internet, in Palestine, in assisting Hamas, and of course, who should forget, in Iran, in the early days of the Revolution. The model is to create an ideaological base, provide logistical support and funding for a militia force, set a social, economic and political net wide enough to be inclusive to the extent that it provides for the welfare of its constituency, and slowly through ideology and coercion produce a subject system. Khomeini spent 16 years in Najaf and Karbala creating the infrastructure network, before moving on to Iran.

One would have to wonder and immensely: how the world's lone superpower with more than 160,000 active and fully armed troops in Iraq would sit across a table with an admittedly terrorist activist to discuss "the future of Iraq" and complain that "the two months since May (the two sides met first on May 28) have not exactly been encouraging", (Ryan Crocker, Reuters, July 25, 2007), referring to the increase (read surge) of activity by the mullahs in Iraq.

The simple truth is that a military solution to the mullahs menace is a myth; the sooner we come to this conclusion, the better. No other place is the idealogical warfare more intense. The mullahs must be stopped on all fronts, but these fronts can be faced only with those who truly understand the nature of this maniacal regime- the Iranian Resistance. They must be cut loose to work their magic against the Iranian mullahs.

Hamas in control in Gaza or is it the mullahs...

The civil fight appears to be over, for now at least, in the Gaza strip. And, as would have been expected, if for nothing than shear veracity of religious fundamentalism, the Hamas faction has won the day on the ground, by obliterating the Fatah's armed movement. This bears considerable watching on how the Iranian mullahs have muscled their way into the Palestinian state and split their ranks down the middle.

The mullahs claim not only Iraq, western Afghanistan, and southern Lebanon, as their territories, the Gaza strip has been added to this infamous list. The de'tente with Israel, long in the making, by beefing up the Hezbollah in Lebanon, has come full circle by taking over the Gaza. Hamas will not have a short term fear of an international backlash, as it is nearly fully supported by the Iranian mullahs. Its main headquarters are in Damascus, far removed from the international reach.

We called the Lebanon war last year and Hezbollah's emergence from that war, a fundamental strategic shift in the middle East. It is now spreading.

Four down, one more to go...

The detention of Haleh Esfandiari of the Smithsonian Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Kian Tajbaksh of The Open Society foundation, Parnaz Azima of Radio Farda, and Ali Shakeri, a so-called peace activist (read BBC report here) nearly completes the list in the tick-tack-toe the mullhas have been playing against the United States. As by their admission, these arrests are in "retaliatory" response to the arrests in January 2007 of the mullahs' five "diplomats" in Arbil, Iraq by the US forces. This, of course, means that the mullahs have one more arrest to go before the tally is even- if one also counts the former FBI agent, Robert Levinson, as detainee, yet to be acknowledged by the mullahs- then the list is complete.

Another common thread which appears from the above four-person list is that all have been unapologetic supporters of "civil dialogue" with the fanatical mullahs, ala their support for the ill-winded "promoting (the elusive) moderates" from the within the Iranian regime. Those in the know recall the efforts of like-minded intellectuals in the late 1990's and early 2000's in chasing after Khatami in hoping to score points with the mullahs. Now, they know better, of course.

The facts are clear: all four must be freed without conditions and immediately. It is an uncomforting thought that the new detainees are being held in the same infamous prison, The Evin Prison, where many political enemies of the mullahs were being tortured and executed during the Khatami reign and while the then-free Mrs. Esfandiari, and Messrs. Tajbakhsh and Shakeri, were admiringly chasing after the smiling face of the murdering mullahs.

Nevertheless, for those Iranian expats, who long ago forfeited their right of return until the genocidal mullahs are removed from Iran, this is a small, albeit painful, measure of redemption.

One thing is for sure .... no hand shaking!

There is a good bit of buzz generated over the upcoming fest at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt in which the Iraq's neighbors , UNSC P5 and EU will get together to discuss ways to make Iraq "secure" and allow for a face-saving, if not graceful, way for the US and UK to get out from the colossal mess. The mullahs agreed in the last minutes, or was it hours, to come to the meeting, so the buzz: will Dr. Rice, the American Secretary of State, get to meet his mullahs' counterpart, Manoucher Mottakhi. From the Iraq Summit, we're now to US-Iran Summit to decide on Iraq!

Dr. Rice thinks she "can handle any question that is asked of me,". "If we encounter each other and wander to other subjects I am prepared to address them at least in terms of American policy." (BBC News, May 3, 2007)

The mullahs president is quoted as saying, he welcomes an "honest dialogue" with the US. That must be a first!

Among the things that it is not clear, is whether Dr. Rice is "prepared" to offer her hand in a handshake to Mottakhi, when the two meet. The mullahs' mouth would likely not want to "najes" himself in shaking a woman's hand.

Mullahs are number one again.... in executions that is!

The Amnesty International annual survey of state-sponsored executions shows that the number of executions has fallen worldwide, but that in a small number of countries, there has been a "disturbing revival" of the number of executions. In particular, it cites Iran as having the largest number of increase in executions (from 94 in 2005 to 177 in 2006, nearly double) . The mullahs win on the spread again!

The list of big winners are:

1- China 1010+
2- Iran 177*
3- Pakistan 82
4- Iraq 65+
5- Sudan 65+
6- US 53
7-Saudi Arabia 39+
8- Yemen 30+
9- Vietnam 14
10-Kuwait 10+

The "+" often marks the uncertainty of 50% or more. So, in the case of China the actual number is more likely 1500 executions. The mullahs of Iran are second in just how fast they kill their citizenry. But, not so fast. Let's count how many people live in Iran and in China, 70 millions and 1200 millions. Now, let's normalize Iran's numbers by the population ratio, i. e. 177 *(1200/70)=3034 people executed, whereas the upper limit to China's numbers are about 1500 people. SO, who wins? The mullahs do, of course.

They are the champions the world over and have in fact been the reigning champions for the last couple of decades. Congratulations to the murderers in Iran.

Regime change is now "a change in regime behaviour”?!

One constant to the relations between the mullahs and the West over the last quarter of the century has been this: the mullahs lash out and the west blinks. In an interview with the Financial Times, Dr. Rice, the US Secretary of State, "is urging Iran to join her at a high-level conference on the future of Iraq next week" (FT, April 22, 2007). Dr. Rice considers it a “missed opportunity” if the the mullahs foreign minister does not show up to talk shop on the future of Iraq and beyond.

How absurd and how desperate. We repeated before that when the turbaned regime feels pinched at home, it lashes out- in this case, puts the fear of god into the hearts of some chicken littles from Britain- gets what it wants and needs and the West is ready to capitulate. In the 1980s, the mullahs took hostages in the middle east, and the US and UK rewarded them for bad behavior- sent them guns and missiles, branded the mullahs' archenemies as terrorists for manufactured reasons, and continued to massacre the people of Iran.

The pattern appears to repeat itself. The mullahs have made a mockery of the UNSC resolutions- both of them- continued to speed up their centrifuges and separate isotopes, and are rewarded for their menacing behavior. Is this the "behavior" Dr. Rice wishes to "change"? Just what bargaining chip does Dr. Rice have to play? The last time, it was the Iranian resistance and by way of connection, the Iranian people.

Forget the "Islamic" bomb; it's now the "Sunni" v "Shiite" bomb...

