Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on The Huffington Post

Jamal Dajani: Ahmadinejad: Guns N' Roses

2008-11-14T10:34:34Z

There is nothing more exciting to watch on Iranian state-run television than another spectacular missile launch followed by a fiery speech by Ahmadinejad. Yet, the scenario is predictable.

On Wednesday, the Iranian armed forces successfully test fired a new generation of surface-to-surface missiles.

"The launch of the Sejil missile signifies Iran's determination to promote its conventional defense capability," announced Iran's Defense Ministry spokesman.

Addressing a large crowd in the northern city of Sari in Mazandaran Province, President Ahmadinejad cautioned Iran's enemies to avoid using the language of force against the Islamic Republic. He also warned possible invaders of a crushing response should they commit an act of aggression against Iran.

"The Iranian nation defends its honor and whichever power that wants to stand against the movement of the Iranian nation, the Iranian nation will crush it under its foot and slap it on the mouth," Ahmadinejad said.

His tone has quickly changed from the tone in the congratulatory letter he'd sent to President-elect Barack Obama just a week earlier.

What happened? Is this because Barack Obama has not responded yet?

The truth of the matter is: it is neither. Ahmadinejad has been standing on shaky ground for some time. He is being attacked openly in the Iranian media, something that could not have happened without the knowledge and approval of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Just recently, the Majlis (Iranian parliament) fired Interior Minister Ali Kordan, a friend and supporter of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for faking an honorary doctorate degree he had supposedly received from Oxford University. This, along with other allies being forced out from key government positions, has been weakening Ahmadinejad's chances for re-election next June. But this is not all; Iran's financial crisis and falling oil prices are becoming subjects of discontent amongst many in the Iranian elite. I recently watched a financial expert on Iranian Al Alam TV criticizing the Iranian president for his inability to deal with the country's financial crisis.

Now, much has also been said about the congratulatory letter Ahmadinejad sent to Obama.

Many analysts have warned that Obama "risked a trap with Ahmadinejad's letter," and recommended that it be ignored. Others suggested that the President-elect reply to it, but that he ought to take his time, in order to prevent Ahmadinejad from taking credit for beginning a dialogue with the United States without conditions, thereby rehabilitating his political standing. The problem with these two arguments is that Barack Obama, once sworn in as president next January, will find himself in no position to ignore Ahmadinejad or wait until the summer for a regime change in Iran.

Throughout his campaign, President-elect Barack Obama has promised to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months and to bolster forces battling Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan. Iran has the key for achieving these objectives.

The Islamic Republic maintains close ties with one of Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri el-Maliki's coalition partners, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, or ISCI, which was formed in Iran by Iraqi Shiite exiles. Without the support of ISCI, Maliki cannot maintain power. Iran has also been arming several Shiite factions in Iraq including Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army. Barack Obama will need the cooperation of the Iranians not to turn life in Iraq into hell once he decides to reduce U.S. combat troops there.

Also on the Afghanistan front, Barack Obama might need to cozy up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. According to a senior U.S. military official who was quoted in the Washington Post on condition of anonymity, "The Bush administration has kept Tehran at arm's length, but as we look to the future, it would be helpful to have an interlocutor to explore shared objectives."
What are these shared objectives?

There is no love lost between the Iranians and the Taliban. In 1998, a war between the Islamic Republic and the Taliban regime almost erupted after Taliban forces killed nine Iranian diplomats in the central Afghan city of Mazar el Sharif. Just this week an Iranian diplomat was abducted in Pakistan after his driver was shot dead. All leads point towards Taliban insurgents.

Once a deal is struck between the United States and Iran on Iraq and Afghanistan, discussions over Iran's nuclear file will follow.

Obama has stated that he was prepared to hold tough presidential negotiations without preconditions with Iran; it seems that he may just have to do so earlier than he might have expected.

Jamal Dajani produces the Mosaic Intelligence Report on Link TV.

Omid Memarian: Ahmadinejad's Letter To Obama, His Response, and Its Impact on the Islamic World

2008-11-12T15:34:35Z

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the first leader from the "axis of evil club", and its affiliates, to congratulate Barack Hussein Obama on his November 4th victory. Ahmadinejad's unprecedented congratulation letter might be interpreted as an olive branch from Tehran.

But, in essence, it is the recognition of this new image of the United States, which has strong potential to restore the American reputation that was injured in Muslim countries during the two wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the forefront of war against terrorism.

It is a significant symbolic step that, in a long run, can turn to a dramatic shift in the U.S. foreign policy toward its major issues in the region.

The Shiite Iran has garnered attention from the international community during the past few years for its persistent effort to obtain nuclear energy, support of groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine and ambiguous, disturbing role in Iraq.

But more than all of the above, Iran is the ideological and political engine for Shiite Muslims around the world. From the streets of the Al Hasa region in Saudi Arabia, where much of Saudi Arabia's minority Shiite population and, coincidentally, most of its oil is situated, to Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria, Pakistan, Bahrain, Yemen and even India, the Islamic Revolution has been an inspiration for the minority Shiites, especially those in Iraq where the population majority is Shiite.

Shiite is among the few sects on the Islamic faith that strongly believes in ruling nations under the Islamic law, or Shria, a belief that has given birth to political Islam. The founder of Islamic Republic of Iran named the United States the 'Great Satan'; since then anti-Americanism has become part of Iran's identity and fuel for Shiite movements in the entire Middles East.

But now, Iran's anti-American image is in a paradoxical situation. President-elect Barack Obama, who ran a campaign based on ideals like government for people, justice, equality and the other populist social slogans that have also been centerpieces of the Ayatollahs' premise to change the world and pave the way to heaven for their people.

Early this year, Ahmadinejad said that the, "U.S. Establishment will not let Obama win the Presidential election." Ironically, in none of the Muslim countries, including Iran, does a man of a minority ethnicity like Obama have a slim chance of getting a position in a high office. But it was American democracy that made it happen and allowed a man of minority ethnicity end eight years of a Bush administration that has been damaging for America's moral authority in the world.

Obama's victory disarms leaders like Ahmadinejad, who for decades have used inefficient American policies as excuses to justify their failures, mismanagement and corruption. His election makes the American dream real for many in Islamic countries, including Iran.
Paradoxically, Obama's middle name, Hussein, is the name third Imam of Shiites, a sacred symbol of freedom and dignity and a star of oppressed people against tyranny and slavery. No single other moral symbol in Shiite history is more important than Hussein in fights against enemies and infidels. The name Hussein is mixed with respect, honor and glory, a man who lost his life tragically in fight with infidels in an unequal and brutal battle on the October 10th, 680 AD. Fourteen centuries after the event, Shiites mourn his death and discuss it mixed in their literature, art, folklore, and daily life.

Obama's name and his unique stories from childhood, to his time as a community organizer, to his campaign against John McCain, which is read as a fight against the infamous George W. Bush, resonates strongly with millions of Shiites. Thus, Obama's victory fits into their mythology and prompts them to celebrate it.

Barack Obama's situation and reception in many Islamic countries, including Iran, now is similar to President Bush's place in the world after the 9/11 tragedy, which created a high level of international sympathy for the United States.

He is in a unique position to solve the United States' dilemma, not only with Shiite Iranians but also with the other troubling groups and countries in the Middle East, if and only if he does not ignore this opportunity like President Bush did after 9/11.

While anti-Americanism has become the Islamic Republic's identity, talking to Iran will diminish the Ayatollah's revolutionary image and force the Iranian government to play a more responsible role and end mischief in the Middle East. Obama's response to Ahmadinejad's letter could be the first step toward drawing a new foreign policy framework in order to bring the United States on the right track.

Shirin Sadeghi: Iranian Newspapers, Ahmadinejad React to Obama

2008-11-07T05:40:02Z

Ahmadinejad likes Obama. At least, he has more regard for him than for George W. Bush -- but that goes for most people.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dotted headlines this week when he wrote a letter to President-elect Barack Obama congratulating him on his victory -- the first Iranian president to do so since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Ahmadinejad used the opportunity to remind Obama of the burden he must surely know that he carries: to unite this terror-stricken world that lays in the ashes of the Bush-Cheney manifesto of hate and pilfering.

