Home

THE REAL AGENDA BEHIND LAST WEEK’S “BUILT TO LAST” POLICY CONFERENCE AT AIPAC

June 6, 2008

The carcass is not even there yet but the assembly of the hungry vultures is already abuzz with a crescendo of excitement. It is AIPAC’s extraordinary gathering, where high profile politicians of every rank, color and party affiliation are competing in a humiliating ritual dance of subservience to the Israel lobby.

They take turns to perform their choreographed routine of first worshiping the sacred cow, then vowing to stop at nothing to confront and punish Israel’s ill-wishers and, finally, reaffirming America’s total, unequivocal and unbreakable ties with the Jewish state as the tiny tail that must continue to wag the big dog forever. The whole parade reeked of so much sleaze and slime that it would make anyone with a modicum of integrity cringe.

Of course, on top of this masquerade’s agenda was the “existential threat” that Iran is supposedly posing to Israel. The current American administration’s term is expiring fast and time is running out for saber rattling and chest thumping to translate into a real military onslaught on Iran before the next president takes charge of the White House.

The deceptively timid-looking and mild mannered Zionist weasel, Joe Lieberman, could be seen in the background smiling with approval as the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain, looking older than his age would warrant, pledged allegiance to the Zionist regime in his transparently shallow adoration of Israel.

Barack Obama, a much more capable and convincing orator, knowing fully well what he was up against, attempted to show that he was not about to take second seat to anyone when it came to supporting Israel. As before, he was choosing his words carefully. He left no doubt in anyone’s mind that, as President Obama, he would use any and all means at his disposal to prevent a nuclear armed Iran from posing a threat against Israel.

Secretary of State, Condy Rice, voicing the current administration’s foreign policies, was determined not to be outdone in demonstrating her suspicions and mistrust of the Iranian government. She reiterated the Administration’s policy of not negotiating with states that support terrorism and insist on developing nuclear weapons; in other words, the same old parroting of the same old unsubstantiated allegations.

These, as well as other similarly accusatory and alarm-raising speeches against Iran, were interrupted every few seconds by applause and standing ovations by the huge crowd of APAC members and guests. They all want war with Iran and they all want it now, before the oven of political and campaign rhetoric cools off.

You don’t have to be a political scientist to see that neither McCain, nor Obama or any other high profile speaker for that matter was doing more than paying lip service to an audience that reflects the most powerful political lobby in Washington, which quite unabashedly represents the interests and mandates of a foreign state.

A seasoned politician like McCain surely knows that his bellicose anti Iran rhetoric that he spewed during his presidential campaign was simply necessary for him to stay in the race. He is not really as senile as his illogical statements reflect, and he is certainly not an ignorant or uninformed man to truly believe in the nonsense he has been proclaiming. It is one thing when, to win campaign points, he compares Iran’s diminutive president Ahmadinejad with Hitler and alleges that he, a man with no such executive authority, intends to wipe Israel off the face of the map; but unless you think he is an idiot, what he honestly believes must be quite different.

Obama is a shrewd and crafty young politician. Listening to his speech, he is careful in how he strings his words together. He vows to employ the United States’ entire might to prevent a nuclear armed Iran to pose a threat to Israel. He could have also vowed to rise to Israel’s defense in case of any threat posed by alien space ships from distant galaxies! He is clearly aware that Iran is not a nuclear armed state and is as unlikely to initiate an attack on Israel or anyone else, even if it were nuclear-armed, as are our imaginary space travelers! So, the man is really not saying anything at all. Nevertheless, he has covered his ass, so to say, by making that pledge.

The problems is, the Israelis and their Zionist supporters here see and understand that, too; and hence, the frenzy in Washington. The recent flood of Israeli officials visiting Washington, addressing the United States Congress and staging such powerful media events as the current AIPAC extravaganza, all point to the heightened urgency of the situation at this time.

There is nothing new, of course, about Israeli politicians frequenting Washington, addressing joint sessions of Congress, or having personal chats with the President, seemingly at will and without notice. The old cliché of Washington being another Israeli occupied territory is certainly more than a joke.

Two factors make the current frenzy of pro Israel pronouncements and pledges by presidential candidates and high profile politicians from both political parties especially significant. One is the quickly closing window through which a preemptive attack on Iran appeared imminent; and the other is the potential softening of the tone in American administration’s policies in the Middle East once the baton is passed to Mr. Obama or even to the more hawkish Mr. McCain.

The Israeli leadership does not consist of a bunch of fools. They know fully well that pledges of loyalty and support by the American leadership and leaders to be are not much more than hollow political gamesmanship. They know America doesn’t want war, not another disastrous blunder, this time with a much more potentially formidable foe, Iran. So, why this charade? Why beat the war drums louder and openly campaign so much harder to encourage a war that they know more than anyone else would spell disaster for all concerned, including Israel’s own best interests?

The fact is that they are not; that is not the outcome they are looking for.

This is a chess game in a grand scale. The Israeli regime has a shopping list at hand and expects to bargain the best deal it possibly can. What does Israel want that the United States could offer?