Read all about. Just a few months ago, the political echelons on either side of the Atlantic divide were braving for the "Islamic" bomb that would vaporize us all, in the form of a nuclear weapon in the hands of the devilish mullahs in Iran. It's no longer the case now; it is now the specter of the "Sunni" bomb v the "Shiite" bomb, specifically referring to the new interest and drive on the parts of the Sunni governments in the Middle East, the despotic societies in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and a number of other luminaries in this club, to get on the nuclear bandwagon and apply themselves and their scientific might, all of their ten physicists, to countering the ascend of the Shiite mullahs and their bomb in the region ("Eye on Iran, Rivals Pursuing Nuclear Power", New York Times, April 16, 2007).

Never mind the absurdity of such an astonishing claim, but we have seen similar sounding claims before, the trust of the issue is just desperate the situation with regard to the nuclear mullahs has become. The impotence of the EU3 and other international bodies, to some degrees the US, has allowed the Iranian mullahs to not only steal the show- do you remember the March UNSC resolution on Iran?- and modify the argument, but now the worry is how Iran's neighbor would do when the mullahs are even more menacing that they are now. The mullahs 10- the West 0.

We restate; to save the world, the region, and Iran, we must apply ourselves to countering the mullahs with those who know them the best and have felt their wrath the harshest; the Iranian opposition.

Mullahs take on yet another weak Western leader ... the new "national right"

The recent capture of 15 British sailors & marines and the ensuing diplomatic and political grunt match between the UK, and the other Us (UN, EU, US) and the Iranian mullahs, has resulted in the following desperation utterance by the politically wounded British PM, Mr. Blair, "I really don't know why the Iranian regime keep doing this. All it does is enhance people's sense of disgust at captured personnel being paraded and manipulated in this way." (BBC News, March 30, 2007) Just what part of the mullahs' actions does Mr. Blair does not understand, is not clear; that the mullahs are unpredictable? that the mullahs are incapable of taking hostages? that the mullahs are known in the art of projecting of their troubles at home outwards and on the international scene?

The pattern is remarkably clear. First, the mullahs get into a international political hassle, next they focus in on a weak Western leader of any significance, take a few Western hostages- BTW, the only Western leader who has called the captured sailors "hostages" appears to be George Bush-, parade them in front of TV cameras, broadcast a few confessions, and then make the "the Iranian waterways" the new Iranian national right. You have to give it to the murderous mullahs. They know their realpolitiks. The other Iranian national right is the right to nuclear technology. Forget, the right to free speech, freedom of movement, assembly, free press, and all of those wishy washy stuff!

The mullahs are full aware of the fact that Blair is a wounded duck, internally in a fight to give up the premiership to Gordon Brown, who is a total unknown and reasonably inexperienced on the international scene, and externally due to his impotence and incompetence, in Iraq and now with Iran. With the new round of hostage crisis, one should expect the British PM to remain at the helm and become progressively weaker in his position, until the mullahs get their wish. At the moment, they seem to want the Brits to cough up an apology that they were indeed in the Iranian waters. This after, an elaborate show of precision technology- read GPS data- by the British government to prove its innocence.

Remember Jimmy Carter in 1980?

Hostage taking redux...

Just as predictably that night follows day, the lines of this new battle between the rest of the world and the Iranian mullahs have been drawn. So much so that in its absence, we would have been more than perplexed to say the least. What we are referring to is the report (BBC March 24, 2007) that the 15 British sailors have been seized near the Shatt al-Arab, at the Iran-Iraq end of the Persian Gulf, by the Revolutionary Guards. BBC reports that according to the Fars news agency, the sailors have been moved to Tehran.

Mullah Khamenei had warned the world earlier this week that if they "want to treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack." (Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2007) Now that the world is warned. As we said, so predictably. What mullah Khamenei is referring to, of course, is the formidable threat of hostage taking and terrorist mischiefs that the grand masters of terror are so adept to.

The world must take his words seriously. Whether it has the gut to respond with resolute voice remains entirely another matter. If the the collective wisdom of the civilized world does not chicken out, as it has in many pasts when confronted with the specter of the mullahs wrath.

Clueless Mr. Dominique Villepin and nonsense...

In the slightest chance that one may have doubts on French Premier, Dominique Villepin, being as comatose as his President, one need not further confirmation that this piece reported by Reuters (March 15, 2007). Mr. Villepin states matter of factly, "Iran today knows and the people of Iran today know that they have a choice,". The choice here refers to the action agreed upon by the UNSC P5+1 on the next installment of sanctions against Iran for its apparent refusal to succumb to the wishes of the UN Security Council.

The point that shall be made is not that the Iranian mullahs deserve to be sanctioned; they deserve to be overthrown and done so in the hands of those suffered the most in their hands. The point to be made is that Mr. Villepin and his likes are completely clueless, when addressing the mullahs, about the nature of this dictatorship. The "people of Iran" do not make the decision to have atomic bombs or not; the mullahs do. Addressing the Iranian people in this fashion only adds to their misery and reinforces the mullahs' manufactured assertion for the right for the Iranians to have access to nuclear technology or weapons. The people of Iran have the right to be free. Period.

It is no wonder that the Europeans have turned to appeasers.

Going in blindfolded.... the US is.

The events of the past few weeks have highlighted a possibly escalating chain reaction; first came the news that the US had finally waken up to the danger of mullahs' control in Iraq and raided two compounds, where the mullahs' agents were: one was Abdul-Aziz Hakim's house, where Mosen Shirazi, the 3rd in command of the Revolutionary Guards' Qod force, and three other agents, including two people, with our favorite title of "Iranian diplomat" were arrested. This happened three weeks after Hakim visited Washington DC to visit the White House. Next came a raid on a mullahs' den in Arbil, Kurdistan, which netted five Iranians.

Ten days later, an attack in Karbala, which should be a wake-up call, but has yet to be realized, resulted in the dealth of five American soldiers. These soliders were not killed with road-side "shaped" projectiles, the sort of items the US is accusing the mullahs of providing the Iraqi insurgents, but were taken hostage from their compound in Karbala, removed from the compound, hands tied in the back, and shot dead, execution style. As one analyst said on February 11, 2007- the anniversary date of the Iranian revolution- during a Pentagon briefing in Baghdad, intened to "reveal" the mullahs' involvement in killing Americans,

"The smoking gun of an Iranian standing over an American with a gun, it's never going to happen," he said. "It's plausible deniability, I mean, they invented it."

He should have and could have well been referring to how the five US soliders were taken hostage, using the guise of US contractors in black-clad Suburban SUVs, from a US military base. Also, the precise number of soliders executed is interesting. Five mullahs agents were taken in Arbil.

Shaped projectiles, charges, or not- the kinds the mullahs are accused to be providing the Iraqis with the specific purpose of killing US soldiers- the greater danger lies in how the Iranian mullahs are using the Americans in Iraq to do their bidding. Just days before Ashura, we learned of a major US offensive to root out insurgents, who intended to attack the Ashura festivities in the holy city of Najaf. The American and Iraqi raid, which killed 263 people, including scores of women and children, occured on Jan. 29, 2007. The reason given was that a Shiite "messianic cult" was about to attack the Shiite city of Najaf! Someone forgot to tell the Americans that oops, the Iranian mullahs had wanted to either get rid of some irritation in the form of Hajj Sa'ad Sa'ad Nayif al-Hatemi, chief of the Hawatim trib, who opposed the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq- the Hakim party- and Da'wa- Maliki party, both allies with the mullahs, or that the mullahs have made a strategic decision to send the Americans on wild goose chases.