Iran, like many nations around the world is finally optimistic about US foreign relations. Though it is cautious optimism no doubt -- considering that US foreign policy has maintained a rather continual progression for at least 50 years despite changes in presidential administrations. But Ahmadinejad -- and the American public before him -- recognized that as a symbol for optimism, the first African American president with a somewhat checkered experience of the world beyond America must surely already be an improvement on the past.

"I hope you will prefer real public interests and justice to the never-ending demands of a selfish minority and seize the opportunity to serve people so that you will be remembered with high esteem," Ahmadinejad wrote in his letter, indicating Obama's opportunity to use his new-found powers for good. It is now up to Barack Obama and his assembling team of advisers and staff to decide whether they will move forward or regress into the divisive foreign relations of their predecessors.

While Ahmadinejad carefully warned Obama to move constructively forward in his relations with Iran, the Iranian media reflected the no doubt vibrant optimism of the Iranian public toward the election of Obama. The day after Election Day, the front pages of the major Iranian dailies were all hopeful and even the conservative ones acknowledged the historic achievement of the American public in choosing to look beyond some forms of bigotry to elect the first black President.

Aftab-e Yazd newspaper: "The Path to the White House of the First Black"
McCain: the message of the American public is very clear; Obama: anything is possible in America

Kayhan newspaper: "Change in the White House" (poetic phrase): "He returns in the attire of a dove"

Kargozaaran newspaper: "The Changing Face of the White House"

Resaalat newspaper: "The Defeat of the republicans with the Victory of Obama"
Obama: "the time for change has come in America"

Tehran Times newspaper

William Bradley: The TV Ad Wars Conclude

2008-11-03T19:38:06Z

Barack Obama's positive closer ad.

The TV ad wars between Barack Obama and John McCain are finally coming to an end. Obama is closing out with a ton of positive advertising, leavened with deft negatives linking McCain to President Bush and his failed economic policies, in a pair of ads that began running around the country on Friday. McCain has been mostly negative, befitting his trailing position in the race, though he has a positive closer ad. Nevertheless, despite his pledge this spring not to make Rev. Jeremiah Wright an issue in the campaign, at least one official organ of the party he now heads is running a hit spot on Wright.

Barack Obama's negative closer ad, emphasizing John McCain's professed economic ignorance, ties to President Bush, and choice of (a winking) Sarah Palin for his running mate.

Above you see Obama using the unsuccessful choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate as a way to further undermine McCain's judgment on the economy. But Obama is emphasizing a message of positive uplift as he closes out the campaign. In contrast to say, Sarah Palin, who on the stump earlier today wondered if Obama "think the terrorists are the good guys."

Barack Obama's campaign is delighted by Dick Cheney's public declaration of support for John McCain, in this latest attack ad.

Not that Team O wasn't delighted by the weekend declaration in Wyoming by Vice President Cheney -- his favorable rating makes Bush seem a candidate for Mount Rushmore -- that McCain is the best man for the presidency. They were quick to rush out the ad you see above.

Something called the National Republican Trust has this new ad running around the country, bringing up Rev. Jeremiah Wright's statements to brand Obama as "too radical, too risky."

Meanwhile, although McCain refused to throw the Wright Stuff -- the notorious statements of Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- at the front-runner, an independent outfit is making hay down the stretch with nasty Wright ads. They previously ran stuff on ex-Weather Undergrounder Bill Ayers -- a non-starter issue -- and drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. The right-wing NewsMax operation is promoting fundraising for the ads with national appeals to the right-wing blogosphere. Including, amusingly, missives pleading for money just in the last hour, as though there is any time left to buy at this late point in the campaign.

The Pennsylvania Republican Party has a new ad attacking Obama for his ties to Wright.

And McCain is not putting a stop to the Pennsylvania Republican Party doing the same thing, even though he's the national head of the party and he stopped other state parties from similar activity. Pennslvania, not coincidentally, is the one blue state McCain must win in order to have a shot at the presidency. It's not happening.

McCain's campaign has diverted resources from its ground game into an attempt to begin to match Obama on the air for the last few days. But it's not turning out that way, with Obama still out-gunning McCain better than 2 to 1. But it may have been the best move anyway, since volunteers appear to be in short supply for the Republican ticket.

John McCain's positive closer ad.

McCain's positive closer ad is an honorable effort, highlighting his long years of distinguished service to the nation in the Navy and in Congress. It's very familiar to those of us who've been following his advertising. No new ground, but a good taste in the mouth after a lot of sourness.

This new John McCain attack ad on Barack Obama posits him as a dupe for Islamic jihadists like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Who isn't actually the real power in Iran.

The negative ad, which seeks to position Obama as a coddler of Islamic jihadists such as the new boogeyman, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is another matter. (Funny how nobody is complaining about the actual leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Is it because some on the far right falsely reported that he died in January 2007?)

In this funhouse view, Obama's willingness to meet with foreign leaders without preconditions is merely a jumping-off point for a half-minute of terror. As if a president with PR chops can't make a fool of a tinpot tyrant if need be.

All indications are that Barack Hussein Obama will have the chance to find out as the next President of the United States.

You can check things out throughout the day on my site, New West Notes.

Jeremy Ben-Ami: Let Truth Trump Fear in the Jewish Community

2008-11-03T12:30:03Z

Bill Clinton liked to say that "a campaign based on hope will beat a campaign based on
fear every time."

For the better part of the past year, I've worried whether the campaign being waged against Barack Obama in the Jewish community might disprove that. Unable to offer a positive vision for Israel, the United States or the Middle East as a whole, Republican operatives like Matthew Brooks ("Don't Shoot the Messenger") have resorted to stoking fear -- whether of the people Senator Obama has spent time with in the past, those he listens to now or those he would talk to diplomatically in the future as President.

The good news for the Jewish community, and for the United States more broadly, is that hope is walloping fear. The latest Gallup poll shows the Jewish vote breaking for Obama by 74-22 now, up from 62-32 in a J Street poll earlier this summer, mirroring a similar swing of 10-12 points toward Obama among the general public.

The anti-Obama campaign of 2007-2008 has been waged relentlessly, starting last year in the darkest recesses of the online world with anonymous emails filled with lies about the Senator's religion and upbringing through this fall's multi-million dollar RJC ad campaign attacking Obama and his advisers. What has tied the whole campaign together has been an effort to frighten Jews out of voting for an African American with a funny name.

Brooks and his allies claim they are simply raising legitimate questions about Obama's record. But they're not. Rather than arguing the substance of whether the U.S. and Israel are more likely to deter an Iranian nuclear weapon through diplomacy than saber-rattling, they'd rather call Tony McPeak anti-Semitic and keep repeating the name of disgraced pastor Jeremiah Wright in close proximity to that of Barack Obama. Oh -- and while a picture of Iranian President Ahmedinejad lurks ominously in the background.

Rather than debate whether Israel's security is best served through a two-state solution and the attendant compromises it entails or by a never-ending military conflict, they'd prefer to call long-time peace negotiator and policy expert Rob Malley pro-Palestinian.

The good news is that none of this appears to be working. For all the name calling, for all the efforts at guilt by association, the Jewish community isn't buying it.

Why? They know that Senator Obama supports Israel. They know that, in 2008, there is no such thing as an "anti-Israel" American politician -- and certainly not one who is enthusiastically embraced by the national Jewish establishment and regional Jewish leaders like Robert Wexler, Abner Mikva and Alan Dershowitz. To claim otherwise is simply not credible.

The real victory in this campaign won't simply be Barack Obama getting more votes than John McCain, or even carrying more than 70 percent of the Jewish vote nationally.

Real victory would be to put an end to the notion that if someone disagrees with you about what might be good for Israel, that they are "anti-Israel" or anti-Semitic.

Poll after poll has shown that the overwhelming majority of Jews in the United States want peace in the Middle East, do not want a war with Iran, and would like to have a political discourse that focuses on issues, not fear-mongering.