To start, Israel wants the United States to continue pressuring Iran to fully comply with the mandates of the UNSC, mandates that were imposed on that international body by the US, regarding its nuclear activities. Even though there is no evidence whatsoever of Iran’s atomic weapons development, a full transparency that would satisfy the United States, meaning Israel, would mean the opening of Iran’s military and defense infrastructure to the eager and hungry eyes of Iran’s enemies or the enemy, Israel. This would literally neutralize Iran’s capacity for self defense in case of a preemptive attack by Israel. This is something that, not just Iran, but no sovereign nation could possibly agree to. Aware of the inevitable rejection of such compliance by Iran, this demand ensures a prolongation of economic and diplomatic strangulation of Iran, much to Israel’s pleasure.

Next, Israel wants to pretentiously keep the Two-State solution to the Palestinian dilemma on the negotiating table, fully intending to create enough stumbling blocks in its path to delay its implementation for the foreseeable future, meanwhile continuing to expand its illegal settlements and to further isolate and marginalize the Palestinians. With America’s corroboration, the blame for any failure to negotiate a workable peace agreement would, as before, be put on the Palestinians.

To accomplish this, resistance groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their supporters, Syria and Iran, must continue to pay a high price for opposing Israel’s agendas. And, as it is quite evident, they have all been paying a very high price for their defiance.

No doubt, Israel’s objectives will continue to be met by the next American administration, as well. The United States cannot meaningfully change its long established policies toward the Middle East overnight. Again, the Israelis know that very well and do not really fear a change in America’s stance toward Israel’s antagonists to come about anytime soon.

Israel’s shopping list or the list of expectations, even demands, has gained a remarkable level of legitimacy in the public eye, exactly where it matters, when it is shown against the backdrop of the prevailing propaganda that has been generated and perpetuated by the mass media, especially during the current presidential campaigns.

So the stage is set. As portrayed to the public, America’s best friend and ally is simply making very reasonable requests for support from its superpower guardian and benefactor to defend itself against the monster, Iran. The American public is led to support the idea that, under these circumstances, the least the United States could do is to give its little ally all it can. Unprecedented pledges for missile defense systems and other high tech military hardware have already taken place. Increased economic contributions are underway, and the diplomatic support that Israel undoubtedly needs to shelter itself against condemnation by the international community for its misbehavior will be guaranteed.

Any Israeli action against Iran will understandably be regarded by the Iranian regime as an American sanctioned and supported attack, for which the United States interests will be put at great risk. And, as long as the potential exists that Israel might take matters in its own hands and strike at Iran, as high ranking Israeli officials have threatened to do on numerous occasions, the tail can blackmail the big dog to wag as the tail pleases.

America doesn’t want that and, to keep the little devil from forcing the issue, satiating its ever increasing appetite by paying whatever ransom it demands seems to cost a lot less than falling into its trap in yet another unnecessary war.

As it appears, Israel is once again getting what it wants, perhaps even more than it is bargaining for, and that is a tribute to their political maneuverings in the American stage, thanks to the power of its lobby, AIPAC. Quite ironically, Israel’s success in procuring what it demands from the United States makes a potential preemptive attack on Iran less likely.

I cannot quite come to terms with the idea that Israel’s blackmailing of the United States might actually be a blessing in disguise! It is a hard pill to swallow. How much longer this one-sided passionate love will last and at what cost to America’s best interests, are anyone’s guess at this time.

Will Obama prove to be another social climber like Cody Rice, resort to anything to put his mark on history books as a non-WASP who could, and sell out the nation’s best interests to achieve this ambition? I certainly hope not.

Will John McCain, should he win the elections, prove to be a real patriot in his old age and stand up to the Zionist cabal around him, represented best by his ever-present shadow, Joe Lieberman, the way he stood up to his inquisitors when he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam? If he was truly a war hero then, he has the potential to be a true patriot now.

Some might wonder why there is relatively more popular support among the Islamic Middle Eastern countries for Senator Obama’s nomination for the presidency of the United States. In fact, Barack Obama has been attacked by his political opponents for being the beneficiary of support by the Palestinian Hamas, which is regarded here as a terrorist organization.

Obama is also favored in another country labeled by the United States as the most active supporter of terrorism, Iran.

The question is whether his relative popularity is due to his racial profile as not being a true-blue WASP, possibly his name or, perhaps, his somewhat less than 110% allegiance to the Israeli lobby and the Jewish state’s mandates?

There is yet another possibility, and that is a preference by default. In other words, what Obama represents is the least objectionable candidate among the three, with John McCain being clearly seen as the most feared as a belligerent war monger who will continue the policies of the current administration, and Hillary Clinton for being viewed as far too beholden to the Jewish interests for her political successes as a senator and a presidential hopeful to refuse to put Israel’s interests ahead of those of her own country.

Ironically, Mr. Obama has spent more time and energy than his rivals trying to emphasize his deepest loyalty to the Jewish interests and the state of Israel. To this day, however, his efforts have fallen short of convincing the diehard Zionists here and in Israel that he would endorse any and all decisions made by the Israeli regime, regardless of how those decisions might affect America’s own best interests.

To read an article by a distinguished conservative activist addressing Mr. Obama’s dilemma regarding this issue, please click on “Other” button in the margin on the left.