In some respect, the US is walking blind-folded in Iraq, yes, even after four years, and needs the help of those who undestand the Iranian mullahs intrinsically. They need the help of the Iranian resistance based in Iraq.

Countering the mullahs' intelligence in Iraq...

In his "The New Way Forward in Iraq" speech (January 11, 2007), the president laid out what is very likely the initial phase in countering the mullahs' murderous influence in Iraq. Mr. Bush said that "...Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran... And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

In the event that it is lost on some just how much influence the mullahs and their proxy agents wield in Iraq, the Iraq Foreign Minister, Mr. Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, critizied in a Reuters Report, the arrest of a number of Iranian agents by US forces in a so-called liasion office in the Kurdish city of Irbil. He said that "We are now in the process of changing these offices to consulates," he said. "It is not a new office. This liaison office has been there for a long time.", lending his support to the mullahs' claim that this was a consulate office and was illegally raided by the US.

In case, you are wondering just how the US forces are gaining the upper hand on the mullahs' Revolutionary Guards in Iraq, look no further than the page four article in the Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2007, "Pentagon Intensifies Pressure on Iran", in which it is laid out that the US has intensified it information-sharing with dissident-Iranian group(s), "Mujahedin-e Khalq, according to officials associated with the group."

This is clearly a good start to an strategy of neutralizing the mullahs.

Lynching... mullahs' style

There is perhaps no other word more suitable for the fate Saddam Hussein suffered in the hands of the henchmen on that fateful day in Iraq- lynching. Even the appeasement machine that is the Financial Times, January 2, 2007, in an editorial, called it "An indecent end...". The Wall Street Journal similarly referred to it as lynching.

Make no mistake; the henchmen who carried out his execution were none other than the agents of the Iranian mullahs and hence well versed in the art of excution and torture. There are now reports that these people were directly shuttled to the execution chamber from the office of Hakim. Many Iranian dissidents were taken to their death in very much similar manner by the mullahs executioners.

It should therefore come as no surprise that he was executed in the manner he was. In the language of terror and torture that the mullahs speak, there is no "dignified way" to execute a person, to borrow a phrase from George Bush.

I am the Fianancial Times and I'm afraid of the mullahs...

It is not exactly lost to those who study the international impact of the mullahs' actions, that the Fianancial Times is in the vanguard of appeasement. In an editorial on December 19, 2006, "Theocratic democracy", it suggests the choosing of the chameleon akhond, Rafsanjani, as being essential to weakening of the "conservatives", ala the mock-president Mr. Ahmadi-nejad. You see, the FT sees Mr. Rafsanjani on the camp of the "reformers", ala the other mock-president, Mr. Khatami. Just what exactly these people are reforming, is not made clear.

This is what FT calls theocratic democracy, although this is not the first time the phrase has been used in describing the dysfunctional mullahs. So much for old phrases. We're reminded and remind that back in 1844, a certain Joseph Smith, the founder of the Morman church and the spiritial advisor to Mitt Romney, who wants to become the next president of the US, ran for the US presidency, on a platform of "theodemocracy". It sounds familiar, does it not?

It is not my Eid... so says the judge

Saddam Hussein was executed on Saturday, December 30, 2006 in the early Baghdad hours (6:10 am). The sentence came about quite swiftly, at least according to the American sense of justice. It is an entirelly different manner in the middle east. Saturday was, by most accounts, the day of Eid of Sacrifice- the time when the Hajj pilgrims, are required, by whom we do not know, to slaughter a sheep, a goat, a cow, a camal- in the name of the holy sacrifice. More than two million of them each year. The day is also a time of reflection for most ordinary moslims, but for the Middle Eastern dictators- and there are many- it is also a time to be jolly and release as many non-essential or accidental prisoners.

When Hussein was taken, one last time, to meet the judge on Saturday, his lawyer asked the judge why was he being hangged on the day of Eid. The judge replied that indeed he was not, and the Eid was on Sunday. The judge was a shiite. When it comes to such matters, another one is the start of the month of Ramadan, the shiites and the sunnis are separate by one day. This Shiite-Sunni thing has not gone missing from inspection: one sunni website has warned as to the danger of "the new enemy from the east". Iran, we think.

The other irony is that Hussein was tried, convicted and executed for only ONE crime- the mass killing of more than one hundred persons in 1982- in the aftermath of the start of the Iran-Iraq, in the Shiite town of Dujail. He was not tried or convicted for suppression of the Kurds- gassing in Halabjeh comes to mind. He was killed for killing the Shiites. This should not go missing on the kurds and their sense of justice.

It is not any wonder that the one foreign government most vocal and supportive of Hussein's execution was the Iranian government. The mullahs' television called Hussein the “enforcer of the most horrendous crimes against humanity.” More than 100,000 people who have perished, by torture, by burning alive, by stoning to death, and by execution, in the hands of the mullahs' henchmen, should by their definition, count the mullahs as the "most most horrenhous criminals in history."

Assembly of Terror Experts...

The international media (take your pick) have been tripping over each other, in casting yesterday's municipal and national elections in Iran as a referendum on mullahs' president, December 15, 2006. This is called ignorance in any other guise. The New York Times, Dec. 16, is predicting " Big Voter Turnout Seen in Iran, Giving Reformers a Boost". It is those elusive reformers again. Iran, per capita, has likely more elections that any other country on Earth. It is also on the very opposite end of democracy scale. The mullahs have a Supreme leader who has the final say, the Guardian Council (12 mullahs) who select who runs as a candidate, Assembly of Experts (82 mullahs and like-minded folks), the Parliamant, the President, the Cabinet, and the armed forces, and finally to circle the wagon, the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij, who, well are entities to themselves and report to no one other than the supreme leader. This is what the media cals a "complex power structure."

The one group that selects the Supreme Leader is the Assembly of Experts (Majlis e Khobregan). Its members are being elected as we write this. To get an insight into how these men, yes they're all men, think, here's what Ahmadi-nejad's choice from the city of Qom- the center of mullahs' learning- has put it, "The basis of a republic is people’s votes and people’s demands and views. However, in an Islamic state the basis is God’s rulings which are defined by jurisprudents and ulema [religious scholars/clerics]... If it (an Islamic system) is not popular, it does not lose its legitimacy... If people accept such a system, then legitimacy and popularity are together." (Mohsen Gharavian in the Financial Times, December 15, 2006). Got it?

Mr. Baker: Surely, you're joking...

It is official now; the Iraq Study Group, aka Baker-Hamilton Group, has released its report on how to disengage in Iraq and as an added bonus, appease (forgive us, engage) the mullahs in Iran, December 4, 2006. They call it a "diplomatic offensive". Yes, it is offensive. For the records, both Messers Baker and Hamilton were ardent supporters of the attack on Iraq.