Meanwhile, in Israel, the outgoing Prime Minister has spoken of the need to reach a two-state solution in the near term as an existential interest of the State of Israel, and the incoming Prime Minister is now signaling her interest in pursuing regional peace with the Arabs and supporting American diplomacy with Iran.

Matt Brooks and others with right-wing views on foreign policy generally and Israel, in particular, may not agree with these opinions -- whether expressed by Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni or by Rob Malley and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

But they aren't going to win elections by avoiding an argument on the substance while relying on name calling and rumor mongering.

Let's hope the real victor in 2008 is the Jewish community -- as it finally excises the politics of fears and smears and forces candidates to debate the issues on the merits. It is time to have a debate worthy of the Jewish people and to have a debate about the real issues. Too much is at stake.

Jeremy Ben-Ami is the executive director of J Street, the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement. This op-ed ran in the South Florida Jewish Journal on October 30, 2008.

Esther J. Cepeda: Iran's Offensive in Latin America: The Chicago Connection

2008-10-31T17:00:41Z

How does one tiny little country spread the word about a certain not-so-little country that wants to see it wiped off the map?

It shouts from the rafters and knocks on a lot of doors, in a lot of countries, making one-on-one connections with regular people.

Tuesday morning, as the world media outlets were atwitter about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ill-health - and about 48 hours before Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni called on Turkey to isolate, rather than embrace, Ahmadinejad's overtures - the Honorable Eyal Sela, Israel's Ambassador to Ecuador, held a roundtable discussion at a prestigious downtown law firm. The topic: Iran's growing influence in Latin America.

Much like what Sela does in Ecuador, he was in Chicago - the third largest Hispanic population in the country - making the rounds, talking to exclusive groups of business leaders, community organization heads, journalists, and politicians about the growing threat that rarely gets any media play in the U.S. but is vitally important to those of us who send money and travel back to visit family in any of the Latin American countries.

And with approximately 1.8 million Latinos arrived or descended from 20 or so Latin American countries in the Chicago metro region there are plenty of us who should care what's going on back there.

Sure, most of us know that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez hates the U.S. and counts Iranian President Ahmadinejad as one of his very favorite pals. I've written about China pumping money into Latin America and their refusal to enter into U.S.-backed sanctions against Iran. Then there's the whole Russia/Iran relationship (which is a whole separate column as it relates to Latin America).

Most of us knew that there's major money being swapped between the two countries for various oil-related goodies and non-oil-related infrastructure, but Sela gave us a laundry list of chilling indicators of Iran's growing Latin American influence that even I hadn't had a handle on.

Representatives from the City of Chicago, the National Strategy Forum, and several powerful Hispanic business and community organizations were treated to some rarely-heard insights.

"Venezuela is one thing, we know all that part of it. But look at Guatemala, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil, what's happening there..." Sela said. "The people in these countries don't know what Iran is looking for. What they want is really a better economic situation - they want to export their goods. They don't know how that legitimization empowers Iran."

The highlights:

There are plans in the works to establish an Arabic broadcast television network to spread news and opinion across Latin-America.

Islam is becoming one of the fastest growing religions in Latin America by making inroads in poor, underserved indigineous communities previously targeted by Evangelical Christians.

Iran-backed Hezbollah agents are active across Latin America, especially in the tri-border areas of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. Not surprisingly they're involved in drug smuggling rings and, increasingly, in shoring up routes for direct access to the United States. "Venezuela is the direct entry point to Latin America and they are the direct entrance point to the U.S." Sela said.

There are over $20 Billion worth of trade and investment deals between Iran and various Latin American countries. There are daily direct flights between Venezuela and Iran and a keen Iranian interest in Bolivia and Ecuador's uranium deposits.

From Sela's perch, though he's anticipating a bad-news move from Ecuador's University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-educated President Rafael Correa - the word on the street is that he's planning on taking a make-nice trip to Tehran in the coming weeks - things are still moderate outside of Venezuela. And he feels Israel's band of traveling advocates are making inroads.

"[For now, in most of Latin America] there is no hate for the United States," Sela told me, "there is a different perspective from Venezuela. But the problem is that in Ecuador [and across Latin America] people don't know what's going on. There's not an ideological connection with Iran rather, the people, they know they want better standards of living in their communities but they don't understand at what price it's coming. But they need to know."

"[One positive is that] nobody wants to know see Hezbollah in their backyard," Sela said. "Another is that we are good friends. Bilateral relations between Israel and the Latin American countries are very good and it's not like I'm not coming to criticize to tell stubborn countries what to do. The Israelis are coming as friends to tell them our perspective and for the most part they are listening."

We listened as well. And after a round of speculating how the next President would impact the United States' relationship with Venezuela, Iran, Latin America as a whole and other big players like Russia and China, we got the pitch as well.

"Talk to your communities, talk to your families, ask what they're seeing and tell them what you know," Sela told our band, knowing almost every one of us had family in Mexico, Central and South America.

I'm visiting my family in Ecuador next July and I know I'll certainly be asking different questions and looking around with a new perspective.

Esther J. Cepeda is a U.S.-born daugter of Mexican and Ecuadorian immigrants.

Hooman Majd: Sleepy in Washington

2008-10-29T11:10:24Z

Occasionally, even an Op-Ed columnist of great repute gets something so wrong that his views literally beg for a rebuttal. Thomas Friedman writes in the New York Times today about Iran, and about (President) Obama's potential to negotiate with our adversary from a position of strength, or with "leverage", as he puts it. From where Mr. Friedman sits, in Bethesda, Maryland, Iran is looking "very Soviet" to him, a view that most Iranians sitting in Tehran, Iran, might disagree with. (Some of those Iranians, mistakenly I might add, are seeing Washington as somewhat Soviet these days.) The reason Friedman sees Iran this way is because of the precipitous drop in the price of oil, and he concludes that because of the bad economy, Iran will be under great pressure to negotiate with the United States on all matters of mutual interest; nuclear, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

While Friedman is correct in pointing out that Iran's economy is suffering, it is mostly because of President Ahmadinejad and his administration's mismanagement, which most Iranians understand. But as far as oil is concerned, consider this: in 2007, Mr. Ahmadinejad's government produced a budget for 2008 which was initially rejected by Parliament because it was partly based on higher revenues from oil than Parliament felt comfortable with, and Ahmadinejad was forced to revise the oil basis to less than $40 a barrel. Not $150. That's the number Iran was working with when oil hit $150 a barrel, so yes, the surpluses in revenue have indeed softened the blow of oil at $60 a barrel. But it should be remembered that under President Khatami, Iran's economy was considerably stronger, and Iran continued its nuclear program, its government subsidies, and its foreign policy strategies with oil at less than $20 a barrel, managing even to balance its budget. Assuming that one Iranian administration's economic mismanagement will force the Islamic regime to reconsider all of its long-term goals would be a fatal mistake, even more of a mistake than believing Iranian motivation and impulses stem from a "carpet bazaar" mentality.

Apart from the fact that it is an offensively colonialist and even racist generalization (and it matters not that the view is expressed to Friedman by an Iranian-American sitting at a think tank in Washington), it is far from the truth, and if anyone in an incoming U.S. administration is inclined to believe it, they will be in for a rude surprise if and when the U.S. and Iran eventually sit down to negotiate. Carpets may be Iran's best-known export after oil, and there is a section of the Tehran bazaar devoted to carpet sellers, but carpet salesman are viewed by Iranians much as we view car salesmen, or used-car salesman, hardly a view we would want the Iranians to consider representative of our politicians. (On second thoughts....) Anyone who has spent any time at all with the Iranian leadership; with politicians, diplomats, and the political class of mullahs, knows that they do not engage in "bazaar" tactics--far from it, in fact, for Iran has consistently shown over the past thirty years that some things, for example its national pride and its "rights" as they are keen to point out, are not now and will never be for sale. Not under any circumstances; not brutal war (Iran-Iraq in the eighties), not punishing sanctions, and not military threat by a superpower. Iran has managed to survive reasonably well under U.S. sanctions and pressure, and sometimes international isolation, for almost thirty years, and no future President of the United States should be under the illusion that he merely needs to walk into the Persian carpet store, "feign disinterest", and walk out with priceless concessions at a bargain basement price.