1- Is Barack Obama truly a better candidate to resolve the US/Middle East tensions fairly and honorably through diplomacy?

2- How would the powerful Israeli lobby and other Jewish and Zionist groups respond to an American administration that, in spite of these group’s great propaganda efforts, might not view the interests of both nations as being one and the same at all times and in all cases?

President George W. Bush, in his recent visit to Israel to commemorate the 60^th anniversary of the establishment of the Jewish state, made a loaded political statement that defines his and John McCain’s position. He said that there are some, clearly meaning Mr. Obama, who wrongly maintain that we could negotiate with the terrorists! He then compared Iran’s President Ahmadinejad to Hitler.

The Israeli hawks, of course, salivate when they hear things like that. To the Zionist hardliners, “terrorists” comprise any group or state that opposes Israel’s regional agendas, the same groups and states that the United States, by extension, also labels as terrorist.

This certainly implies that Mr. Obama, as he has already stated on many occasions, is ready to open negotiations with, for example, Iran, without any preconditions. To Mr. McCain who prefers to follow current administration’s policies, as well as the Israeli hardliners’ mandates of refusing to negotiate with “terrorists” , the only path is open warfare. Mrs. Clinton would consider negotiations but only under certain preconditions; in other words, negotiating, not as equals, but from a position of authority and dominance dictating the terms - a no-starter as far as the Iranians are concerned, and rightly so.

Here, Mr. Obama’s position has much broader appeal among the war-torn Islamic populations of the Middle East. Will this prove to be Obama’s Achilles’ heel? Will the cautious endorsement by Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran as the lesser of the potential evils among the rivals for America’s presidency prove as risqué for him as the endorsements by Reverend Jeremiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan? That will all depend on the voters and their perceptions of our failures or successes in our Middle East policies during George W. Bush’s term.

Will Barack Obama be, first of all, willing, and secondly, capable of pursuing foreign policies that are aimed at procuring America’s best strategic interests, whatever they might be? From what he has said while campaigning, he sounds as though he does have a fair understanding of the realities that we have to recognize and deal with. But if we could safely assume that his rivals have access to the same knowledge, his more candid revelation of his position regarding these issues might simply signal his lack of experience in the domain of foreign policy – realpolitik - and its established machinations.

On the other side of the planet, our designated antagonists like to see a determined Obama in the White House, a diplomat who might be able to bring about meaningful changes in how effective diplomacy is carried out, and not as a well-meaning but ineffective fool gushing with immature exuberance.

Should Obama be our next Commander in Chief, the same inquisitors that have been scrutinizing his unquestioned commitment to Israeli interests will certainly redouble their efforts to guide America’s policies in the Middle East into the same old channel, bypassing in one way or another the new president’s stated commitments and preferences.

Thus far, no US administration has been able to sideline the passionate attachment to the Israeli interests, even when these interests have been in clear violation of international norms and, worse yet, America’s own strategic interests and laws. President Carter has only been able to voice his honest opinions openly, as reflected in his book, Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid, years after leaving office.

Jimmy Carter, just as is the case with most critics of this blind love affair, is of the opinion that Israel’s own honest best interests are being compromised by the hawkish policies of both the Labor and the Likud regimes. While opposition to Israel’s aggressive treatment of the Palestinians and expansion of its illegal settlements is openly voiced by many of Israel’s own intellectuals and politicians, such voices are seldom heard here in the United States.

It is perhaps the hope that a President Obama might be able to focus America’s efforts toward a fair and just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis or to some conciliatory rapprochement with America’s designated enemies such as Iran, which our antagonists in the Islamic Middle East do not see in either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Most certainly, it is not his Islamic middle Name, Hussein, or the color of his skin that some believe might be taken for his understanding and sympathy for the plight of the underdog.

Ironically, one thing that seems to generate that sympathy among the region’s Arab and Islamic populations is the very fact that the Jewish inquisitors show concerns about his total loyalty and commitment to their own cause.

Should Mr. Obama actually break his repeated vows of allegiance to the Israeli cause and attempt to enter any level of rapprochement with the likes of Iran, he will be facing tremendous challenges from the established power centers in Washington.

The first challenge will be to find ways to pacify, contain and defuse the Israeli regime’s ace-up-its-sleeve, which is the option of attacking Iran “preemptively” in the guise of defending itself against a fictitious “existential threat” by a nuclear-armed enemy. Israel has already received the green light from the Vice President on more than one occasion, and has been more than encouraged by the President’s recent remarks at the Israeli Knesset.

Failure to contain Israel would mean that the United States will be implicated directly in any military assault by the Jewish state upon the Islamic Republic of Iran, the outcome of which is sure to prove highly undesirable as far as the United States’ interests are concerned, not to mention its disastrous results for the Iranian nation and the region as a whole.

Perhaps the best way to appease Israel and its staunch supporters here is to offer even broader economic, diplomatic and military support for the Jewish state and, more importantly, to step back from any pressure on Israel to commit itself to any compromises toward a peace settlement with the Palestinians.

