Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Another question mark in foreign affairs is Saudi Arabia. Even without President Obama bowing to Saudis for all the world to see, the US has maintained a strange relationship with this Arab country for many years. Most would agree it is simply a matter of hedging bets on oil supplies. But even the country noted as the home of 9/11 hijackers and the birthplace of Osama bin Laden is not exempt from terrorist action within Islam.

Deputy Interior Minister Prince Muhammad bin Nayef was receiving visitors at his home in Jeddah late Thursday when the bomber got close and detonated his explosives. The prince had opened his house to visitors as part of observances for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Imagine that. Open the house for visitors during Ramadan and have a terrorist try to kill you. Yes, Ramadan, the Islamic event of fasting and asking forgiveness for one’s sins. Gotta love this religion of peace. So many contradictions, so little time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Exactly the kind of talk that supports the notion Arab countries and Muslims worldwide have an agenda for the destruction of Israel.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is in the United States for talks, says Arab nations would recognize Israel only after a just and comprehensive Mideast peace deal is reached.

Nothing like putting the cart in front of the horse. Does Mubarak say anything with this other than they want a deal that places Israel in more jeopardy from the foes that surround them? A tiny country, Israel, surrounded by a massive geography populated by Muslims has been a target of these neighbors since 1948 when the current chapter in the saga began.

As early as 2010 or 11 things may change in Egypt removing them from the occasional moderate position they express. That is not how all of this sounds.

The talks in Washington are centered on the Middle East peace process and the Arab world’s relationship with Iran under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, all issues Mr. Mubarak has taken an active interest in.

But underneath lies the question of what comes next for Egypt, or more specifically, who. In power since 1981, Mr. Mubarak has given little indication of what the transition might look like. He has no vice president. He has not said if he will run for re-election in 2011, and many wonder if that would even be advisable, as he would be nearly 90 at the end of that term.

It is an issue that concerns not just Egyptians. Professor Said Sadek is a political scientist at the American University in Cairo, who worries any instability or political vacuum could be exploited by hardline groups and politicians across the region that oppose U.S. influence in the region.

“How do you guarantee the transition of power in Egypt, so that we don’t have an unpredictable situation in Egypt that would get you the Muslim Brotherhood here in alliance with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Beirut and [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad in Tehran - voila, the American strategic policy in the area would collapse,” said Sadek.

As with any conflict all sides have made mistakes. But that certainly does not justify calling for the destruction of Israel. While calling for the death of infidels, the destruction of Israel and at the same time claiming they are mistreated, Muslims need a reality check.

Stop the terrorism and calls for more of it and someone might begin to take you seriously. Constant violence, calling for it and promoting it does not suggest a religion of peace.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Read a book. It’s possible this blog has never recommended reading a particular book other than Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. But a recent visit to tsowell.com served up a reminder of a wise choice from many of Thomas Sowell’s suggested reading list. It is not new or the latest bestseller but that is certainly not a reason to discount it. In these times of social and political unrest not to mention terrorism and Jihad the book by Bernard Lewis entitled ‘ What Went Wrong’ is not only relevant but extremely well written and compelling. If you do not care to take this blog’s word for it, being on Sowell’s reading list should suffice.

Like any treatment of the topic discussed by Lewis it is not without its detractors. In the interest of fairness one search engine result that provides the dissenting viewpoint is linked here so you can have one recommendation accompanied by one random review by someone not impressed with the work or the author. It would not be surprising if this dissenting viewpoint is held by someone not fond of criticism toward someone or something they personally value, right or wrong.

A description of the book from Sowell’s site is presented here and hopefully Mr Sowell will not object.

A small book presenting a top scholar’s very readable account of the history that led the Islamic world from its pinnacles of achievement in the past to its present pathology and poisonous and dangerous hatreds.

How about a guess? Terrorists, Jihadis, Muslims and Islam will be offended. The rest of us will not. Give it a read and make up your own mind. Hopefully you have already accepted the earlier recommendation on Levin’s book and read that by now. It would not hurt to follow the link to Sowell’s lists, etc., to find other good reading material.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For the liberals who love to label anyone expressing a strong disfavor toward ‘foreigners’ as xenophobic try on this report. Obviously this blog did not produce this report but of course extends its profound gratitude to Voice of America for presenting it. There are some who believe that Jews and others who support them are overreacting to threats from their Arab ‘neighbors’ who surround them as well as to the actions that go beyond threat level. This should be yet one more wake up call to those same liberals and another example of the mounting evidence demonstrating Muslim hate.

And the current US President is going to cozy up to the world’s Muslims yet again. Do you suppose he will start by bowing this time too? How embarrassing. And it is ironic the POLS mentioned in this story are Democrats, liberals, whatever.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(from left) Reps. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Joe Crowley (D-NY) with poster showing excerpt from Saudi school book

Lawmakers in the U.S. Congress say Saudi Arabia has failed to remove offensive material from textbooks used in the kingdom’s schools, including language promoting hatred of and violence against Jews. Three House Democrats used a news conference coinciding with U.S. President Barack Obama’s stop in Saudi Arabia to draw attention to the problem and urge the president to press Saudi leaders on the issue.

Congress has complained for years about hate-promoting language in textbooks used in Saudi Arabia’s schools, and about books used in other countries in the Arab world, notably Egypt, as well as in schools in the Palestinian territories.

Where Saudi Arabia is concerned, the issue has been raised repeatedly by the U.S State Department in its annual religious freedom report, and by the independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

In a news conference, lawmakers said that despite assurances from various Saudi officials over the years that offensive and inaccurate material would be removed from textbooks, it appears little has been done.

