01-06-2010

Israel's Useful Idiot, Iran's President "Jewish Roots" Mahmoud "closet zioni$t" Ahmadinejad Orders Opposition Leader's Nephew Assassinated - Obama Tells US Senate "Pocket Iran Sanctions because it Helps our zioni$t Ahmadinejad Stay in Charge"

1-05-10 Iran welcomes Clinton comments on nuclear talks The Obama Administration wants Iran's Ahmadinejad to stay president of Iran so as a publicity stunt to help Ahmadinejad stay in Office Hillary has told Iran the Administration has eliminated the deadline for holding nuclear talks. As soon as Ahmadinejad has Moussavi murdered then the Obama will start talking nuking Iran again. Ahmadinejad as a closet zioni$t is important to the Obama Adminstration and is doing everything in its power to keep Admadinejad president of Iran.

Someone in Iran needs to do the world a favor and assassinate Mahmoud "closet zioni$t" Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is working for the bad guys, Rothschilds Rockefellers Omega Agency, to destroy Iran. The bad guys nuking Iran, stealing Iran's oil and gas and giving it to the Rothschilds' France, is clearly a dot on the path to making the United States a bad guys' communi$t police state as well.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week had the nephew of Prime Minister of Iran from 1981 to 1989 Moussavi assassinated.

The New York Times wants Ahmadinejad to stay Iran's President. They and the zioni$t press connect "Moussavi and Martyr" at every breath - a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration - because martyr carries with it negative connotations and zioni$t hope their use of the term "martyr" will encourage Ahmadinejad to order the assassination of Moussavi just as zioni$t$ are delighted Ahmadinejad had Moussavi's nephew assassinated. Throughout the New York Times article is found the favorable slant towards Ahmadinejad, NYT's article posted below, even spelling Moussavi's first name "Hussein" to make readers think he is connected with Saddam Hussein, when in fact Moussavi's name is actually,

. Why does the New York Times want Iran's Ahmadinejad to remain President of Iran when the New York Times is sympathetic toward Israel and Israel consistently bad mouths Ahmadinejad. War is deception. Israel put Ahmadinejad in office as President of Iran because Ahmadinejad was born Jewish and is a closet zioni$t. Ahmadinejad runs his mouth against israel because Ahmadinejad knows his rants against Israel will lead to Israel nuking Iran and killing many non zioni$t$ who live in Iran.

Ahmadinejad blames his problems on Great Britain and the United States

when if fact Ahmadinejad problems come from the fact he is a "zioni$t" fighting to destroy Iran and the people of Iran know it. Logic dictates every Republican Guard General's death main lines back to Ahmadinejad giving the information necessary for the killers, usually Israel, to strike and kill Republican Guard Generals and soldiers. Logic dictates the secretes which embarrass Iran are given from Ahmadinejad to Israel. Logic dictates Ahmadinejad played an important role in feeding Israel's SS information so they could engage in Abu Ghraib sexual torture of Arabs and Persians and get away with it. Ahmadinejad is particularly important to General Petraeus in Yemen as Ahmadinejad feeds him information on Yemen Shiites which make him look smart, and killing Shiites easy.

comrade Obama has been briefed by General Petraeus as to how important comrade Ahmadinejad is to nuking Iran, killing our brave kids in uniform, and makig war on the United States. Iran Opposition Leader Moussavi is particularly against Obama's sanction Iran initiatives and Iran sanctions are to some degree seen as the result of Iran electing Ahmadinejad president.

President Obama, to help Ahmadinejad stay Iran's President, has put Iran sanctions on hold in the US Senate

It is clear the New York Times, along with President Obama, are working hard to keep Ahmadinejad president of Iran. The New York Times is basically asking for and gloating Ahmadinejad on to have Moussavi assassinated and the President has put Iran sanctions on hold until Moussavi is killed, or if Ahmadinejad is unable to have Moussavi killed, to help Ahmadinejad stay president of Iran. Clearly keeping Ahmadinejad president of Iran is important to the bad guys as they make war on the USA, rule the United States by Martial Law, and work hard to make General Petraeus our first Dictator in Chief.

Standoff in Iran Deepens With New Show of Force

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/world/middleeast/02iran.html?ref=world

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: January 1, 2010
CAIRO — Iranian authorities sent police officers into the streets to deter protests on Friday as Mir Hussein Moussavi, the principal opposition leader, said in a statement that he did not fear giving his life as “a martyr.”