This is what the Israeli government wants; a continuation and even an escalation of full scale support by the American administration, an open-ended postponement of any meaningful resolution of the Palestinian issues, non-stop expansion of illegal settlements and, ultimately, the total marginalization of any militant opposition to the Israel’s policies.

Appeasement of Israel is the key that might ultimately stop the countdown to the Biblical Armageddon.

This is, in my opinion, why we have been observing a crescendo of hostile rhetoric out of Washington against Iran as we get closer to the end of George Bush’s term in office. As far as the Israeli regime is concerned, its best opportunity to assure achieving its objectives is while the current American administration and its “decider” are in charge. The louder these totally unsubstantiated allegations against Tehran are voiced, the less likely that the Israelis might take matters into their own hands.

Both Washington and Tel Aviv know fully well that Iran is not now, and will not be in the future should it even achieve nuclear weapons capability, a realistic threat against Israel or the United States forces in the area, let alone America’s mainland as some of the alarmists claim.

Keeping this charade going in the public domain serves two main objectives: First, maintaining this theatrical balancing act would, in the minds of the American people, earn the gratitude of the United States toward an ally that has refrained from taking a justifiable action to protect itself, now deserving of anything it could ask for to compensate for its self-sacrifice. Second, knowing that an American attack on the Iranian targets will have catastrophic consequences for all concerned, and understanding that a sudden change in the ongoing rhetoric against Iran would shock the American public and discredit the Republican administration beyond repair, the hope is to maintain the holding pattern until the baton is passed at the upcoming presidential elections. It would then be the new administration’s cross to bear.

Once the Israelis are assured of all or even more than what they demand, there will be a gradual de-escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran. There is some evidence in the background of the political goings-on that might indicate such a turn around is already underway.

For the past several years, credible observers and journalist have been predicting an imminent military attack on Iran by the Unites States, with or without Israel. On several occasions a timetable was even set in these predictions. Such predictions have not only continued, but intensified in recent months as we approach the end of the current administration’s term. World renowned investigative reporters such as Seymour Hersh, and experienced foreign policy observers like Scott Ritter among many others, consider an attack on Iran inevitable, definitely before the November elections.

If my analysis is correct, I insist, as I have done all this time, that an attack on Iran is not in the books. The only thing that might prove me wrong is the potential failure of Barack Obama and the new Democratic cabinet to come short of Israel’s and its Zionist supporters’ full expectations. Obama has been doing his best to sound as unyielding in his rhetoric regarding the Middle East and Iran as his opponents. While he talks about entering a dialog with America’s (actually Israel’s) antagonists, he never hesitates to announce his view that Iran is, in fact, the biggest threat to America’s security in the region.

Does Barack Obama really think that Iran is a threat of any magnitude? He might be inexperienced in matters of foreign policy, but he is certainly not a gullible ignoramus. When he said recently in a short televised debate with John McCain that he did not believe Iran was as big a threat to America’s security as was the former Soviet Union, Mr. McCain cringed in clear incredulity. What a charade!

But does McCain truly believe that Iran is such a menace to American security and to peace in the Middle East? I doubt it very much. The guy might be an experienced manipulating politician as they all are, but I am sure he is far from being senile or plain dumb!

The question is, what could either McCain or Obama say publicly other than what they have that would not torpedo their chances in their campaign for presidency and, at the same time, prevent another regional catastrophe much worse than the quagmire we are in now? Of course, the tougher the rhetoric against the designated enemies, the better the results!

At the end, mature and sane diplomacy will hopefully win the day: the hardliner McCain, should he be the “decider”, shall then credit this victory in avoiding another war to his unbending resolve, while Obama, as a negotiator, would go down in history as a capable president and a true diplomat.

I also have no doubt that behind the doors negotiations have been and continue to be carried out between the antagonists. That has always been the case. The backdrop of hate speech, saber rattling, accusations and negative imageries makes it impossible to stage such discussions in the open.

The bottom line is, nobody would prefer death and destruction if issues of contention could be resolved in more peaceful ways. Who wouldn’t prefer to carry out their own agendas in peace? The only problem is, without a high enough price to pay as a consequence, the stronger contender would inevitably press for advantage in any negotiation.

Is it that hard to understand why Iran is trying to demonstrate to its adversaries that they would indeed have a heavy price to pay if they insist on advancing from mere push to shove?

In the domain of realpolitik the principle of the Biblical Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have done unto you, is rephrased to, do unto others before they could do it unto you!

Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton may be a lot of things, some not so complementary; but one thing she is not, she is definitely not stupid. This, of course, is true of the rest of them, as well.

The case in point is her comments about “obliterating” Iran should the Iranians attack Israel. Senator Obama criticized his rival Democrat for using harsh terms like “obliterate” to describe America’s reaction in such a hypothetical event. Obama was confronted with the same question later on network TV in order to compare his reaction to an Iranian assault on Israel with what Senator Clinton had stated.

His response was much more “measured” but, as was totally expected, just as committed to the defense of Israel as was Mrs. Clinton’s. Any attack on “America’s best friend and ally” would be regarded as an attack on the United States, according to Mr. Obama.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, was quoted by the Jerusalem Post as saying that America "has been at Israel's side for all of 60 years, it will be for the next 60 years, 100 years and 1,000 years.”