The U.S. may have more leverage with Iran under a President Obama, partly because he is not President Bush, but Senator Obama does not present "another challenge" for Iran's mullahs, as Friedman claims. I was in Iran in the late summer and into September, and every single Iranian politician (and mullah) that I spoke to was rather looking forward to an Obama presidency (and Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Parliament and a close advisor to the Supreme Leader publicly said so earlier this month). Iranian leaders do not consider "their rationale for being" resistance to a hegemonic American power; they will be extremely happy if America simply ceases to behave like a hegemonic power. Senator Obama indeed has an opportunity to end the "cold war" with Iran, but he will not end it if he believes he has more leverage than the Iranians do (umm.....Iraq? Afghanistan?), if he believes the drop in the price of oil will make the Iranians more likely to give in to American demands, or if he believes he knows the Iranians because he once shopped in a bazaar.

Thomas Friedman also rather gleefully tells us he "knows why" President Ahmadinejad is exhausted--again, it's because he's sleepless over the drop in oil prices. No, Mr. Friedman, that may be a worry for the President, but it is not his main concern. I spent some time the last few days with Mr. Ahmadinejad's Vice President, Esfandiar Mashaie, who was in New York on United Nations business. Mr. Mashaei, whose daughter happens to be married to the president's son and who is one of his closest aides, laughed off the reports of Ahmadinejad's "illness" and exhaustion. True, the president sleeps very little, but not because he can't fall asleep. And if Mr. Mashaei's attitude in my presence was any indication, the Iranian leadership is very far from believing that the U.S. might have some extra leverage in the coming months. Quite the opposite--Iranians believe they're holding all the cards now. Mashaie was almost gloating over the "end of empire", the "end of the American emperor", mainly because of the economic meltdown in the West but also because he and other Iranian leaders know full well that without Iran, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan will end happily for the U.S.

As for the little quip at the end of Mr. Friedman's column, about Arabs saying they admire Iran but polls show they wouldn't want to necessarily live there, what exactly is that revelation supposed to indicate? Why would Arabs want to live in Iran, a Persian country, with a different language (Farsi) and customs, and with a people who are in a different sect of Islam (Shia, as opposed to the majority Sunni Arab)? Why wouldn't Arabs prefer to live somewhere in the Arab world?

I've always felt that most Americans simply do not understand Iranians or understand their motivations, and this lack of understanding extends to the very highest levels of our government. I wrote my book "The Ayatollah Begs to Differ" in the hope that anyone who's interested to know more about Iran and Iranians, beyond the "carpet-bazaar" stereotype, might discover something they didn't know. Iran is perhaps the biggest foreign policy challenge that a new American president will face. I'm hopeful that he will not make the same assumptions about Iranians, erroneous assumptions that even "experts" make, that have so far led us nowhere. But Friedman is right about an opportunity for ending our cold war with Iran, and Mr. Obama, should he become president, would be wise to try to understand Iranians, beyond conventional wisdom and what the "experts" in Washington say.

Paul Szep: The Daily Szep: A "Sick" Ahmadinejad

2008-10-28T14:40:54Z

Report: Iranian President Ahmadinejad Has Fallen Ill

2008-10-26T13:18:29Z

TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday he is suffering from exhaustion and two allies said he was suffering under the strain of his job, in a rare disclosure apparently designed to combat rumors the hardline leader is more seriously ill.

A parliament member who confirmed Ahmadinejad's illness accused opponents of using it as an excuse to cast doubt on whether the increasingly unpopular president will run for a second term next year.

Jamal Dajani: Bush's Shi'ites vs. Ahmadinejad's Shi'ites

2008-10-24T10:52:44Z

It's been more than half a year since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad embarked on a historic trip to Baghdad, accusing the United States of fueling the violence in Iraq and portraying his nation as a close friend of the neighbor it once fought in a bitter eight-year war.

"The Iraqi people do not like the Americans," Ahmadinejad said back then at a press conference with U.S.-backed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

A few days ago, the Iranian president called on Iraqis to reject a security agreement which would allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for three years. Ahmadinejad stated that Iraq could defend itself and block the influence of foreigners. But U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed his claim and told reporters Thursday in Mexico that Iraqis can defend their interests without the input of Iranians.

Who is she kidding?

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Iranian influence in Iraq has been growing steadily, and is closely tied to the Shi'ite parties who dominate Iraq's government. The Iranian government has been actively seeking to derail the security agreement by orchestrating opposition rallies and attempting to bribe Iraqi politicians.

However, the problem goes beyond political influence. Iranian money and arms have been pouring into Iraq through the largely unguarded Iraqi-Iranian border. The U.S. military recently arrested an Iraqi general at the Iranian border carrying large sums of cash intended to finance efforts to derail the agreement. The general has known ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Iranian money and arms have been finding their way to two primary Iraqi Shi'ite groups: Asaib-al-haq and Kataib Hezbollah. Both groups have been accused of recent assassinations and kidnappings against pro U.S Shi'ites. Unlike Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, (also funded by Iran), these groups receive their direct orders from Iranian elements and are modeled after the Lebanese Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the United States warned of "real consequences" for Iraq if it rejects the newly negotiated security pact. Without a deal, U.S. military operations could be forced to end. But the real consequences for Iraqi leaders are the anger and the wrath of militant Shi'ite groups and the many Iraqis who demand an end to what they consider foreign military occupation. An Iraqi government spokesman recently lashed out at the United States and warned that Iraq would not be bullied into signing a security pact.

Will Maliki push the security agreement through the Iraqi Parliament? In all probably, yes- but not before modifications were made to the original agreement, or prior to the outcome of the U.S. elections.

A few days ago, Joe Biden was criticized when he warned that America's enemies would test Barack Obama with an international crisis within six months if elected president. He is half correct -- Obama will be tested, but America's enemies do not have to manufacture a new crisis. The international crisis already exists in Iraq, and it will be Obama's first test: the battle between Bush's Shi'ites and Ahmadinejad's Shi'ites.

Jamal Dajani produces the Mosaic Intelligence Report on Link TV

Michael Showalter: Ahmadinejad Is a Long Word

2008-10-23T11:05:13Z

The NBC poll showing that 55% of Americans do not believe that Sarah Palin is qualified to be president is notable to me for one reason: 40% of Americans DO think she's qualified. That's a lot of people! Like if America were a baseball team then you could say that the outfielders, the pitcher and the catcher don't think she's qualified but the entire infield does.

And what does it mean to "Love America"? Or more to the point what are "Un-American views"? Is it un-American to be self-critical? If so, then we should still have slavery and women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Or by that logic then I guess it's un-American to oppose Roe v. Wade? It's in the Constitution after all. Still, the implications that Barack Obama holds un-American views persist. What's the idea there? That he's going to become president so that he can bomb... himself?

If you've been watching her interviews you'll notice that Sarah Palin's favorite word is "Ahmadinejad". She just loves saying that word. And I mean let's face it: it is a very hard word to pronounce. It reminds me of a story about James Ellroy's LA Confidential. It involves the word "valediction". The gist of the story is that using big words like "valediction" (or "Ahmadinejad") can sometimes con an audience into thinking things make sense when in fact they don't. "Boy, that's a long word, she must know what she's talking about."

With the latest revelation that Sarah Palin has spent more than four times what Joe the Plumber makes in a year, $175,000 to be exact, on her wardrobe so far, I couldn't help but thinking of another book: The Bonfire Of The Vanities. I also thought of the movie, or to be more exact, the making of the movie. The making of the movie version of Bonfire of the Vanities as detailed in the book The Devil's Candy by Julie Salamon is the story of a pretty good idea that became a really, really bad idea really fast. I think that the publisher's comments sum it up well: "When Brian De Palma agreed to allow Julie Salamon unlimited access to the film production of Tom Wolfe's best-selling The Bonfire of the Vanities, both director and journalist must have felt like they were on to something big. How could it lose? But instead Salamon got a front-row seat at the Hollywood disaster of the decade...This riveting insider's portrait provides a timeless account of an industry where art, talent, ego, and money combine and clash on a monumental scale."