Mr. Baker, in justifying an approach to the same mullahs who admittedly are the prime cause of havoc in Iraq, said in the ensuing press conference that "... for forty years, we were at war with the Soviets, and yet we talked to them." Fair enough. Let's us digest and decipher this for a moment. The US was at cold war, i. e. proxy wars in Europe, South America, and Asia and the Middle East at the heart of the East-West collision, for four decades, and yet maintained a level of dialogue with the Soviet Union. Now, fast forward to 2006: the United States is the occupier in Iraq and the sole military superpower in the world- a condition that has not existed, well since the beginning of time. The US is supposedly in charge of Iraq's affairs- we do understand that Iraq has an elected government, but that's for another day. Now, ISG is recommending that the US, as the occupier, talk with the same mischievers who engineer nearly all of the instability in Iraq, ala the Iranian mullahs.

We doubt, very seriously, that such a precedence has existed before.

Mullahs ... wounded bulls in a China shop

Uless you are visiting from another very far-away planet, where even electromagnetic waves take years- mortal years that is- to reach the Earth, it should be abundantly clear that what we are witnessing with the mischiefs brought upon us by the Iranian mullahs are the actions of the proverbial bull in a China shop. See the mullahs for what they are: the maniacal and yes, now wounded, bulls that will toss and turn and in every turn, injur and maim whoever comes into contact with them.

In every instance of internal weakness, the mullahs have lashed externally to achieve a twofold goal: divert attention from their brutality within and intimidate the gullibles without. Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and now perhaps Bahrain are examples- in the latest round of parliamentary elections in Bahrain, the main Shiite opposition group, allied with the mullahs, stood for 17 seats and won 16 of them/out of 40 seats (November 26, 2006).

It is only the "ism" that has changed. Whereas previously it was the "ism" in communism that evoked fear in the West, it is now the "ism" in fundamentalism that brings horror. Where there is a hint of Shiite activism, one would have to imagine a mullah's hand.

The clerical hegemony in Iran began with a non-clerical president- Bani Sadr- and will surely end with another non-clerical despot- Ahmadi-nejad.

Mr. Baker goes to New York... to meet the mullahs

After more than a month of inactive writing, this is the first post here...

The ubiquitous James Baker, III, the former Secretary of State to Bush 41 and a confident of the Republican establishment, is heading the soon-to-report Iraq Study Group. This is the same group that intends to lay a new roadmap for how to deal with Iraq going forward. One anticipated outcome of ISG report is a recommendation on engaging the Iranian mullahs. In a matter of fact, in September, during the time when the mullahs' president, Mr. Ahmadi-nejad, was giving his keynote address at the UN General Assembly, fresh and confident from his support and patronage of the Lebanese Hezbollah, Mr. Baker was being wined and dined for a good three hours at the "elegant residence of" Mr. Javad Zarif, the mullahs' kingpin at the UN- Washingtonpost, Sunday, November 12, 2006. This, we might add, was not a quickie.

Mr. Baker is quoted in the Post as saying that "he was not negotiating for the United States...,". Negotiating what, we ask? Did anyone suggest that to get the US out of Iraq, requires "negotiating" the future of Iraqi, the future of the Middle East, and the one prize the mullahs want the most: the Iranian resistance based in Iraq? Would we or should we think that ISG remains an honost broker of the Iraq affairs?

The mullahs are the most lethal enemy the US has faced over the last quarter of the century. Its recent adventures in Lebanon and, of course, Iraq should be point reminders that "negotiating" with the mullahs is not only meaningless, but also dangerous. Dangerous to our well being.

When a sanction is... not a sanction!

In a humorous, yet accurate, article in the New York Times, Helene Cooper, September 3, 2006, "A Deadline That's is less Than It Seems", [see also the post "EU has now a deadline for the mullahs? It’s tomorrow! No wait, maybe next month…", July 4] ridicules the western nations' effort, including that of the United States, to bring the mullahs in front of the UNSC (again) for punishment- at least initially in the form of sanctions. She finds the idiotic posturing by the EU to give Iran another two weeks beyond the August 31, 2006 deadline- just passed- to, we suppose, coincide with the beginning of the UN General Assembly annual love fest, quite formulatory and posits three questions: 1) with the US unitaleral sanctions against Iran in place, just how much staying power or influence would the US have at the UN?, 2) what sanctions could the rest of the SC or the world bring against the mullahs that would not hurt them more than they would hurt the mullahs?, and 3) if the mullahs feel that nuclear weapons are their "inalienable right", would they be even hurt by such "smart sanctions" as travel bans, or care?

Here's what ails the whole process: by not understanding the true nature of Islamic fundamentalism, even after Iraq and Lebanon, and not realizing the essential fact that the only people or group capable of bringing down the illegitimate regime of the mullahs are the Iranian poeple, the United States and the rest of the so-called enlightened world, have engaged in theatrical posturings, intended more to satisfy their own sense of urgency that anything that would seriously hurt the Iranian regime. The enlightened world, is not helped, of course, by the preposterous fakes, such as Bernard Lewis of Princeton, whose dry and falsely academic understanding of what Islamic fundamentalism is, and in how to separate the messianical aims of the Sunni fundamentalism from the Iranian mullahs's version, a far more serious and deadly one.

"...the Holocaust is a scientific issue"

The above quote that is also the title of this post is from Hamid Reza Asefi, the mullahs' Foreign Ministery spokesperson (AP, September 3, 2006). It is no wonder that the mullahs consider the slaughter of six million people in the hands of another fundamentalist regime, merely a scientific issue, which should be debated among "scholars". It is because of their utter disregard for the fate and fortunes of their countrymen, whether it is in the form of street punishment or humiliation- much the same way the Hitler shock troops did-, or in the form of torture, rape, summary trials and executions- much the same way the mullahs's president, Ahmadi-nejad is famous for-, that such claims are made.

It is because that to prepare a woman, who has not yet lost her viginity, for execution, that a religious decree or fatwa, still in effect, can be used to forcefully "marry" her to a prison henchman, that the mullahs would and do claim that the Holocaust did not happen or is open to "scientific" interpretation.

Terror paymasters are the "chief beneficiary of the war on terror.."?!

A dollar short and a day late, is how one would characterize political think tanks, but at least the Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs) in its recent report (Iran, Its Neighbours and The Regional Crisis, August 2006) has drawn a frank conclusion from the bungling of the US, EU, and Israel in the middle east; the report begins with "There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East. The United States, with Coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran's regional rival governments.."

With the additional foothold in Lebanon, via their Hezbollah proxy, the mullahs are now confident of their hegemonic goals in the region, and in projecting trouble and extending their sphere of influence. Via their shock troops in Iraq, the Badr and Sadr forces, the mullahs aim to destablize Iraq to the point that, a) the US is preoccupied with fighting the militia, b) increase the mullahs footprint in Iraq so that another militarily strong regime does not materialize, and c) divert away from the problems at home and their nuclear drive. In Afghanistan, the mullahs have cultivated a strong proxy in the western provinces.

What has become clear from the recent conflict in Lebanon, and continuuing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that none of the power players, the US, the EU, and Israel, will be able to confront a hugely fundamentalist and obstructionist urge of the Iranian mullahs. This rise in fundamentalism, originated and bank rolled by the mullahs in Iran, can only be effectively confronted by the Iranian people, who remain the main beneficiary of the mullahs wrath. Unshackling the Iranian resistance, should be the first step in a long ride to removing the mullahs' threat in the region and in the world.

