Iran and Iraq - for the US the only difference is a consonant.

                       “They have good reason to be suspicious of our intentions.”

                                              Ivan Oelrich, senior fellow, Federation of American Scientists                

The above quote is uncharacteristically humble, responsible and reasonable on the part of the West, and from a Washington-based group to boot. But then again, the speaker is a scientist and not a politician. That said, it's still the first sign of some admission that the West is even remotely responsible for the defensive posture Iran has had to assume - nuclear armament or not  - and especially since the Bush administration declared it was part of the enigmatic 'Axis of Evil'. 

The 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, US and UK) along with Germany, are in Geneva conducting a second round of talks with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. But the first item on Iran's agenda was the November 29 killing of Iranian nuclear physicist, Majid Shahriari, in a Tehran bombing. Most telling was not the US denial of involvement, but unwillingness of the UK and Israel to comment. Is silence consent?

The issues are many, but there are a few I'd like to highlight: 1. The agenda began by the Bush admin seems to be moving ahead apace 2. The scenario is eerily similar to that pre-Iraq invasion 3. The entire Region, not just Iran, has reason to beware. 

As mentioned, it was the Bush admin that initially proposed the 'Axis of Evil' concept, citing that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were somehow the world's greatest threats. Iraq has already been appropriated and its oil fields sold off to private interests - mission accomplished - if Iran does want to develop nuclear weapons, who can blame them? Iran has the world's largest oil reserves second only to, and this might surprise you, Iraq. Nothing stopped the invasion of Iraq; not facts, lack of evidence, diplomacy or common sense - what reason does one have to believe anything will stop the implied invasion of Iran under almost identical circumstances? 

So what's the blatant implication? The American/Western corporate agenda takes precedence over any political or ideological agenda regardless of who is president - and that makes it ok for him or her to be Black and erudite (as in the case of Obama) or embarrassingly undereducated and inarticulate (as in the case of he-who-doesn't-have-to-be-named). That the scenario is almost identical to pre-Iraq invasion is obvious, what is alarming is that no one seems to care. Not the American public, not the Iranian public and not even Iran's neighbours who are likely to be next on America's hit list. 

In this context, the recent alleged 'Leak' that has dominated headlines in recent weeks, seems to play right into a Western pretext for an Iran invasion. It claimed the Saudi King urged the US to conduct missile strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and somehow painted the US as a reasonable and reluctant participant in the same. 

That the oil rich Middle East has been in Western crosshairs for some time is no secret. Some argue that Israel is its loyal 'watchdog' armed to the teeth and a constant destabilising force, now joined by an occupied Iraq. Divide and conquer seems to be the order of the day. Even now the GCC countries are meeting in Abu Dhabi, UAE to discuss Iran's predicament, among other things (importantly a unified stance against terrorism). We hope they make real concrete process. Even though Iran doesn't always see eye to eye with its Gulf neighbours, there is a common interest that may warrant some call for unity, cooperation or least dialogue that indicates, not support for the American agenda, but solidarity on an inclusive Middle East agenda.

Even as the US plays an essential role in brokering relations between Israel and the Arab world (and hence makes a logical ally for Arab states), its historical actions seem to indicate it has other more pressing concerns that may supersede all others. I'm not making any accusations, but there may be a reason to be 'suspicious'.

Iran Election VS American Selection: an outsider's perspective

The Iranian people are stuck between a jerk and a hard place. That is what it seems like anyway.

The problem they face is getting the rest of the world to believe that their protests against the election outcome, accusations of election fraud and demand for change are truly the voice of the majority, and not the result of US backed reformers and a highly biased Western media.

The world is still smarting from the sting of the Iraq War. As far as we can tell, flaccid media inquiry, incompetent intelligence (or downright lies?) arrogant executive power and an unstoppable American agenda made Iraq and its people far worse off than they ever had been under Sadaam. They are now free to choose between poverty and death by suicide bomber. Have the thousands of deaths, dislocation, social instability and unemployment really been worth the 'fight for democracy?'  Some would argue that the greatest beneficiary of the Iraq conflict has been Halliburton, not Iraq.

So who should the outsider believe? The Bush Administration attempted to make a case against Iran that was eerily similar to that of Iraq and even seemed to toy with the idea of an invasion. First there were the allegations of arms smuggling into Iraq then the accusations that Iran wanted (wants?) to manufacture nuclear weapons. Truth or just a pretext to gain control of more Middle East oil? Indeed, the ambiguity of the election results can be seen merely  as ammunition for a US led invasion. Despite Obama's apparent equanimity, corporate interests might have more sway in decisions about war than the President. Hardly anyone really believes that Bush was 'The Decider' - it's more likely he was the decoy for a fait accomplis.