If only John McCain's presidential bid were just a movie. Then again who thought really thought that the movie about the chihuahua would do so well?

Stephen Zunes: Obama's Missed Opportunity

2008-10-21T12:19:54Z

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama missed a number of key opportunities during the presidential foreign policy debate on September 26 to challenge the dangerous and reckless foreign policies of Republican nominee John McCain.

Obama did remind viewers that he strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq. He pointed out that the invasion created a tragic situation in that country that McCain — who vociferously supported the invasion and defends his decision to this day — now claims he’s better qualified to redress. Yet, in what was perhaps his most stunning failure of the evening, the Democratic nominee effectively conceded McCain’s claim that President George W. Bush’s "troop surge" in Iraq — long advocated by the Republican nominee and opposed by Obama — brought about the dramatic reduction of violence in that country in recent months.

In reality, a shift in the alignment of internal Iraqi forces and the tragic de facto partitioning of Baghdad into sectarian enclaves contributed more to lowering the death toll, and the current relative equilibrium is probably temporary. The decision by certain Sunni tribal militias that had battled U.S. forces to turn their weapons against al-Qaeda-related extremists took place before the announcement of the surge, and militant opposition leader Muqtada al-Sadr’s unilateral ceasefire resulted from internal Shia politics rather than any U.S. actions.

Nor did Obama raise questions over McCain’s assertion that Iraq, as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation, was well on its way to becoming a "stable ally." McCain’s claims of stability are questionable. There’s an ongoing conflict between the two groups that the United States depends on to maintain stability — the Shia-led government and the Sunni militias of the Awakening Council. In addition, there are ongoing attacks by Sunni extremists and a continuing risk that the radical Shia Mahdi Army will once again end its ceasefire.

Nor should the United States consider the Iraqi government an "ally," given that the two largest parties in the ruling coalition have historically allied themselves with Iran. During Saddam’s rule, Iran recognized the largest party now in government, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (then known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq), as Iraq’s government-in-exile, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard organized and trained the Council’s militia — known as the Badr Corps — which fought on Iran’s side during the Iran-Iraq War. The Iraqi government identifies far more with the ruling Iranian clerics and other Shia movements than with the United States or with America’s traditional Middle Eastern allies. For example, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki strongly sided with Hezbollah in the 2006 conflict with Israel.

Falsehoods Unchallenged

A glaring failure of Obama’s during the debate was his unwillingness to counter some of McCain’s demonstrably false statements. On no less than three occasions during the debate, for instance, the Republican nominee claimed that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." In reality, Ahmadinejad never said that.That idiom does not even exist in the Persian language. The Iranian president was quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini from more than 20 years earlier when, in a statement largely ignored at the time, he said that "the regime occupying Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time." While certainly an extreme and deplorable statement, the actual quote’s emphasis on the Israeli "regime" rather than the country itself and its use of an intransitive makes the statement far less threatening than McCain made it sound.

McCain even claimed that Ahmadinejad "is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the state of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map." In reality, in response to a reporter’s question while in New York to attend the opening of this year’s UN General Assembly session, Ahmadinejad used the analogy of the Soviet Union disappearing from the map. In other words, as with his previous clarifications that McCain deliberately ignored, the Iranian president was calling for Israel’s dissolution as a state, not the country’s physical destruction. McCain, however, unchallenged by Obama, was trying to make Iran appear to be a greater and more imminent threat than it actually is.

When McCain criticized Obama for his refusal to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which urged the Bush administration to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a "terrorist organization," Obama conceded that he indeed believed they were "a terrorist organization. I’ve consistently said so." Ironically, even the Bush administration has been unwilling to designate the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, which they correctly recognized as an irresponsibly sweeping characterization of the largest branch of Iran’s armed forces. Despite congressional pressure, the Bush administration only designated the al-Quds Force — a sub-unit of the Revolutionary Guards that has indeed engaged in terrorist operations, but doesn’t always operate with the full knowledge and consent of the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards or even Iran’s central government — as a terrorist group.

In another falsehood during the debate, McCain defended his support for Pervez Musharraf’s dictatorship in Pakistan by insisting that "there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there and knew about it, knew that it was a failed state." While the democratically elected civilian government of Nawaz Sharif was certainly corrupt and inept in many respects at the time Musharraf staged his 1999 coup, Pakistan didn’t fit the usual definition of a "failed state." This term is generally reserved for countries experiencing a near-total collapse of order and central authority, such as Somalia, Afghanistan, and such West African countries as Liberia and Sierra Leone during the 1990s. Again, Obama failed to call McCain on this rewriting of history.

Other Misleading Statements Unchallenged

Obama even failed to challenge McCain’s statement that "the Russians are preventing significant action in the United Nations Security Council" against Iran’s ongoing refusal to abide my edicts of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In fact, the Russian government agreed to support a U.S.-sponsored resolution that very day, which included the toughest language to date, to force Iran to abide by legally binding Security Council edicts.

McCain then launched into his proposal for the formation of what he referred to as a "league of democracies" to bypass the UN system due to the alleged failure of the Security Council to enforce its resolutions, such as those targeting Iran’s nuclear program. In response, Obama could have pointed out that the United States has blocked enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1172, which calls on India and Pakistan to eliminate their nuclear arsenals and their long-range missiles. Or that the United States has blocked enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 487, which calls on Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the trusteeship of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Or that the United States has blocked the Security Council from adopting a resolution calling for a nuclear weapons-free zone for the entire Middle East. Or that, over the past 40 years, the United States has vetoed more Security Council resolutions than Russia and all other members of the UN Security Council combined. But Obama failed to do so.

Obama also failed to challenge McCain’s dubious statement that "Iranians are putting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq which are killing young Americans" and that "there are special groups in Iran coming into Iraq and are being trained in Iran." Despite repeated claims to this effect by both McCain and the Bush administration, they haven’t put forward any credible evidence to support them. Obama also failed to point out that the vast majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq have come from attacks by anti-Iranian Sunni groups, and that the political movements in Iraq most closely allied with Iran are part of the U.S.-backed government. Nor did he remind listeners that McCain had earlier made the ludicrous claim that the Iranians were bringing al-Qaeda forces into Iran for training and sending them back into Iraq to kill Americans, something that McCain himself eventually acknowledged was false.

When the Republican nominee characterized Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili as a "great young president," Obama could have pointed out that Saakashvili’s disastrous decision to launch a massive assault against South Ossetia prompted the devastating Russian attacks on his country. Doing so would have enabled Obama to defend himself from McCain’s criticism during the debate that Obama was wrong to have initially appealed to both sides "to show restraint" and that he should have instead placed all the blame on the Russian side for their illegitimate and disproportionate counter-attack. Obama could also have noted that Saakashvili responded to antigovernment protests within the Georgian capital of Tbilisi late last year with severe repression, shutting down independent media and detaining opposition leaders. Human Rights Watch criticized Saakashvili’s government for using "excessive" force against protesters and the International Crisis Group warned of growing authoritarianism in the country. Obama might have then been able to ask McCain what makes Saakashvili so "great" in his eyes and why McCain retains as his chief foreign policy advisor someone who served as the leading paid lobbyist for Saakashvili’s government.

Hawkishness Unchallenged

The hawkish approach of both Obama in particular and the Democratic party overall hampered his ability to more effectively challenge McCain during the debate on several key issues. For example, Obama couldn’t challenge McCain’s calls for increasing Bush’s already bloated military budget since Obama and the Democratic platform also calls for increasing the military budget. Most Americans are unaware that the United States, at less than 4% of the world’s population, accounts for approximately half of the world’s military spending. Military-related spending already accounts for a full 54% of the discretionary U.S. federal budget. Indeed, the only criticism during the debate regarding excessive Pentagon spending came from McCain, who challenged the waste caused by the cost-plus formula regularly awarded to military contractors.