Arash Ashourinia/A.F.P. — Getty Images
Mir Hussein Moussavi said he did not fear being “a martyr.”
The continuing show of force in the capital and Mr. Moussavi’s declaration, in which he said that even killing him would not end the unrest, were part of a day of charges, countercharges and warnings from both sides, illustrating the deep divisions that have emerged since Iran’s political crisis began six months ago.

The government and its hard-line supporters continued to rely on force, and the threat of force, to quell protests and demand loyalty, while the opposition refused to back down. There was no indication that compromise was on the agenda.

During Friday Prayer services in the capital, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, a fundamentalist cleric who leads the powerful Guardian Council, called protesters “flagrant examples of the corrupt on Earth” and effectively urged that they be executed as “in the early days of the revolution.”

Mr. Moussavi issued a statement on his Web site, kaleme.org, that took a broad swipe at the government for its use of force against civilian protesters. It also criticized the government’s handling of the economy and foreign policy and its failure to address institutional corruption.

Mr. Moussavi offered a prescription for the government to restore its lost legitimacy, calling for the release of political prisoners and the repair of electoral laws, as well as freedom of expression, assembly and the press.

Then he directly addressed those who in recent days called for him to be arrested and executed, along with other opposition leaders, like Mehdi Karroubi, the cleric and former Parliament speaker.

“I’m not afraid of being one of the post-election martyrs who lost their lives in their struggle for their rightful demands,” he said in the statement. “My blood is no different from that of other martyrs.”

But Mr. Moussavi also acknowledged what had become increasingly evident during recent events, that neither he nor Mr. Karroubi was actually in charge. Presenting himself as more of an analyst than a participant, Mr. Moussavi framed Iran’s internal conflict as one between the leadership and the people. It was a tactical move that apparently sought to take the opposition’s weakness — its lack of organization and leadership — and present it as a strength.

“I say openly that orders to execute, kill or imprison Karroubi and Moussavi will not solve the problem,” he said.

Mr. Moussavi’s nephew, Ali Moussavi, was killed during clashes on Sunday in what the opposition says was a government-sanctioned assassination.

The nephew was buried Wednesday in Behesht-eh Zahra cemetery in Tehran amid tight security in which phones were jammed and plainclothes agents mingled with mourners, according to the Rouydad News Web site.

Iran has been locked in conflict since its disputed presidential election in June, when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared a landslide victory. That led to widespread protests charging fraud, and the government responded with a crackdown. Since then, Iran has been caught in an increasingly hostile stalemate.

“The reform movement won’t die, but it also can’t unite,” said an Iran expert who said he needed to remain anonymous to maintain relations with officials inside Iran. “The regime retains control, but can’t put out the opposition. So it’s a seesaw battle.”

Both sides have stuck with established strategies. The opposition continues to take advantage of public holidays and religious observances as an opportunity to protest. The government, meanwhile, has tried to transform itself into a more efficient police state with efforts to professionalize the pro-government Basij militia, for example.

Last Sunday, those two strategies exploded when tens of thousands protested in the streets during the Ashura holiday, chanting slogans calling for the death of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The authorities allowed security forces to fire into crowds of civilians; at least eight people were killed.

“In terms of longevity, this could go on for some time, but could also unravel quite quickly if the government loses its nerve,” said Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. “In this respect Khamenei is the key. He’s the equivalent of the shah and is similarly weak.”

Iran analysts said they were bracing for the next potential showdown on Feb. 11, the anniversary of Iran’s 1979 revolution.

On Friday, New Year’s Day, residents of Tehran woke to a police presence in central Tehran, with officers stationed at several major intersections and squares. The authorities also deployed civilian members of the Basij militia equipped with batons, riot helmets and shields.

Forces were concentrated at Vali Asr Square, Seventh Tir Square and Revolution Square. Motorcycle-mounted police and plainclothes forces were seen patrolling the stretch of road between Revolution Square and Freedom Square.

Photographs and reports were circulating on the Internet about new heavily armored police vehicles that were delivered to Tehran over the last few days. The reports said they were Chinese-made vehicles with twin water cannons capable of delivering powerful jets of hot and cold water, as well as chemical irritants.

The show of force came in tandem with threats of prosecution for the many opposition supporters who had been arrested, and those leaders who had not.

From the beginning of the crackdown in June, the authorities have accused Britain and the United States of instigating the civil unrest and helping to organize it as part of a plan to bring about a velvet revolution — charges that the West denied but that have resurfaced after Sunday’s protests.