The response to questions regarding America’s commitment to the support for Israel is not the issue here. Of course America must stand by a friend and ally; that is what international alliances are for. What was then the true hidden motive behind the question asked Hillary Clinton, and the reason she responded the way she did.

She, as well as Mr. Obama, John McCain, Admiral Mullen and other high profile political figures in the Administration, knows fully well that Iran is not in any position to launch a nuclear attack on anybody. They all know that even if Iran did manage to acquire nuclear weapons, any attack on Israel would mean its own destruction with or without America’s help.

The point to ponder is why such a loaded question was ever asked in the first place. Are we supposed to assume that such a proposition has some reasonable likelihood of actually happening? Why didn’t some visionary journalist ask the candidates what they would do as the president if China or Russia fired nuclear tipped missiles at the United States? There is a lot more likelihood of that happening than Iran launching a suicidal attack on nuclear armed Israel.

And why didn’t that brilliant visionary ask Mrs. Clinton how she would respond if Iran launched an atomic warhead on American soil? Wouldn’t that have been the same as attacking Israel, and with the same degree of probability – meaning zero?

There are some observers who say that most of these propaganda routines are designed to create a degree of ambiguity in the minds of our adversaries in order to keep them guessing as to our intentions and resolve. The recently revealed Presidential Finding that authorizes unprecedented, broad, covert operations by the United States against Iran, and funded in a closed session of the US Senate, is supposed to scare the hell out of the Iranian regime and keep them preoccupied by wondering where, when and how troubles might break out.

Similarly, the episode of the bathtub sized Iranian speedboats “harassing” the American aircraft carriers near the Straits of Hormuz, where Admiral Fallon personally prevented the gunners from blowing the little troublemakers out of the waters, was supposed to send a message to the Iranians that the situation might be different the next time around!

Now the allegations are escalating once again that Iranian arms are responsible for killing Americans – clearly an act of war! – and that Iranian-backed Hezbollah and even Hamas are training Iraqi insurgents inside Iran. This is also a potential rationale to attack Iran and is clearly intended to put the Iranians on notice.

Well, such strategies didn’t work in Vietnam, haven’t scared North Korea, and are not likely to change anything inside Iran, either.

Some analysts, on the other hand, are of the opinion that this kind of saber rattling is designed to pacify the paranoid Israelis and keep them from taking matters in their own hands by attacking Iran preemptively before Iran has a chance of acquiring the dreaded nuclear weapons. America’s aggressive posturing against Iran is supposed to give the Israelis the assurances they need that Iran will never be able to pose an existential threat to Israel.

It would rank as sophomoric incompetence if this charade had been devised to disorient the Iranian government or to pacify the Israeli regime. But in the heat of campaigning for one of the most consequential elections in years, pandering to public opinion to gain votes might make resorting to foolish scenarios and outright deception a fair game.

American public’s perception of Iran as the chief troublemaker and threat against America’s interests has been successfully honed through well orchestrated and methodical efforts by groups and lobbies whose interests and those of the United States, contrary to how they pretend, are not the same.

The portrayal of Iran as a regional demon intent on acquiring the ultimate weapon in order to gain unchallenged dominance and to dictate its will upon the rest of the Middle East helps not just Israel, but also the “moderate” compliant, and shaky, Arab regimes that clearly lack the support of their own populations. Israel is thus guaranteed unquestioned and, for practical purposes, unlimited economic and military support from the United States, its very lifeline. The subordinate Arab rulers, meanwhile, can enjoy full protection under the umbrella of American power and presence, and enjoy their wealth, longevity or both at the expense of their disenfranchised populations and in spite of all their human rights violations.

It is, therefore, clear that when Hillary Clinton threatens to “obliterate” Iran in response to an Iranian attack upon Israel, no matter how utterly stupid the scenario might be, she is simply pandering to the public opinion in order to get elected. After all, not only does showing animosity and anger against Iran not carry any adverse consequences, it actually helps show the so-called national security concerns and qualifications of the candidate among the bovine public.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all know fully well that without the support of the Israeli lobby and the Jewish money and influence in the news and entertainment media, getting elected to any position in this country is not in the books. She, like the others, would say anything to boost her position in her battle for the presidency of the United States. She knows fully well that she will never face the decision to “obliterate” Iran should Iran nuke Israel. So what harm could that statement do since the situation will never arise?

I am not rising in defense of Hillary Clinton here. As expected of any politician, she does and says anything that might push her ahead of her competition. Most campaign statements and promises go the way of another campaigner’s pledge of “Read my lips; no new taxes”; - remember?

The game is simply to gain the necessary lift by blowing much hot air and making promises that, even if you honestly intend to keep, may have little chance of being fulfilled.

Finally, regarding Hillary’s threats of “obliterating” Iran, all I can say is, Much ado about nothing!

The following is quoted from an article that appeared recently in the Israeli paper, Haaretz, which unlike its counterpart, Jerusalem Post, tends to reflect a more even handed account of the international news; it at least shows a glimpse of the other side’s position!