Still, word from within Iran (I am fortunate to know at least one person with intimate knowledge from individuals therein) is that election irregularities began to take place early on in the ballot counting and even before,

This is really doesn't look like an American interferance, there was dodgy goings on as the results came out, and even before they were announced, even before the Western media began reporting on the situation. People all over Iran are pouring into the streets risking their lives to protest against the result. And yes, that's ALL OVER Iran, not just the rich neighbourhoods of Tehran...

...all the communcations in Iraq, mobiles, texting, facebook, news sites, reformist sites, were shut down as the election results started to be announced. Why would these things happen if it was a fair vote? - SJ

These comments may very well represent the voice of the Iranian people, but when filtered through the Westerm media we are left with suspicion and cynicism.

While Iranians battle for democracy, the rest of the world wonders if said Iranians are destined to suffer the same fate as their neighbours. Would they opt for that fate? It is unlikely,  after all the ideal would be progress to democracy on the terms of the Iranian people themselves not Western powers. Indeed the term 'Westernization' is often used interchangably with 'progress', but American culture isn't better, just different - and capitalism isn't democracy. These distinctions are of utmost importance in a post 9/11 world where the US claims the noblest of causes and purest of motives as rationales for violating the most basic human rights.

I might be jumping the gun, but while the people of Iran deserve better than what they presently endure, they also deserve better than Western occupation. And knowing the US propaganda machine it will soon find a way to formulate an artificial choice between invasion or the 'wickedness' of spectator politics. Shortly thereafter America will have to invade for  the sake of 'freedom'. Outsiders fear that it's just a matter of time before the self-righteous rhetoric starts and Uncle Sam shines up his curb stompers to go force democracy up another nations rear end.

The best source for information may be direct from the people of Iran themselves or independent jouranalists, and as my source queried, 'It's as if people outside of Iran can't believe the Iranians want change? Is it so hard to believe?' No. But Iran is caught between a jerk and a hardplace. Now we just have to determine who's who.

CAY

Peace. Freedom. Dignity.

One Mile - an Ode to Muntadar al-Zaidi

Ah, the left foot of justice - whither hast thou flown?
Past the ear & over the head of Dubya thy breeze hath but blown.
So close you came to meeting your mark
But worn souls did dim your spark.

Why Lord, did you not make man with three legs?
Then this hapless scribe could have delivered the defeat that history begs,
Or at least got another chance to adjust his aim thither.

Hast the powers of the pen lost all their might,
And the eyes of the world lost all her sight,
That men now must stoop so low to go where most dare not go?
To tread where angels dare not tread
And throw your justice at his head?
Alas! It seems it can only be just so.

He exchanged his pen for a shoe - nay for two,
But his land has no need for shoes because she is on her knees,
And she no longer walks but crawls,
She no longer flies - but falls.

And yes, Uncle Sam had promised this would come to pass,
His way, after all, is to '...put a boot up their ass'.
Perhaps, this irate and unfriendly neighbour,
Was doing his best to return the favour?

Mayhap he thought, 'The one way for George to know is to go where misery goes. Perhaps he will stumble upon the truth after a mile or two in my shoes? I shall lend him my weary souls'.

Who can judge this man for the steps he took? Life is always another way when the shoe is on the other foot.

C. Arthur Young

One Mile - an Ode to Muntadar al-Zaidi

Ah, the left foot of justice - whither hast thou flown?
Past the ear & over the head of Dubya thy breeze hath but blown.
So close you came to meeting your mark
But worn souls did dim your spark.

Why Lord, did you not make man with three legs?
Then this hapless scribe could have delivered the defeat that history begs,
Or at least got another chance to adjust his aim thither.

Hast the powers of the pen lost all their might,
And the eyes of the world lost all her sight,
That men now must stoop so low to go where most dare not go?
To tread where angels dare not tread
And throw your justice at his head?
Alas! It seems it can only be just so.

He exchanged his pen for a shoe - nay for two,
But his land has no need for shoes because she is on her knees,
And she no longer walks but crawls,
She no longer flies - but falls.

And yes, Uncle Sam had promised this would come to pass,
His way, after all, is to '...put a boot up their ass'.
Perhaps, this irate and unfriendly neighbour,
Was doing his best to return the favour?

Mayhap he thought, 'The one way for George to know is to go where misery goes. Perhaps he will stumble upon the truth after a mile or two in my shoes? I shall lend him my weary souls'.

Who can judge this man for the steps he took? Life is always another way when the shoe is on the other foot.

C. Arthur Young