"the birth pangs of a new Middle East"... but wait, the mullahs have already declared victory!

Now that the UNSC has declared that the Israel-Hezbollah war must cease immediately (August 11, 2006), the mullahs, through their proxy army, the Hezbollah, are also declearing that they have won where it mattered. The resolute incomptence displayed by the international community, including the UN, the US, the UK and all other permutations thereof, has emboldened the warmongers in Tehran. Just listen to the suddenly awakened Mr. Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, warning last week, that Iran might encourage its "forces" (read both the Sadr and the much larger Badr groups) in Iraq to "create increased instability here." Unless, you have just returned from the dark side of the moon, where e/m waves do not penetrate, you would know that what Iraq does not need is an additional dose of "instability."

Mr. Khalilzad should know. Mr. Nouri al-Maliki, the now shiite prime minister of Iraq, hails from the Daawa party, the same group that is one of the origional progenitors of the Lebanese Hezbollah, the same group that's fighting Israel. The Israeli bull-in-a-china shop, Mr. Netanyahu, the Likud Party leader, has said that in effect, Israel has been fighting “an Iranian army division” in “a war conceived, organized, trained and equipped by Iran, with Iran’s goal of destroying Israel and its fantasy ideology of building a once-glorious Muslim empire in which we are merely the first pit stop.” (New York Times, August 13, 2006) Many would hate to agree with Mr. Netanyahu, but he has a point.

And, it is precisely this point that many, including us, have made for a long number of years. Unless, the hegemonic and fundamentalist tendencies of the Iranian mullahs are countered and effectively, we will see the "birth pangs of a new middle east", but not the kind that Dr. Rice, the US Secretary of State, wished of a new democratic middle east, but one of the mullahs' hegemony and instability in the region.

Hezbollah leader & Gamal Abdel Nasser ... mullahs reap the benefits

Not that we did not warn in these pages before, but it now appears official. The recent turn in public and now official opinions in the Arab world concerning the upheaval in Lebanon, where now the Hezbollah leader's (Sheik Nasrallah) photo is shown in demonstrations with that of Nasser- the Egyptian leader whose pan-Arab stand made him a darling of the Arab world and eventually led to the 1967 Arab-Israel war, speaks volume to how the Iranian mullahs have engineered and managed this whole affair (New York Times, July 28, 2006, " Changing Reaction: Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah.") No, we're not talking about the "vaunted" Arab street here. That's for the pundits to write worthlessly on.

We're referring to how the Iranian mullahs, faced with huge presssures from within and without, engineered a de-facto coup de'tat in Lebanon, paralyzed Israel and with it the US, made the inititally preceived "only a Shiite Lebanon" problem- in the form of Hezbollah-Israel fight- into a regional manifesto for hegemony. A look at the timeline reveals how carefully this fire has been set: On July 11, the Iranian nuclear negotiator, Larijani, who's also the spokesperson for the regime's National Security Council, told the EU representative, Mr. Solana, in Belgium that Iran did not have anything additional to say or give in return for the June 2006 offer of nuclear incentives- see previous posts. Larijani was accompanied by the head of intelligence of the regime's feared Revolutionary Guards. Immeadiately, the couple flew to Syria to discuss their next move with the Syrians and, of course, the Hezbollah. The next day, Hezbollah in a blitz military move, seized two Israeli soldiers and killed several more. The backdrop for all of these was the annual G8 meeting.

Now, the Iranian mullahs knew full well that the Russians were hosting this event and were confident of their resurgent role in the world's politics and they knew also that they had the US, via their proxies in Iraq, the Hakim-led Badr and Sadr shock troops, in a tumble. Little wonder, that Iraq prime minister, Nouri Maliki, who was groomed in Iran in the early 80's during the Iran-Iraq war and was later transferred to Syria to open the new front in the war with Iraq, would come to the US (July 25, 2006) and call for the condemnation of Israel and support for the Hezbollah. It is precisely here that those in the know, recognize the long-hand of the mullahs in orchestrating the affair.

The initial mostly Sunni Arab reactions, including their fearless leaders, were mixed to lukewarm, but as the conflict drags on, it's becoming more like the Arab-Israel conflict again, and those initial thinkings, albeit true, that the Shiite Iran was at fault, are now turning to the killing of Arabs in the hands of Israel. It is this effect, more than anything else, that the Iranian mullahs want. It occupies the world's attention on the petrol keg that is the Middle East, but away from their nuclear ambitions. Soon, the mullahs hope to have wished away the "Shiite crescent" motto that was beginning to evolve in the Middle East, so that they could continue their nuclear and hegemonic ambitions.

It is time for the US to unleash the Iranian opposition and allow them in turn to unleash the Iranian people's wrath on the murdering mullahs.

prisoner swap... mullahs as hostage takers

The escalation of warfare between Israel and the mullahs' shock troops in Lebanon is producing a flurry of "diplomatic" inititatives. We use the word with caution, as it appears, that the mullahs' top "diplomat", Mr. Mottaki, their foreign minister, has enterd the fray, by visiting his old pal in Syria to broker a "deal" What deal you may ask; "... there can be a cease-fire followed by a prisoner swap," (Wall Street Journal Online, July 17, 2006). Yes, the Hezbollah takes hostage, hands them over to their puppetmasters, the Iranian mullahs, and they orchesterate a "prisoner swap" for Hezbollah comerades in the hands of Israelis. This is not the first time, just as surely it won't the last time. In the 1980's, the mullahs and their proxies in Lebanon perfected the art of foreign hostage taking and exchanging them for "favors", e. g. guns and TOW missiles, and "incentives".

At the end of the day, unless the history does not repeat iteself- and we very much hope it does not-, the Iranian mullahs emerge as saviors. Just as in Iran, a judge is the jury, the prosecutor and the judge, all wrapped up in one, the mullahs in their dealings with the world, are hostage takers, negotiators, and deal makers.

Hezbollah's action ... mullahs' message

Thursday's (July 13, 2006) damage to an Israeli naval ship off the coast of Lebanon, apparatently by an Iranian-made radar-guided C-802 missile, launched by the Hezbollah forces, has received little attention outside its news worthiness. Its importance is twofold: the Hezbollah can now be regarded as having remote target capabilities and the implicit message this action carries for the US.

In some respect, Hezbollah's fighting with Israel is a showcase and proxy war; one that Hezbollah is fighting not only at the bequest of its paymasters in Tehran, but one to show what would be coming down the pike in the event of a US-Iran war. The devious mullahs in Tehran are sending a message, albeit indirectly to the US that in the event of military hostility, they have developed remote target low-altitude capabilities. This is certainly not lost to the US military planners and all of it is happening in the G8 "background" in St. Petersburgh.

The charge by Israel that Iran has sent more than 100 soliders (more likely, revolutionary guards shock soldiers) to Lebanon should taken as another sign of the widening of the battle field and the proxy nature of this conflict.

"Hezbollah's timing is no accident"...

The above quote is from the economist.com (July 13, 2006) article titled, "A crisis widens", referring to the unprovoked attack on Isreal by the Hezbollah and Israel's military attacks on Lebanon. Two Israeli soldiers were taken hostage and several others were killed. A rising score of civilans and combatants have died in Israeli bombings.