“In a new round in the war of words between Jerusalem and Tehran, the Iranian army's deputy chief threatened Tuesday to respond to any military attack from Israel by 'eliminating' it.

The U.S. State Department said on Tuesday that the comments showed the international community was right to sanction Iran.

It is ‘more unbelievable rhetoric out of the leadership of the Iranian government about attacking a fellow member of the United Nations,’ State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. ‘Any civilized person finds that disturbing.’

Iran's Deputy Chief of Staff Mohammed Rada Ashtiani was quoted earlier by the semi-official Iranian news agency Mehr as saying: ‘If Israel wants to take any action against the Islamic Republic, we will eliminate Israel from the scene of the universe... Our answer to any military attack against Iran will be strong.’

Ashtiani was speaking at a press conference to mark ‘Army Day,’ which will take place on April 17. He was referring to recent drills carried out by the Israel Defense Forces and the civilian population.

‘As the President [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] has said, we have the motivation to defend the borders of our country," he added.

According to the officer, the Iranian armed forces are in a situation which does not allow to mount an attack on Iran via land.

The Iranian officer's comments came after Minister of National Infrastructures Benjamin Ben-Eliezer last week warned Iran that ‘an Iranian attack on Israel will lead to a harsh response by Israel that will cause the destruction of the Iranian nation.’

In turn, Tehran blasted Ben-Eliezer's comments as ‘scandalous’ and ‘insulting’ in a complaint to the United Nations.”

Israeli threats to “destroy the Iranian nation” in a retaliatory strike should Iran attack Israel seems perfectly acceptable to the US State Department. However, its spokesman, Sean McCormack, is voicing his strong condemnations against the Iranian officials when they respond in kind.

It should also be noted that the Israeli regime has been quite blatantly threatening a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear industries for many years now. One reason the Israelis have not carried out these threats as yet is the fear of some retaliatory response by Iran and its regional allies, as it doesn’t take much to cause significant damage to Israel due to its small size and population concentrations. The other reason, possibly wishful thinking in my part, has been some backstage bargaining and arm-twisting by the US State Department to keep that unpredictable pit bull from getting America involved in yet another catastrophic quagmire in the oil rich Middle East.

Of course, we seem to be worried about the Iranians because Iran is a “rogue” country. Let’s see what “rogue” means: A rogue state is one that carries out its own agenda without giving a damn about the international law or other states’ welfare and interests. A rogue state violates accepted international norms, attacks, invades or occupies other peoples’ territories, and considers itself above the universal codes and standards that other nations are held to. Well, hellllllo! Now, who’s calling the kettle black?

When the Iranians announced their successful launching of some weather satellite a year or so ago, the Israelis raised alarms that this satellite might be able to spy on the Israeli territories and regarded that as an aggressive move by Iran. Of course the older as well as the more recent Israeli satellites, openly and officially launched to spy over the Iranian territories, are not supposed to be regarded as hostile moves against Iran!

A recent article in Washington Post has exposed yet another behind the scenes deal between the United States, in the person of the President himself, and the former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, in 2005. While on the surface America is striving to broker a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians, George Bush has given the green light to the Israelis to expand their illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank.

The globally condemned and clearly unjustified destruction and occupation of Iraq, now the subject of criticism by the Democratic presidential candidates, was aimed at and expected to bring Iran closer to capitulation or, at the very least, a regime change suitable to the so-perceived interests of the United States. The war on Iraq, as well as the designs for Iran (and Syria), were anything but serving America’s best interests; the only interests they were designed to serve were those of the regional parasite, Israel.

So, there we are, our enormous air, land and sea forces, the most formidable military machine in the world, surrounding on all sides a country we have been blatantly threatening with war, with our current and future leaders muscle flexing against it to gain favor among their constituents; and we are expecting for the Iranians to crawl on their knees and beg for mercy!

When they, instead, try to exert their influence among their sympathizers and co-religionists inside their war-torn neighboring land, their interference is somehow viewed as illogical or hard to understand: in other words, how dare they resist or oppose our mission in their neighborhood, or attempt to keep us from overthrowing their regime or devastating their socioeconomic infrastructure? One might wonder what we would do if Russia or China took over Mexico and amassed their air, land and sea forces at our southern borders, openly threatening to do some unpleasant things to our nation. Would we sit still or crawl on our knees and beg for mercy? I wouldn’t!

So, what does our Secretary of Defense, Gates, mean when he “ blames Iran for the killing of US troops in Iraq”? Isn’t it true that what he is rightly or wrongly blaming the Iranians for doing is exactly what we would do in their position, i.e., providing support for their sympathizers in order to protect their own security and self-interests?

Then we hear the presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, respond to a rather diabolically concocted question on network television, by proclaiming that as the President of the United States, “if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel”, "we would be able to totally obliterate them."

That’s fine; Israel is a highly “influential” friend and ally and we have obligated ourselves to rise to its defense, or else! But why ask such a hypothetical, utterly dumb and inflammatory question in the first place? And why volunteer to respond in such monstrous terms out of hand? “Obliterating” an entire nation, perhaps 75 million people, Mrs. Clinton? You must really need those special votes real bad!