When McCain insisted that the United States pursue a highly provocative policy of bringing Georgia into NATO, thereby risking embroiling the United States in the complex armed ethnic conflicts of the volatile Caucasus region, Obama largely agreed with the Republican nominee. He said that the United States should insist that Georgia be able to join NATO and that NATO "should have a membership action plan immediately to start bringing them in."

Obama couldn’t challenge McCain’s call to send more troops to Afghanistan because Obama himself has called for increasing U.S. troop strength in that country. To his credit, Obama has called for holding the Afghan government to greater accountability, curbing the poppy trade, and dealing more forcefully with Pakistan, which has provided support and sanctuary for Taliban fighters. Yet the reality on the ground in Afghanistan contradicts the shared assumption of the two candidates that additional forces would stabilize that country. The U.S.-led war has worsened the security situation and the American bombing of civilian areas has led to a popular backlash that has strengthened the Taliban.

Flawed Logic Unchallenged

Obama also failed to fully challenge McCain’s flawed logic on several points, such as his claim that Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would pose an "existential threat" to Israel. While nuclear weapons controlled by any state can theoretically be an existential threat to anybody, the Iranians surely recognize that, given Israel’s massive nuclear deterrent capability, any such attack would be suicidal. If Iran indeed does have ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons, they would most likely be designed to deter threatened Israeli and American attacks. It’s also noteworthy that, while both expressed alarm at a hypothetical Iranian attack on Israel, neither expressed any concern about a far more plausible Israeli attack on Iran.

Similarly, Obama didn’t challenge McCain’s claim that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would lead other countries in the region to "feel [a] compelling requirement to acquire nuclear weapons as well." Obama could have pointed out that Israel’s procurement of nuclear weapons nearly 40 years ago had not led to any other Middle Eastern countries acquiring nuclear weapons, nor had Pakistan’s procurement of nuclear weapons in the 1990s — after India already joined the nuclear club — led additional countries in the region to develop nuclear weapons either. Instead, Obama conceded the point, claiming that a nuclear Iran would indeed "create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East."

Obama also gave a surprisingly weak retort to McCain’s preposterous claims that meeting with a foreign leader would be "saying they’ve probably been doing the right thing" and it would "legitimize their illegal behavior." Obama could have pointed out that Bush and other U.S. presidents — as well as McCain himself — have met with foreign leaders who have also engaged in severe repression against their citizens and engaged in illegal behavior.

If Obama expects to defeat John McCain, who indeed has more foreign policy experience, he must be more willing to challenge his opponent’s record. McCain is in fact extremely vulnerable in the foreign policy realm. Obama, however, must be more rigorous in pointing out their differences and more effective in challenging McCain’s weaknesses.

Stephen Zunes: Distorting Obama's Views on Israel

2008-10-21T11:51:00Z

Barack Obama has alienated key sectors of his progressive base with statements and policy proposals regarding Israel in which he allies himself with right-wing Republicans.

These have included: rejecting calls by human rights activists to condition military aid to Israel on an improvement in the government's human rights record; defending Israel's massive 2006 assault against Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, which killed more than 800 civilians; disputing findings by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other reputable human rights organizations citing Israeli violations of international humanitarian law; calling for an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel without supporting the right of the Palestinian-populated eastern half of the city to be the capital of a Palestinian state; making exaggerated claims about Iran's threats towards Israel while refusing to express any concerns regarding Israel's threats towards Iran; and bringing in Dennis Ross — a prominent supporter of Israeli government policies — as his principal Middle East advisor.

Nevertheless, the Republican Jewish Coalition has launched a series of ads in Washington Jewish Week, Detroit Jewish News, and other major Jewish newspapers across the United States claiming that the stridently pro-Israel Obama is actually "reckless," "naïve," and "dangerous" when it comes to Israel and its security. One ad not-so-subtly warns of "tragic outcomes for the Jewish people" in a headline over a photo of Obama speaking in Berlin.

Guilt by Association

One major point of the ads is to declare guilt-by-association. Many of these efforts are as tenuous as the Republican attacks regarding Obama's connections with education professor and former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers. One ad, for example, is dominated by a photograph of Obama next to a photograph of the right-wing political commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. The ad quotes the Anti-Defamation League as saying Buchanan "publicly espouses racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-immigrant views. Yet, Buchanan calls his views on Israel, Iran and the Palestinians the same as Obama's." In reality, Buchanan never claimed that the staunchly pro-Israel Obama has the same views as him. Instead, he has said that on certain specific questions — such as negotiating with Iran and recognizing the suffering of the Palestinians — he agrees with Obama more than McCain.

Another ad falsely claims that "Barack Obama surrounds himself with a number of individuals and advisers who are hostile to Israel and American Jews," warning readers "You know a man by the company he keeps." Every example given, however, either grossly misrepresents the political positions of the people in question and/or exaggerates their role in the campaign.

For example, former Democratic Congressman David Bonior, along with Middle East scholar and former peace negotiator Robert Malley, are labeled as "anti-Israel." In reality, while they have been critical of Israel's illegal colonization of occupied Arab territories and some conduct by Israeli officials in negotiations, both have steadfastly upheld Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and have emphasized that their support for a two-state solution is based in large part because it's necessary for Israel's survival.

Despite supporting tens of billions of dollars' worth of unconditional military and economic aid to Israel while in the House of Representatives, Bonior is labeled in one ad as "a stalwart opponent to Israel." The ad also claims Bonior "refused to stand by Israel while in Congress, after repeated terrorist attacks." In reality, Rep. Bonior strongly and consistently condemned terrorist attacks by Palestinian extremists. His refusal to "stand by Israel" was in reference to his opposition to a resolution introduced by right-wing House Republican leader Tom DeLay which defended Israel's massive April 2002 military operations in the West Bank, which Amnesty International reported as appearing "as though the main aim was to punish all Palestinians" through actions "which had no clear or obvious military necessity," but which the resolution claimed were "aimed only at dismantling the terrorist infrastructure."

Malley — who worked with President Bill Clinton at the 2000 Camp David summit between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian President Yasir Arafat — is further attacked as "a Palestinian apologist" for pointing out that Israel shared the blame with the Palestinians for the breakdown of the peace talks. Ironically, Malley has had virtually no contact with the Obama campaign and whatever limited ties he did have were formally severed when it was learned that, as part of a conflict resolution initiative through the International Crisis Group, he had met with some civilian Hamas leaders.

The ad even goes after two of the more conservative members of the national security establishment who are allied with the Obama campaign, whom the ads also falsely claim are "anti-Israel." Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski — that one ad, in citing his opposition to Israel's 2006 war on Lebanon, refers to as having "an aggressive dislike for Israel" — has had only a very marginal advisory role and has apparently never talked with Obama about Israel. General Tony McPeak is attacked for having expressed concern back in 2003 over how right-wing American Jews had made it difficult for the United States to more aggressively pursue the peace process. Obama strongly denounced that statement. McPeak himself is actually a supporter of Israel and has developed close relationships with top Israeli security officials.

Another example of the alleged "company he keeps" is Obama's now-estranged former pastor Jeremiah Wright, whom the ads refer to as an "an anti-Semite." The Jerusalem Post has argued that the allegation is completely unsubstantiated, noting how, despite some statements critical of Israel, "Wright is not known to have targeted Jews and had friendly relations with Chicago Jewish groups."

Ironically, the person who has emerged as Obama's principal advisor on Middle East issues is Dennis Ross, a former top official in the senior Bush administration, an analyst for Fox News, and a fellow at the right-wing Washington Institute on Near East Policy. Ross, long a staunch defender of Israeli policies, was a leading supporter of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and remains an outspoken hawk on Iran.

Misrepresenting Obama on Iran

Two of these ads in Jewish newspapers falsely claim that Obama said he would meet personally with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. In reality, Obama said he would meet with "Iranian leaders," which is in reference not to the Iranian president — who does not wield much real political power — but to the less extremist Iranian clerical leadership, who actually run the country and control its military.