The day before the hostage-taking by the Hezbollah, the Iranian mullahs' chief nuclear negotiator, Larijani met with EU's representative, Solana, to deliver the news that Iran would not have a response to EU+US offer of nuclear inducement (see previous posts). Iran's henchman, the mullahs' president, said, "our answer to the P5+1 package is clear, the Iranian nation abides by international laws and regulations but will not abandon its obvious right to obtain nuclear technology," . Yesterday (July 12), the UNSC permanent 5 + 1 Germany asked the Security Council to intervene and enact sanctions against the mullahs (Reuters).

It may come, to some, as coincidence that Iran is referred to the UNSC and on the same day its proxy shock organization in Lebanon, the Hezbollah, enters a campaign against Israel. It is plausible to contemplate that the Israeli soldiers in the hands of the Hezbollah may find their way to Tehran- remember Hezbollah and mullahs hostage takings in the 1980's. The creator of the Hezbollah and its idealogical benefactor and chief financier is the theocratic regime in Iran.

Past actions by the Iranian mullahs have demonstrated time and again that this is a regime intend and dependent on instability and coersion. In 1982, it created the Hezbollah in Lebanon as a counterweight to Israel and the US and for eventual control in Lebanon. The October 1983 destruction of the marine barrack in Beirut was orchesterated and financied by the mullahs and carried out by a Hezbollah suicide bomber. The many western hostages that were taken on the orders from Tehran became innocent paws in the Iran-Contra debacle, in which the prime beneficiary was the Iranian regime and the prime victimes the hostages and the Iranian people.

This time around, the Iranian mullahs will try to use the middle east imbalances and the inaction by the western powers to exact huge benefits for themselves. Let us hope that the Iranian people are not losers again.

The answer from the mullahs... not so soon!

Now, we have it. The Iranian mullahs have confirmed today (Reuters, July 10, 2006) that they won't be forthcoming with an answer for the EU and the United States vis-a-vis the nuclear inducement package which was offered to them last June. The EU, via their ever brave Mr. Solana, had expected a "substantial response" from the Iranians, but instead he has heard that "... we will not give a definite answer. We will only discuss questions and ambiguities regarding the offer,". Now, that's mullahs' speak for stonewalling. The ever optimistic Mr. Solana is not deterred, even though the regime foreign minister, Mottaki has said that the G8 members "should not take decisions that could harm the current positive atmosphere in efforts to resolve the issue." (Reuters)

Your guess is as good as this author, that the new-found boldness and courage by the Iranian mullahs, in the face of the international onslaught, is reflective of the mullahs' strategy in Iraq. Suffice to say, that according to a retired US four-star general , despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, “the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.” (The Iran Plans, New Yorker, April 17, 2006).

EU has now a deadline for the mullahs? It’s tomorrow! No wait, maybe next month…

Nearly a month after submitting a pacakge of "incentives" to the Iranian mullahs- the mouth-watering proposal of commercial and security measures intended to buy the Iranians into giving up their nuclear ambitions, the EU and the US are still waiting to hear from the mullahs. After numerous utterances from the regime, including the ones coming from Ahmadi-nejad in front of his Chinese friends in Shanghai last month, giving August 22 as the time for a mullahs' response, and those coming from the regime's foreign minister, Mottaki- and the head executioner, Khamenei, the EU is now mad. German foreign minister, Frank-Wlater Steinmeiser, said on June 26 (Reuters), "They have had the offer for two weeks already," after meeting with his Iranian counterpart. It is not obvious whether this was meant to scare the mullahs into action, or he was simply whining. A "knowledgeable" western diplomat was quoted in the Financial Times on June 27, as saying "if they are just playing for time, that's unacceptable." The Europeans are onto something here!

In a flash of courage that would put Neville Chamberlain to shame, the EU's version of a foreign minister, Mr. Javier Solana, will meet with the Iranian foreign minister tomorrow to elicit a response. One could even imagine the line of discussion, "come on my dear and truthful friend, Manoucher, you know that next week is the G8 meeting in Russia. Without a response, and hopefully one that says that yes, we will suspend and stop all nuclear-related activities, the G8 meeting will not be much fun. After all, we postponed the meeting so that you will have more time for a response"- the truth is that the meeting dates were pushed back so as to not clash with the football world cup in Germany, but the mullahs should not have to know that!

The fact of the matter is that unless, the EU grows spin and the US acts as the actor that pushes Europe toward a forecful policy- much the same way it did in Europe in the 40's and 50's, the mesage to the Iranian terror mongers, we're afraid, is that we're afraid of you. The same way that non action to the Iranian growing terror onslaughts in the 80's and 90's, both within and without Iran, made them bodler and more precise in their deadliness, appeasement today will bring about a more deadly Iranian regime. A regime that will not hesitate to flex an even more muscular strategy in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere.

New proposal to Iranian mullahs...

Yesterday, May 31, 2006, the US secretary of state, condoleezza Rice introduced a new American proposal and conditions for direct dialogue between the US and the terrorizing Iranian mullahs. This proposal which was provided in advance of its announcement, to Iran's UN representative in New York calls for "a verifiable suspension" of Iran's nuclear enrichment program, as well of returning to the implementation of the IAEA Additional Protocols, agreed to in 2003. This proposal was hailed, not surprising, by the clueless Europeans, as a step forward toward getting the Iranian mullahs to suspend and to good behavior.

On the surface, this looks like another episodic manifestation of "guns for hostages" (remember Iran-contra); the guns are the economic and political insentives, and the hostages are the mullahs nuclear triggers. This is what keeps the EU3 + Germany salivating. Notwithstanding this proposal appears to play to the hands of the mullahs and in particular, to the hands of the former executioner, Ahmadi-nejad, there are several aspects of this proposal, but not reported by the "unpopular press"; namley, the recognition that mullahs are the international bankers for terrorism, and "is involved in violence in Iraq and it is undercutting the restoration of full sovereignty in Lebanon..." These issues by themselves, might prove to be what would prevent the mullahs from any move forward in this direction.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial writes, "Good Luck." The article further questiones whether the Iranian opposition is being sacrified in proposing to the mullahs. We seriousely and sincerely hope not.

The appeasement circle ...

A number of recent OpEds and Editorials in the Financial Times offer, in a number of ingenious ways, how to appease the regime of the mullahs in its quest to get its hands on a nuclear device. Starting with the latest proclamation (Financial Times Editorial, April 10, 2006, "Explore all diplomatic possibilities on Iran"), it laments the fact that the British proposal (ala John Sawers, see March 24 weblog) for offering mullahs incentives, was outed last month in New York. This brings to mind the "incentives" offered to the same mullahs in the 80's in the hope that they would soon stop removing westerners from the streets of Beirut, only to find out later that the hostage taking business would thrive more efficiently than before.