On Thursday, Iran’s Intelligence Ministry issued “a stern warning, asking rioters not to be manipulated by foreigners seeking to once again dominate Iran,” according to the state-run Press TV.

Iran’s prosecutor general, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, warned opposition leaders on Thursday that they could face trial if they did not denounce this week’s antigovernment protests.

The deputy chief of judiciary, Ebrahim Raisi, told the official news agency IRNA on Thursday that those detained in Sunday’s unrest would be charged with violating public order and “mohareb,” meaning being enemies of God, a charge punishable by death.

But in his statement, Mr. Moussavi said the government’s hammer-fisted approach would only undermine its security. “Do they think that by removing the elite, intellectuals and activists from the political scene, and without addressing the roots of the problem, they will be able to return the country to the situation before the elections?” he asked.

He answered, “The results of terrorist acts will only rebound back to the center and make the current crisis insoluble.”

----------

Obama Putting Brakes on Senate Iran Sanctions Bill

http://washingtonindependent.com/71166/obama-putting-breaks-on-senate-iran-sanctions-bill

By SPENCER ACKERMAN 12/16/09 11:30 AM
Now that Rep. Howard Berman’s (D-Calif.) bill authorizing new energy-sector sanctions on Iran has passed the House, the Obama administration is looking to the Senate to cool things down. The Obama administration “didn’t tell me to go ahead, but they also didn’t tell me not to go ahead,” Berman told reporters yesterday. But the Senate is a different story. Josh Rogin reports:

Those discussions are based on a letter from Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-MA. In the letter, State asked Kerry to delay the Senate bill until next year so that the administration would have more time to prep for the “pressure track” and also to secure some changes to the legislation.

Kerry has sounded cautious notes on Iran sanctions for awhile. On the day that Iran’s hidden Qom enrichment facility was revealed, Kerry’s Foreign Relations Committee released a statement urging calm and deliberation before going the sanctions route: “We need to ensure that our unilateral efforts do not undermine the prospect for achieving tougher multilateral sanctions that will be most effective in bringing pressure to bear on Iran.” Members of the administration have told me the same thing, but they’ve never come out and opposed any of the congressional sanctions bills.

But Rogin reports that other senators — Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) — want the administration to clarify its concerns:

The bill as it stands gives the president the right to waive sanctions against third-party countries that are cooperating with U.S. efforts to confront Iran’s nuclear program. The administration wants those countries to be exempted from the start and then have sanctions applied only when necessary.

“The administration has not made a compelling argument as to why the waiver isn’t sufficient for them to avoid doing diplomatic harm to allies, in the case where companies within their jurisdictions are doing things that may become sanctionable,” the aide said. “That’s what the waiver is there for.”

--------------

Obama Administration Prepares Iran Sanction Options

http://washingtonindependent.com/71561/obama-administration-prepares-iran-sanction-options

Working Groups Quietly Determining 'What Is Doable' to Attract International Support
By SPENCER ACKERMAN 12/21/09 6:00 AM

President Obama accepts the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Dec. 10. (Guido Ohlenbostel/Action Press/ZUMA Press)
A year’s worth of diplomatic outreach to Iran is on the verge of eclipse, thanks to consistent Iranian refusals to accept President Obama’s offers for a new relationship. As a result, Obama administration officials and their international partners are preparing a package of economic sanctions against Iran for 2010. They prefer to work through the United Nations Security Council, but are prepared to work around it if necessary. Absent a major diplomatic breakthrough in the next few days,new sanctions are considered a near inevitability.

Two senior administration officials, Undersecretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey and Undersecretary of State William Burns, have for months quietly assembled working groups across the government to determine what a sanctions package might contain. The groups examine Iranian vulnerabilities across a variety of economic sectors, “everything from energy to IRGC [the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, an influential and ideological branch of the Iranian military] to financial sector” activity, said a knowledgeable U.S. official who requested anonymity to discuss the unsettled contours of administration policy. The House of Representatives last week approved a bill giving Obama new authority to enact additional unilateral sanctions on Iran’s energy imports.

Image by: Matt Mahurin

The goal of the new sanctions will be “what is doable” in terms of attracting international support, the U.S. official said, and what “can change Iranian behavior,” particularly over Iran’s nuclear program, which the United States and its allies fear is designed to yield a nuclear weapon.
The U.S. has placed a variety of trade sanctions on Iran ever since a largely anti-American regime came to power in Iran in 1979. Those sanctions have failed to moderate or influence Iranian behavior, largely because they are uncoordinated with Iran’s trading partners — something the Obama administration wishes to rectify with new multilateral sanctions. As much as Obama has said he wanted to explore a new relationship with Iran, Obama said also that even unsuccessful good-faith diplomatic outreach would help bring reluctant nations in line with more punitive U.S. measures. “If we show ourselves willing to talk and to offer carrots and sticks in order to deal with these pressing problems — and if Iran then rejects any overtures of that sort — it puts us in a stronger position to mobilize the international community to ratchet up pressure on Iran,” he said in Israel in April 2008.