One of these ads misleadingly claims that "Obama is opposed to critical legislation labeling Iran's revolutionary guard a terrorist organization." This particular piece of legislation was a non-binding amendment, so it could hardly be considered "critical legislation." Obama opposed it because other language in the amendment raised concerns that it effectively gave the Bush administration a green light to attack Iran.

More importantly, Obama actually has supported labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Ironically, this puts Obama to the right of the Bush administration, which has been unwilling to designate the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. The government has instead correctly recognized that this would be an irresponsibly sweeping characterization of the largest branch of Iran's armed forces. (The Bush administration only designated the al-Quds Force — a sub-unit of the Revolutionary Guards that has indeed engaged in terrorist operations, but doesn't always operate with the full knowledge and consent of the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards or even Iran's central government — as a terrorist group.) In short, these Republican ads are criticizing Obama for taking a position he actually opposes but which has actually been adopted by the Bush administration.

The ads quote out-of-context an Obama statement in which the Democratic nominee challenged the hyperbole regarding the Iranian threat by noting how less serious it was compared to the Soviet Union, which once possessed thousands of nuclear missiles capable of striking the United States. According to one ad, this shows that "Obama has not shown the wisdom, experience or strength to stand up to the people who would do us harm."

Rather than being "soft on Iran," Obama has taken increasingly hawkish positions. He has emphasized that any talks with Iran would be focused on ending Iran's nuclear program and its support of terrorist groups and that such talks would serve as a step in building international support for imposing even tougher sanctions and other measures targeting Iran. He has sponsored legislation that would protect pensions that divest from companies dealing with Iran from lawsuits. And he has also refused to rule out unilateral military action against that country.

Misrepresenting Obama on Jerusalem

Another ad cited a speech in which Obama called for an undivided Jerusalem but claims that he shortly thereafter "changed his tune" as a result of "facing criticism from the Palestinian Authority and Arab nations" by then saying that the future of Jerusalem should be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians. The ad declared that therefore "His shifting views on Jerusalem are reckless."

The ad is misleading on several counts.

First of all, the main criticism he faced from his initial statement was from progressive Democratic Party activists — including prominent liberal Jews — concerned that he was endorsing Israel's illegal annexation of Palestinian-populated occupied East Jerusalem. The annexation not only violates international law and a series of unanimous UN Security Council resolutions, but endorsing such a predetermined status precluding any Palestinian control would effectively end any hope of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

In addition, there is no contradiction in saying that a city should be physically undivided and that it could be under two sovereigns. Furthermore, the view that the future of Jerusalem would need to be decided through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians has been U.S. policy under the Bush administration as well as previous administrations. Indeed, the United States is obligated to uphold this position as the guarantor of the 1993 Memorandum of Understanding between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Obama's Hawkish Positions Not Helping

Despite the ad campaign and similar tactics, polls indicate American Jews support Obama by a more than 2:1 margin. However, even assuming an Obama victory with overwhelming Jewish support, by raising doubts within the Jewish community and beyond over Obama's commitment to Israel's legitimate security needs, it will make it all the more difficult politically for an Obama administration to take the necessary steps to apply the needed pressure to make a peace settlement possible. As a result, the dovish pro-Israel group J Street has mounted a campaign against the Republican attacks.

Apologists for Obama have insisted that his hard-line positions on issues related to Israel don't indicate actual right-wing proclivities on his own part regarding foreign policy. Instead, it's argued, they are simply a means of protecting himself from being targeted by the Republicans for being anti-Israel. However, Obama is being attacked for being "anti-Israel" anyway.

For example, Obama acknowledged last year how the Palestinians had suffered more than anybody as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Soon thereafter, he insisted that their suffering wasn't because of the ethnic cleansing suffered at the hands of Israel in 1948 or the more than 40 years of Israeli occupation, colonization, and repression, but "from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region." Though Obama's defenders have insisted that his "clarification" was necessary to prevent right-wing attacks, the original quote without the later clarification is still highlighted in this recent series of ads.

Rather than being necessary for getting him to the White House, Obama's right-wing positions regarding Israel and its neighbors are actually hurting him. They have become a major target of Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney and independent candidate Ralph Nader, who correctly observe that their more evenhanded positions are supported by a majority of the American people, and have weakened his support within the peace and human rights community.

Meanwhile, as indicated by this recent series of Republican ads, they've done nothing to stop attacks from the Republicans.

James Warren: This Week in Magazines -- Overestimating Ahmadinejad, What Ed Koch Says, and Viagra Loves Golf

2008-10-12T20:07:26Z

There is "that one" and then there is That One, namely an unadulterated bogeyman of the presidential campaign: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. My friends, we tend to throw partisanship to the winds to all agree that he is an evildoer and that we'd best not directly negotiate with him.

And that's why, my friends, you should take a look at "The Latter-Day Sultan: Power and Politics in Iran" in the November-December issue of Foreign Affairs, the ever-elite, but increasingly accessible (and profitable), bimonthly.

Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji, who was imprisoned in Tehran for six years and whose writings are banned in the country, argues that Western media and politicians, as well as Iranian opposition leaders, erroneously caricature Ahmadinejad as "the main culprit of Iran's ills today: censorship, corruption, a failing economy, the prospect of a U.S. attack."

He contends that many exaggerate Ahmadinejad's significance and underplay the role of Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, who serves as the big cheese when it comes to the legislative, executive and judicial branches and as an influence on matters economic, religious and cultural. He'd not only agree with Barack Obama's assertion that Ahmadinejad "is not the most powerful person in Iran," but goes so far as to argue that he "does not even rank among Iran's top 100 leaders over the past 100 years."

"Blaming the country's main problems on Ahmadinejad not only overstates his influence; it inaccurately suggests that Iran's problems will go away when he does," Ganji writes, detailing why Sultan Khamenei is the guy to worry about when it comes to tensions in the Iran-U.S. relationship, including over Iran's nuclear ambitions. And it's his hand which has been needlessly strengthened by the macho rhetoric and policy of the Bush administration, he concludes.

Quickly:

---The estimable business-legal affairs reporter James Stewart's "The Omen" in Oct. 20 New Yorker is a knockout profile of Jerome Kerviel, 31, the likely-to-be-indicted trader at the heart of the respected French bank Societe Generale's $4.9 billion euro loss, the biggest trading fraud in banking history. It's a tale of ambition, greed, possibly madness, but seemingly a systemic breakdown leading to lax supervision interpreted as legitimization of his activities by the rogue trader. His own declarations to a court-appointed shrink are fascinating, as is word that the trading floor excitement depicted in 1987's Wall Street with Michael Douglas turned him on when he saw the flick. Read this and you may sell all your stocks and bonds and put them under the bedroom mattress.

---Oct. 13 Sports Illustrated informs that all the 49 skyboxes at the new New York Mets stadium, to open in the spring, have been leased to the tune of $275,000 to $500,000 per year for a three-year minimum. You'd hate to be the publicist of a Wall Street firm benefiting from a federal bailout if they're among those who've signed up (or those at the new Yankee Stadium, where the skyboxes will be $650,000- to $850,000-per-season and are likely accounted for, though the team's not saying).

--November Vanity Fair is worth the profile of actress Amy Adams, an all-too-typical tale of a young talent beating the odds; Tony Curtis recounting his intimate relationship with Marilyn Monroe when they were starting off in Hollywood; James Wolcott, an ever-engaging pessimist, on how even he feels beaten down by the media's unavoidable concentration on our depressing times (and all the pharmaceutical ads for various maladies!); and David Margolick's poignant look at David Levine, perhaps the finest American caricaturist of the past century, struggling with blindness at age 80 and feeling ill-treated by his longtime home, the New York Review of Books, during what is at least an awkward moment for the publication as it's unavoidably concluded that his work is just not the same.

---Forget Treasury Sec. Henry Paulson and bring in former New York Mayor Ed Koch to save the economy!!! Ah, well, that's a suggestion of sorts in "Ed Koch's Lesson for Today's Mortgage Crisis" on the online History News Network. Jonathan Soffer, historian at New York University-Polytechnic, contends that a longtern Koch program to renovate and build thousands of housing units promoted home ownership via a partnership with families and suggests how "this crisis can be turned into an opportunity." Hmmm.