The question that begs to be asked, and never is, should be, What would this presidential candidate or the other two “patriots”, Obama and McCain, do if Israel were to launch a nuclear attack on Iran? Remember, this is not nearly as hypothetical a question; unlike Iran, Israel has both the means and the determination to do exactly that if or when it could get away with it. Would any of our honorable presidential candidates dare to even denounce such a proposition, let alone threaten to “obliterate” the aggressor? I don’t think so.

Perhaps one could wonder what would happen if Israel’s Dimona nuclear sites were attacked, the same way Israel attacked Syria’s site by invading the air space of a sovereign nation and a member of the United Nations, in clear violation of international law. Israel did that out of mere suspicion that the Syrian nuclear plant might produce nuclear fuel that could be used someday for weapons development. The Israeli nuclear industries have already produced quite an arsenal of nuclear bombs. Shouldn’t the neighboring countries be alarmed by the Jewish State’s capabilities to strike at will and with total impunity anytime the Israelis perceive a threat or find any development “suspicious”, when their track record indicates that they would?

Then, why didn’t those regional Arab states embark on a dangerous arms race and rush to acquire their own nuclear weapons when the Israeli nuclear capabilities were so well-known by all? How come we are so concerned that the “suspected” Iranian nuclear programs might lead to a dangerous nuclear arms proliferation among the otherwise peaceful Arab countries?

And finally, a recent internet movie, Fitnah, by a Dutch film maker attempts to draw parallels between certain rather ambiguous Ghor’anic verses and terrorist acts by Moslem extremists. Although practically every Islamic society has denounced the film as an assault on Islam, the Dutch government has refused to criticize this production and no attempt has been made to ban its showing in the enlightened Europe.

To show how the material from any holy scripture can be taken out of context and misused for public deception, a Saudi businessman has recently produced a similar internet film. Here, he has sited numerous unambiguous Biblical Chapters and Verses, where the believers in the “Religion of Peace” were granted the right and indeed ordered to commit merciless genocide against the entire populations, men, women and children alike, and to plunder their possessions.

This production, however, was condemned as inappropriate by the same “enlightened” cultures that champion the right of free speech. Although it can still be viewed on the internet, no one knows how much longer that will last.

Ever since Mahmood Ahmadinejad was elected the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I don’t recall anyone here, Iranian or American, or any visitor from Iran – those who had the wherewithal to travel to the United States – commenting on the man in favorable terms.

Is there really something wrong with the Iranian President? He has been called names that cover a wide spectrum of uncomplimentary connotations, from firebrand to crazy and even Hitler incarnate, depending on who does the name calling.

Some of his statements both at home and during his travels - as always embellished, mistranslated and exaggerated by the media - have caused quite a stir in the international community. Even many of his supporters at home have criticized him for some of his undiplomatic or, to put it mildly, politically incorrect utterances that have given his detractors abroad stronger pretexts to raise concern about Iran’s political agendas and direction.

Of course, this concern about Iran’s direction or regional and global ambitions are misplaced for two reasons: First, the President, according to Iran’s Constitution, does not have the authority to declare war and has no jurisdiction over Iran’s military and foreign policy. Second, even if he did have such powers, the real “decider”, regardless of who the President might be, is the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.

Be that as it may, let us somewhat objectively examine Mr. Ahmadinejad, whose term as President of the Islamic Republic of Iran is expiring soon, at about the same time as George W. Bush’s term here.

Mr. Ahmadinejad does not look presidential; he is very short, often totally dwarfed by his entourage, he wears clothes that seem too casual to suit the position of a head of state, and his looks and mannerism reflect the earthly air of a small town folksy atmosphere that the urban aristocrats look upon as unsophisticated. What brought him to political prominence from his background as the son of a small town blacksmith was the combination of his energy, shrewdness, his strong faith in Shi’a Islam and his folksy appeal to the less privileged.

His former counterpart, Mr. Khatami, was, in spite of his clerical garb, quite “presidential”, indeed. He was highly sophisticated, well mannered, soft spoken and with a much milder demeanor. Mr. Khatami was regarded as a man of understanding, a proponent of social reforms at home and political reconciliation and rapprochement with foes abroad. He championed the idea of “dialogue of civilizations”, to replace internecine antagonism and conflict between the West and the East that continues to threaten world peace.

But we all saw the effects of showing the softer, more conciliatory side of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the unyielding power centers of global dominance. Pressures, demands and accusations against Iran continued or actually intensified as Khatami’s less hostile stance was viewed as a sign that Iran’s resolve might be weakening. As the size of the carrots shrank, the sticks gained added dimension.

What was required, indeed demanded, of Iran never changed. It mattered little whether these demands were fair, logical, legal under international law, or even possible for a sovereign nation to accommodate. The United States continued to reject out of hand any attempt to enter a diplomatic dialogue with Iran to resolve points of contention, even when Iran’s readiness to engage the US was clearly signaled more than once.

Under these circumstances, what could a moderate Khatami or a firebrand Ahmadinejad possibly do to change the equations of hostility that increasingly threaten the regional or even the international peace and security? Short of total unconditional capitulation and compliance, nothing!