In late November, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors voted to censure Iran for its lack of transparency over the program, a move seen as a prelude to a concerted international sanctions effort. Both China and Russia, the two permanent members of the U.N. Security Council least traditionally inclined toward punitive measures on Iran, voted for the censure.

Unless the Iranians unexpectedly accept a deal pushed by the U.S. and its allies before the end of the year to reprocess most of its uranium into a form unsuitable for a weapon, the sanctions push will begin in February, when France, whose government has harshly criticized Iranian nuclear intransigence, assumes its presidency of the Security Council. Still, it is unclear whether the United States and its allies will be able to secure Chinese and Russian support for the sanctions. “The administration is more optimistic than in the past and thinks we’ve moved them in the right direction,” said a U.S. official, who still declined to predict that the two countries would support sanctions.

According to both U.S. and European diplomats, a move in the Security Council authorizing sanctions — or even merely condemning Iran on its nuclear activities — would clear the way for a coalition of nations to enforce a sanctions package. A European diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the Security Council resolution itself was as important as convincing Iran’s major trading partners to back sanctions.

“Iran’s trade partners, particularly the EU, will add their own layers of sanctions,” the diplomat said. “Some countries will want at least a Security Council resolution to take their own sanctions,” naming South Korea, Japan and the United Arab Emirates. Those countries, along with the European Union, China, India and Russia, make up the vast majority of Iran’s international trading partners.

Among the most controversial of Obama’s positions in the 2008 presidential campaign was his pledge to pursue diplomacy without preconditions with traditional U.S. adversaries like Iran. That effort included at least one private letter from Obama addressed personally to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme Iranian leader, but was met only with rebuke. Administration officials had said throughout 2009 that they were pursuing a “dual track” approach to Iran — diplomatic outreach, combined with more punitive measures in the event outreach was unrequited — but the U.S. official admitted it was bitter to come to terms with Iranian rejection.

“It was disappointing,” the official said. “But the thing is that after the June 12th election, everyone was pretty skeptical.” The regime’s willingness to steal the June presidential election not only made it unlikely that it would accept a more productive relationship with the international community, the official continued, but “people were generally much less excited about engagement because it was so much more unsavory.”

Iranian dissident leaders have been vocal about their rejection of new international sanctions, fearing that the regime will use them as an excuse for additional pressure on the opposition. In response to a question from TWI about Iranian popular rejection of the sanctions, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, conceded that sanctions would harm the Iranian people but did not believe that harm should prevent the U.S. from sanctioning Iran. “The notion that you are going to have effective sanctions that don’t impact on the Iranian people, I don’t understand what that means,” said Berman, who sponsored a bill that overwhelmingly passed the House Tuesday giving Obama authority to place new unilateral sanctions on Iran.

But the U.S. official conceded that even sanctions focusing on the finances of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps could still have deleterious and problematic effects on the Iranian people. “It’s a fair critique,” the official said, since sanctions are “an imperfect tool.”

Even if the still-undesigned sanctions package attracts widespread international support, it is still unclear how it would compel the Iranian leadership to give up any unacknowledged ambition for nuclear weapons, and the U.S. official said it also unclear at this point what the Obama administration would consider a successful outcome. The European diplomat framed military action against Iran in opposition to the sanctions, not as their inevitable successor. “Some are afraid sanctions are a first step toward a more confrontational mode, but in fact all Europeans have the view that sanctions are a way of avoiding escalation,” the diplomat said. For years, the Israelis have threatened to attack Iran over its nuclear program.

But the Obama administration has not fully given up on the idea of a diplomatic breakthrough. “Sanctions without outreach – and condemnation without discussion – can carry forward a crippling status quo,” Obama said when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on Dec. 10. “No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.”

Obama did not specifically mention Iran in his speech, but the speech nevertheless gave a window into the administration’s thinking. “The door will always remain open,” the U.S. official said. “Sanctions are not an end onto itself. They are a means to an end of changing Iranian behavior and the administration is very aware of the trap of falling into a situation where sanctions become the goal and we forget the real goal.”