---So are most American voters irrational fools? The autumn Wilson Quarterly includes "The Irrational Electorate" by Princeton University's Larry Bartels, in part rebutting historian Rick Shenkman's well-selling "Just How Stupid Are We?", a reminder of depressing opinion surveys about everything we don't know about history, government, world affairs, even geography. In sum, this argues that Shenkman (who edits the afore-mentioned History News Network) is mistaken to begin with the assumption that political scientists generally view voters as rational, with Bartels offering a broad overview of studies suggesting that "political ignorance matters." It may be less that we're stupid, Bartels concludes, than that they we're human and "predictably irrational," at times powerfully impacted by matters unrelated to a candidate's competence or policy positions. Which, of course, is no less inspiring that Shenkman's conclusions.

---October Health has tried-and-true counsel on keeping that belly of yours nice and flat, not to forget how to take care of your butt. But Health.com may come in truly handy with a very comprehensive look at breast cancer and its detection. If it's a worry, do check it out.

Finally, I was noticing the Viagra television ad in which the dashing, 60-ish couple is dancing up a storm before heading to an elevator and, presumably, a seven-hour session in the sack thanks to the trusty pill. At the bottom of the screen, it urges, "See our ad in Golf magazine." Does this inadvertently lead us to conclude that there's a higher rate of erectile dysfunction among golfers than, say, aging tennis players, yachtsmen or, say, former high school basketball forwards?

Obama Hatred On Display Again At Palin Rally, Supporter Screams "Treason!"

2008-10-07T11:12:15Z

In the latest instance of inflammatory outbursts at McCain-Palin rallies, a crowd member screamed "treason!" during an event on Tuesday after Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of criticizing U.S. troops.

"[Obama] said, too, that our troops in Afghanistan are 'air raiding villages and killing civilians,'" Palin said, mischaracterizing a 2007 remark by Obama. "I hope Americans know that is not what our brave men and women in uniform are doing in Afghanistan. The U.S. military is fighting terrorism and protecting us and protecting our freedom."

Shortly afterward, a male member of the crowd in Jacksonville, Florida, yelled "treason!" loudly enough to be picked up by television microphones.

Here's the video:

At a McCain rally on Monday, television stations caught audio of a crowd member calling Obama a "terrorist," while Dana Milbank reported that "[o]ne Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, 'Sit down, boy.'" Also on Monday, at a Palin rally, one member of the audience yelled, "Kill him!"

During Tuesday's event, Palin continued her frontal assault on Obama's character by noting Bill Ayers after repeating a debunked lie about the Illinois Democrat's tax record that even McCain himself has stopped using.

Referencing an explanation put forward by David Axelrod on Monday -- that Obama was not aware of Ayers's past when they first met in Chicago -- Palin mocked Obama's foreign policy knowledge, saying: "And since he got called up on his plans to meet unconditionally with terror state leaders like [Iranian President] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will now claim that he was unaware of his radical background?"

Palin's political shot was effective with the Republican faithful, drawing a deep, collective "ooooh." As substance, it was less than edifying. Obama has repeatedly made clear that, of course, he finds Ahmadinejad's views to be "hateful and anti-Semitic," most recently on the occasion of the Iranian President's visit to the UN.

Later, in the tax policy section of her speech, Palin managed to repeat a thoroughly debunked claim about Obama's voting record that even McCain himself has stopped using.

"He voted 94 times for higher taxes. Even on middle class -- hard working everyday families across this great nation -- making $42,000 a year," she said.

As FactCheck.org noted in August, McCain's campaign originally claimed Obama voted to raise taxes on families making $32,000 a year, but have since changed their tax ads to say that Obama's vote would impact individuals making $42,000 per year -- not families as Palin repeated today. Still, FactCheck called the new McCain ad script "better, but still deceptive" -- a standard that Palin failed to meet this morning.

Hooman Majd: Madam (Vice) President

2008-10-03T11:53:26Z

The Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States has, in answering questions about Iran and its nuclear program in the past, emphatically said that we "shouldn't second-guess Israel's security efforts against Iran," which one supposes is in line with John McCain's response in his first debate with Barack Obama that Iran is "an existential threat to Israel." Together, "existential threat" and "shouldn't second-guess" should make for happy politicians in Jerusalem and worried Mullahs in Tehran, for if McCain is elected president, it seems as though Israel may have a much freer hand in doing as it pleases in terms of confronting Iran, even militarily. Sarah Palin, who is vying to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, a presidency with a seventy-two year old heart, that is, would do well to understand that the United States actually should second-guess its allies, particularly if that ally intends to commence military action against another state with airplanes, armaments, and bombs made in America, and paid for by American taxpayers.

In the Vice-Presidential debate on Thursday night, Sarah Palin repeated the now standard Republican line that Iran's President Ahmadinejad is "insane", "unstable", and is intent not only getting his hands on a nuclear bomb, but actually to deploy it against Israel. (Senator Joseph Biden corrected her by indicating that it is not Ahmadinejad who is in charge of "Iran's security apparatus.") But Ms. Palin's well-rehearsed statements about Iran and its fiery president (rehearsed to the point of repeatedly and incorrectly pronouncing Ahmadinejad's name exactly as Senator McCain does, with a "k" that no one else seems to have spotted in the spelling) betrayed a real and fundamental lack of knowledge about Iran, or "Eye-ran" as she mispronounces it, and the larger issue of what the future of U.S.-Iranian relations might, or should, look like. (Pakistan, the other country named in Gwen Ifill's question on dangerous countries, might expect a free pass from Ms. Palin should she be in any position to affect U.S. policy toward it, for the Pakistani president's practically lecherous greeting to her in New York, "you're gorgeous!" seems to have elicited only the giggle of a teenage prom queen from the admittedly handsome Governor of Alaska. Senator Biden's patient explanation of the facts that Pakistan is already in possession of deliverable nuclear weapons, and Iran lacks both weapons and the means to deploy them, appeared to have had little affect on Palin, who simply continued to smile, trying to remember the next line she had memorized, or the next evil-doer such as Kim Jong Il, whose name rolled off her tongue rather more easily than Ahmadinejad's.)

Sarah Palin's views on Iran, though, also actually diverged somewhat from the Bush administration's, Senator McCain's, and even the rest of the world: she suggested that Iran mustn't even be allowed nuclear energy. A misstatement in her zeal to bolster her anti-Iran credentials, or her actual view? So could this potentially be the conversation on day one in the White House:

"Umm, excuse me Madam President, I mean Vice-President, Iran is a member of the IAEA and a signatory to the NPT, as are we. That guarantees their right to nuclear energy."

"Well, gosh darn it, let me get right back to you on that, then!"

But in all seriousness, if it is her view (and her running mate supports that view) then we are in serious trouble, for the Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran that is nearing completion (by Russian engineers) is toast, courtesy of either the U.S. Air Force or Israel's. And the Iranians who matter, not just Ahmadinejad, and perhaps more ominously the Russians, are not going to like that. What Sarah Palin needs to understand, which I'm afraid she doesn't (as opposed to McCain, who probably does but pretends he doesn't) is that Ahmadinejad is not Iran's dictator, has no ability to start a big war or even launch a minor attack on another country (the Supreme Leader of Iran controls not only the "security apparatus" of Iran but also its foreign policy), and is up for re-election on June 12th, 2009, less than six months after the new U.S. president takes office. (Yes, Governor, Iran has elections.) Even the most pessimistic of experts and observers would agree that Iran is incapable, assuming it wanted to, of developing a nuclear weapon before that time. And if Ahmadinejad is re-elected president, perhaps a word or two with the Ayatollahs in charge might reassure the next American president that the "unstable" president of Iran will never have his finger on the button, a button that if they build, he probably will not even know about. Right, I forgot: as Senator McCain put it to Senator Obama, it is naïve to talk to the Iranians. Can you pronounce naïve, Ms. Palin?