The stated issues of concern by the so-called international community (“international community” here means the United States and its regional surrogate, Israel) include Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions and its support for international terrorist organizations, namely Hamas and Hezbollah. Other issues are Iran’s destabilizing involvement in the neighboring Iraq, as well as Iran’s designs to dominate the entire oil rich region.

With regard to Iran’s nuclear project, even if Iran were to be pursuing a weapons development program, there is hardly any doubt in any sane or impartial observer’s mind that the purpose of having such weapons would be to discourage an attack on its soil. This makes a lot more sense than alleging that Iran is governed by a group of suicidal maniacs who are determined to nuke Israel the first chance they get and await the annihilation of their nation in return.

Iran’s support for the so-called terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, would be objectionable except for two caveats:

One; both groups represent the largest factions of their respective societies and are mostly involved in providing services that would not be available to their citizenries at large otherwise. Both also have militant elements that use whatever means available to them to confront, and retaliate against, Israeli atrocities and transgressions on their populations and territories. Two; clandestinely or openly supporting militant groups, labeled as terrorists or freedom fighters, in order to cause concern or to inflict pain on ones enemies is a routine practice throughout the world. American support for the terror group MEK (listed as a terrorist group by the State Department) to cause problems for Iran is an example. The grossly ignored fact that America’s economic, military and diplomatic support for Israel constitutes aiding and abetting Israel’s violations of international law, is another. Let us not forget that Israel is the only country whose official government policy of targeted assassination of its perceived enemies and its so-labeled preemptive attacks on sovereign states constitute international terrorism.

So, Mr. Ahmadinejad has concluded that Israel or, as he prefers to call it, the Zionist entity, is Iran’s chief antagonist because the Islamic Republic has dared to stand in the way of Israel’s unchallenged regional supremacy. He has also concluded that America’s hostile and unbending posturing against his country, something that he believes is counter to America’s own best interests, is motivated by the Zionists who guide America’s policies in the Middle East.

This isn’t as though Ahmadinejad is a paranoid schizophrenic; he is in the company of many highly respected academics, politicians and diplomats, including the former President, Jimmy Carter, who have similar sentiments.

The only difference is that President Ahmadinejad speaks his mind, while others engage in the more politically correct utterances or make no mention of it to protect themselves against some of the most ruthless defamatory and slanderous attacks by the powerful pro-Israel groups.

Clearly, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s unmeasured comments about the Holocaust or the disappearance of the “regime of occupation”, did in no way change the current or the intensity of hostile rhetoric against Iran for which his bold remarks could be blamed.

Yes, Mr. Ahmadinejad has made, and continues to make, some unsubstantiated comments, such as his most recent remarks questioning the detailed accounts of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings. But so has President Bush, actually on more occasions than has the Iranian president. Taking into account the fact that the US president’s opinions and remarks carry a lot more weight than does his Iranian counterpart’s, makes one wonder which one poses a greater threat as a result of his callousness or misinformation.

George W. Bush has said publicly on at least two occasions that the Iranians have declared their intentions to develop nuclear weapons! This statement is, unlike President Ahmadinejad’s vague statements, not subject to interpretation. Mr. Bush’s remarks that Iran is the number one state sponsor of international terrorism, or that the Iranian officials have declared their intentions to produce the bomb, do not contain any ambiguities. What is more, the American Commander in Chief is in a position to inflict real harm upon the Iranian nation, something that Ahmadinejad is in no position to reciprocate.

I personally do not believe that George W. Bush says anything that he does not believe is true. The problem with the President is his utter disregard for facts; he simply doesn’t know that what he says may not be true!

Against this background, could a kinder, gentler Iranian leader have succeeded in defusing the international tension between the West and Iran? Could a more resilient and diplomatically talented Iranian president have brought about a meaningful rapprochement between the United States and Iran?

If anything, a less confrontational posturing by the Iranian government would have emboldened the hardliners, neocons and pro-Israel activists who are in the driver’s seat here to exploit any visible cracks in Iran’s resolve for a final assault.

What Mr. Ahmadinejad has done during his tenure has been to exhibit the naked, raw and crude side of a nation that refuses to acknowledge or bow to the mandates of a superpower from a position of weakness or subservience. This attitude hasn’t tipped the scale in Iran’s disfavor in the international scene in any way, while it has, at the same time, reinforced a people’s national pride as a consequential force to be recognized and reckoned with.

Ahmadinejad does not enjoy much popularity among the moneyed upper crest, the Western oriented or the aristocracy in Iran, and many among the bourgeoisie and the downtrodden are disappointed at his failure to deliver on his promises of economic betterment. Yet he is highly admired by the masses at home, for the same reasons that his popularity among the masses in other Islamic countries, even the non-Shi’a Arabs, has been soaring. They all see him as representing a presence, unlike their own despised leaders, that dared to stand boldly against the most ominous adversaries on earth.

It is with a sense of admiration and pride when we watch Mel Gibson meet his end in the motion picture Brave Heart. The little figure representing Iran’s image in the media might not be regarded in the same light; but like it or not, he is leaving a similar legacy in that part of the world for his people and those who look up to him. He most represents those who believe in the Shi’a axiom: Don’t take a beating lying down!