In another outrageous piece, this time by the appeasement cheerleader, Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations, and James Dobbins of Rand Corporation (Financial Times, April 4, 2006), they claim that only "dialogue can stop Iran at the nuclear threshold." Nothing else will, in their view! They offer that the offer of US incentives, again, is the best guarantor of forcing the mullahs change minds and course, all at the same time. How they want to accomplish this is not entirely clear; stabilizing the Persian Gulf appears to be one of the ways. Last time we checked, the mullahs were the main engine of instability and havoc in the region. Everytime the regime has been mired at home in opposition and restlessness, it has projected outwardly in hawkish and instability in the region and beyond. Takeyh, whose last name in Farsi means place of fundamentalist worship, and Dobbins pay lipservice to Iran being the source of a "great civilization with a long history" in a reference to the misplaced claim that the right to acquire nuclear technology is equal to "national right". The Iranians foremost right is to be free of the theocray and the right to claim their country and heritage. This is what the Iranians want and claim as their national right. Everything else is secondary.

Mullahs' secret talks with their Iraqi shock agents

Independent newspaper (London, March 19, 2006) reported that Iranian MOIS agents held secret (no more) talks with their Shiite (Iraqi Badr and Sadr and Lebanese Hezbollah) proxies days before the mullahs announced in a statement to IAEA (March 09, 2006) that they could inflicte "harm and pain" on the United States. Present at this meeting in Tehran, were Moqhtadr Sadr and the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

Now whether this reflects reality or was cooked up to muddy the waters remains to be seen, but what remains true is how the Iranian mullahs are using their sway and influence in Iraq to futher their regional hegemonic agenda and their nuclear strategy. It could be argued that the presence of Nasrallah was intended as a reminder to Israel of the mullahs' considerable influence in Lebanon and the occupied territories.

It is therefore ironic that amid these direct and indirect signals (read threats) by the mullahs, John Sawers, the UK Foreign Office political director, would write a letter to US, France, and German foreign officers a few days ago, suggesting that Iran be offered fresh incentives, if it suspended uranium enrichment activities, and a promise of direct talks with the mullahs. This so-called UK initiative, was followed by another UK official as having said in the Financial Times (March 21, 2006), "... we are not in the business of backsliding and rewarding Iranians for bad behaviour." Really? This UK Official should consult with John Sawers, it appears to us. What do Britains call their fool-headed approach during the last 2-1/2 years, in concert with France and Germany, in pursuing the "diplomatic" track with the terromongers in Tehran? Having British tea? Were they discussing WorldCup soccer with their fellow Cup participants from Tehran? If their appeasement of the mullahs during the EU-3 talks with them is not "rewarding for bad behaviour", we surrounder that we don't know the meaning of the phrase.

No excuses any more

In the event that there were doubts in any one's mind with regard to the calculus of mullahs' coupled strategy in Iraq and with nuclear weapons, those doubts should have by now evaporated into thin air. Today comes the news (AP, March 16, 2006) that Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told IRNA that "Tehran was ready to open talks with the United States over Iraq..." Incidently, Larijani is the mullahs' chief nuclear negotiator with the EU-3 and the IAEA. He issued his statement after meeting in a closed session of mullahs' parliament, the majlis. Since, the mullahs' nuclear portfolio was referred to the UNSC on March 8, 2006, more than 85 corposes of executed men- mainly sunnis- have been found in various places in Iraq. All were killed by black-clad militias, or as has been reported, by death squads. According to a report in the New York Times ("Two more bodies were found in Baghdad in sectarian strife", March 15, 2006), the suspicion is centering around the shiite-run Interior Ministry. Iraq's Interior Minister is none other than Bayan Jabr, who lived most of the last 20 years in Iran in exile, as a high-ranking member of the SCIRI, Iran's proxy group in Iraq. To be complete, it was also in the Iraq Interior Ministry, that American soldiers found a few months ago, secret detention and torture centers. Two among the many who were tortured in these chambers were members of the Iranian Opposition group.

The UNSC is deliberating this week as to what to do with Iran's nuclear ambitions. The United States has today placed Iran at the top of its threat list (2006 US National Security Strategy) and the mullahs announce that they want to discuss Iraq! What do you think?

Mullahs nuclear deterrent in Iraq...

The so-callled Iraq sectarian violence, as it is reported in the media and mouthed by many pols, is all but another Iranian mullahs' bewildering tactic for control OF Iraq. Daily reports of death squads (read Basij militia) rampaging through the cities, abductions, garroted and strangled bodies found in buses and trucks (like yesterday's finding of 15 strangled bodies , are too often common now. The black-clad Basij militias and the Badr and the Sadr organizations have but ensured that intimidation is the rule of the land. This is precisely how it began in Iran after the 1979 revolution, with the initimidation of the opposition groups, abductions, murder, and ...

The Iranian mullahs are tightening the screws in Iraq, in an exact response to last week's referral of Iran's nuclear dossier by the IAEA Board to the UN Security Council. Just as had been predicted and reported in these pages, the mullahs acting in clockworks, have unleashed their dogs in Iraq on the coalition forces and the defenseless people of Iraq. The worsening conditions in Iraq are Iranian mullahs' nuclear deterrent.

Mullahs' nuclear push ...

Today's New York Times Editorial (Iran's Best Friend, March 5, 2006) may be a satirical outlook on the current sorry state of affairs vis-a-vis Iran's desire to have a nuclear weapon and the mullahs' near autonomy in Iraq, but it is accurate to the core. It is also a late (very late) acknowledgment of how the mullahs have been perfecting their latest act. To think, now, and only now, that the events in Iraq and the mullahs' sprint to acquire a nuclear device, are intertwined, is like having been blind, deaf, and anosmic, all of the past few years.

To put it mildly, Iranian shock troops in Iraq, both the Badr and the Sadr militias, have already been at work preparing the sort of environment that their Iranian handlers need, should the mullahs decide to tighten the screws in Iraq, in response to any adverse action by the IAEA Board tomorrow in Vienna. The precision bombing of a Shiite holy shrine in Samarra two weeks ago, regardless of whether one believes that it was an act perpetrated by the Iranian intelligence or not, has cultivated a condition of fear, that thus far, not even two day-curfews, have managed to alleviate. It is precisely the same culture of fear that has sustained the fundamentalist theocracy in power in Iran for more than a quarter of the century .

Then, there is the issue of national supremacy and right that the mullahs claim the Iranians are entitled to with regard to nuclear technology and research. This is misplaced. It is the Iranian national identity that the mullahs have hijacked and now try to exploit in their attempt in regional hegemony. If there is a sense of national unity, and there is, it is desire of the people of Iran to rid themselves of the fundamentalist theo-facisim they encounter daily.

Mullahs' hands in Iraq ...

Barely a week into the devastation of the Askaria shrine by no-doubt explosive experts- witness how only the dome was
blown away- we hear that Ibrahim al-Jaafari's tenure as Iraq's first prime minister will be just as short. Of course, we hear that the Kurds and the sunnis are mostly up in arms, following an upsurge in sectarian violence in the past week. They should be. Most of those who perished sensely were sunnis. But, it will not, nor should it, escape attention that the person who will follow Jaafari, should he be sidestepped, is none other than Adel Abdel-Mehdi, the choice candidate of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Iran's proxy organization in Iraq. Oh, what a little devious act, say bombing a holy shrine, can buy you! In this case, the you in the previous sentence is MOIS, Iran's intelligence organization. So, now hand-in-hand with their brother-in-arms, Iraq President, Jalal Talabani, the mullahs may soon get to form a hand-picked government, a government that would make them proud. Just wait and see!

Mullahs' hands in Iraq shrine bombing

The precision bombing of the fourth holiest- after Karbala, Najaf and Mashad- shiite site in Samarra, Iraq (February 22, 2006) was clearly aimed at destablization of an nascent Iraqi civil society and at inciting fear and mayhem. To date, the intended consequences of this barbaric act has been more than 150 deaths- mostly sunnis- and desecration of many mosques and places of worship.

Given that, to the Iranian mullahs, Iraq is the ultimate prize and the terrormongers in Tehran would kill (literally) to see their archenemies, the United States and the Iranian Opposition based in Iraq, out of Iraq, one should not discount the mullahs' hand in this gastly crime. Again, the key is the study of pattern.

In 1994, thickly in domestic trouble and a regime running out of gas, it committed itself to a bombing of the 8th Imam's burial shrine in Mahshad, Iran. Scores of worshiper died. It was ultimately revealed the Iran's General Directorate of Special Operations (GDSO) was the responsible party, attempting to turn the tide of discontent and to discredit the Iranian Opposition.

In Iraq, Iran stands to gain from any division among the different religious factions. Unless one is intentionally or naively ignorant of the facts on the ground in Iraq, it should be clear to an observer that Iran will not gain from a democratic society in Iraq. The calculus of this Iraq strategy, as far as the policy planners in Tehran are concened, is acutely simple: stop at all cost, the development of a plural and democratic system of governance in that country. Moqtadar al-Sadr said on February 23, "...if the government cannot protect our places of worship,... we will use our militia to protect them." Sounds eerily familiar. This is precisely how the mullahs unleashed their militia, the Basij and the Revolutionary Guards, on the hapless people of Iran and exacted incalculable revenge.

Mullahs' support for Hamas

Just as the United States and the clueless European Union consider pulling the plug and the rug from under the Palestinian Authority (PA), in response to the role reversal in PA politics after Hamas's victory in the Palestinian parliament, comes words that the Iranian mullahs will step in to "fill the void" and as Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, put it, "We will definitely provide financial aid to this government so that they can stand up against the oppression of America." (Reuters, February 22, 2006)

You may disagree what you want, but this fits a pattern of developing a framework for regional control and aggression by the mullahs in Tehran. Only two days before, Khaled Meshaal, head of the Hamas political wing, said in a meeting with his Iranian playmakers, that Iran's role "in the future of Palestine should continue and increase". Now, we see how!

Lifting the Iron Veil

The fateful actions by Iranian mullahs to remove IAEA seals on centrifuge components and on uranium hexaflouride cylinders at the once-secret Natanz nuclear facility have rightly produced (finally) calls for referral of Iran to the UN Security Council for future punitive actions. The United States and Iranian opposition have consistently maintained that the referral is the right thing to do and long overdue. The so-called EU3- Britain, Germany, and France- now appear resigned to pursue this serious matter in front of the Security Council. So much and so long for the modus operandi of "continuing dialogue", which in effect, amounted to a straitjacketing the decision-making with regard to Iran. To date, the United States lacks a credible and coherent policy on what to do with a theocratic regime that has wreaked so much havoc in the middle east and elsewhere.

Much has also been written on dealing with the crisis on military terms; whether Israel or the US would jointly or solely strike at Iranian suspected nuclear facilities, something that has not been lost to the terror mongers in Tehran. Rafsanjani, the Iranian equivalent of a teflon politician, said in a sermon on Wednesday (January 4, 2006), "If our enemy and opponents take an irrational and unjust step, they will do injustice to the world … We cannot give up our right [to a nuclear program] and they should know we will achieve this right,”. This is code argot for terrorism. At every turn and each time the Iranian regime has found itself mired in a crisis, it has dispatched one of its notables to make similar-sounding proclamations. Even more direct, Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas chief, said so last month in Tehran, "If Israel attacks Iran then Hamas will widen and increase its confrontation of Israelis." Terrorism by proxy was perfected by the mullahs in Tehran; witness what Israel faces in Hezbollah and in Hamas. The common-day expressions "international terrorism" and "suicide bombing" entered our lexicon since a day in October 1983 in Beirut, when a suicide truck bomb on the US Marine barracks inflicted the largest single-day casualty on the American forces since the Vietnam war.

This bombing is a singular event in the modern history of the middle east, for how it has politically reverberated throughout the region. Soon after this bombing, the United States ended its military presence in Lebanon, an action that to this date is viewed by the Iranian mullahs as a direct response to their blatant act of terror. We posit that it is in this context that any analysis of current or past events with regard to the Iranian mullahs must proceed. Indecision and cajoling by the international community have been interpreted as weakness and acted upon vigorously and decisively by the mullahs. Witness the current developments in Iraq. The terror paymasters in Tehran enjoy a tremendous advantage in Iraq; their proxy organization, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), bred and fed in Tehran, now appears to have a virtual monopoly in the next Iraqi parliament. On the ground in Iraq, the British have acknowledged, echoing the sentiment of the US defense department, that bomb-makers targeting their forces in southern Iraq have been trained by an elite arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the so-called Qods or Jerusalem regiment. The brazen nature of Iranian interference and meddling in Iraq is evident in last August abduction and killing of Steven Vincent, who reported on the infiltration of Shiite militia, supported by Iran's intelligence units, into Basra police force, days after his report appeared in the New York Times.

Iran's nuclear portfolio must be sent to the Security Council and now. This much should be crystal-clear. No further dialogue or transparency, as the IAEA Director, Dr. General Mohamed ElBaradei, has suggested will pass muster. Never mind that to the Iranian mullahs honesty is as foreign as democracy. The new Iranian chieften, Ahmadi-nejad, is a bona fide revolutionary guard who earned his stripes by torturing the regime's opponents in prisons and by spreading the message of hate and fear across the middle east and beyond.

Iran has the natural and human resources and technical know-how to conduct research in fissile technology and to develop it. The harsh realities of a post-war Iraq and the rising discontent in Iran call for a sound and wise policy that would address both concerns. The United States should make every effort to break out of the legacy of Irangate which sought to cultivate “moderates” in a fundamentalist regime. A coherent and cogent Iran policy would seek to bring about change by encouraging and supporting the democratic opposition and organized resistance to the mullahs. After all, the greatest stakeholders in this dangerous game of nuclear roulette, are the people of Iran who have suffered so much and have lost so many in their struggle to lift the Iron Veil. Only a democratic and internationalized Iran would guarantee a just peace in the region and security for all; Israel included. India, as a possible model, comes to mind. The democratic world, is the least bit concerned with a nuclear India. We do not suspect or have reasons to expect that India will use its weapons on us.

What rubbish!

"When you began with the words `in the name of God' ... I saw a light coming, surrounding you and protecting you to the end ...," This is what Ahmedinejad, the Iranian President, quoted one of his United Nations entourage as having told him. It apparently was not the stage light, but one from the heavens! "I felt it myself, too, that suddenly the atmosphere changed and for 27 to 28 minutes the leaders could not blink ... They had their eyes and ears open for the message from the Islamic Republic,".

No doubt, what he saw was not the guiding light, but the light emenating from the firestorm of rage that Iranian people feel against the murderous mullahs who have devastated Iran and enslaved its population.