Representative Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New York, displayed a 10th grade textbook, smuggled out of Saudi Arabia and translated by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Gulf Affairs, and he read one extract. “This is to be taught to children age 15: “The Prophet said, “the hour [of judgment] will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. . . “O Muslim! O Servant of God! There is a Jew Behind Me. Come and kill him.” This is the language that is being taught to students as young as age 15,” he said.

A report prepared by Congressman Weiner’s office, with assistance from the Institute for Gulf Affairs, examined seven textbooks in circulation in Saudi Arabian public schools and used in the 6th through 12th grades in 2008 and 2009.

Among portions translated for the report are those inciting hatred of Jews and Zionism, encouraging jihad against Jews and Christians, endorsing punishment for homosexuality, demeaning women, and affirming the right of parents to force children into marriages against their will.

Representative Shelley Berkeley, a Democrat from Nevada, says Saudi Arabia, which wants to be seen as a leader in the Arab world, must take the lead in eliminating intolerant, hateful material from its textbooks.

“Until they change their textbooks and help educate the younger generation of Saudis that are in their elementary schools and in their secondary schools, and take these hateful teachings out of the textbooks and substitute what we would consider appropriate, tolerant language in teaching for these kids, I am afraid we are just going to see a perpetuation of what we see now, cycle after cycle of hatred and intolerance,” she said.

Congressman Weiner says the Saudi government must decide which side of the debate over tolerance it wants to be on. “Do they want to be on the side where President Obama and the American people are, where we want to reduce the tensions and stop passing hate from generation to generation, or do they want to continue their age-old ways of exporting the worst type of hate, which unfortunately leads to terrorism, misunderstanding and distrust all over the world,” he said.

In its report this past April, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom named Saudi Arabia a Country of Particular Concern, saying promises and Saudi commitments to the U.S., including pledges to reform textbooks, remain unfulfilled.

The report issued by Congressman Weiner’s office quoted a pledge in 2006 by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki Al-Faisal, that the government had removed intolerance from old textbooks, and implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan.

Saying patience in Congress with Saudi Arabia has worn out, Weiner said President Obama has an opportunity to prod Saudi Arabia to take action once and for all on the issue.

President Obama takes another page from the Ahmadinejad (Columbia U) playbook. For the Iranian it was engage the opponent, your target, your enemy, the infidels. Attempt to persuade them you mean them no harm. For Ahmadinejad it was more a case of the trojan horse. For Obama it is more a case of the appeaser cowering to a sworn enemy of Israel and anyone who defends them. Falls nicely into place with that infidel thing. And just as nicely into Obama’s surrender strategy if you recall the campaign of 2008.

The only thing missing from Obama’s message below is ‘and they all lived happily ever after.’.. And we know the genre of writing from which that fantasy comes. Hope and change will not render it true. This Messiah would need to conjure a miracle or three for that to happen. Pleading shows weakness and no courage of conviction whereas strength through the projection of power and determination based on defending principle does. Count the number of times that appeasing the agenda of rogue nations has been successful in the past.

Russia was not requested to ‘tear down that wall’ during the Cuban missile crisis. Japan wasn’t asked to surrender right after they attacked Pearl Harbor. But President Obama tells the ‘Muslim world’ he intends ‘to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace.’ He tells people with no interest in peace with Israel that he will work on that. Is that what comes from a Harvard education?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President to Muslim World: “Americans are not your enemy”

In his first interview with an Arab television station, President Barack Obama offered a bold change to America’s relations with the Muslim world.

“My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives,” President Obama told Al Arabiya. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.”

In the interview, conducted in the White House map room, President Obama also expressed his commitment to tackling the Middle East peace process immediately.

“Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we’re not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we’re going to start now,” he said. “It may take a long time to do, but we’re going to do it now.”

The interview is part of the President’s broader outreach to the Muslim world, which includes a promise to make a major address from the capital of a Muslim nation.

Al Arabiya is a 24-hour Arabic-language news channel based out of Dubai.

US President Obama gives exclusive interview to Al-Arabiya TV

U.S. President Barack Obama says he will work to show the Muslim world that Americans are not their enemy.

In his first formal interview - granted to an Arab television network - the American leader said his job is also to show Americans that people in the Muslim world simply want to live their lives and make better lives for their children.

Speaking on Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television, Mr. Obama pointed out that he has lived in Muslim countries and has Muslim family members.

As for Islamist terrorists, he said their ideas are bankrupt. He said nothing they have done has ensured that a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education, or has better health care.

Mr. Obama also repeated his inaugural address pledge to extend a hand to countries such as Iran if they are - as he said - “willing to unclench their fist.”

He said the United States must be willing to engage in diplomacy with Iran and promised to lay out a general framework and approach over the next several months.

Asked about the president’s comments Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it is up to Iran to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community.

As for the current standoff between Israel and Hamas, he said “the moment is ripe” for Israelis and Palestinians to achieve a lasting peace, but he added that all parties in the region must play a role in the process.

Mr. Obama said it is not possible to think of the Middle East without looking at the region as a whole, including Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan, for he said they are all interrelated.

He also said he plans to follow through on a promise to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital.

It is no surprise with all the hype that continues about PEBO and the arrival of inaugural activities many so-called experts have an abundance of advice equalled only be their desire to be heard and given media attention. Nothing like using a national event to promote your own self-interest. The least impressive video account below belongs to the person with the easiest name to abuse while criticizing. Guess who it is? (hint: it could make you hurl)

J Scott Carpenter is one of Bremer’s Boyz from the days of the Iraq Provisional saga and has ties to Duncan Hunter and Rich Santorum. There are other details you can find for yourself with a simple search or visit to Wiki or Source Watch, etc. Michelle Dunne from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace may have some similar history with foundations, institutes, academia or other org’s as Carpenter. The value of the opinions of these two is probably up to the reader. This blog lumps them into the category of those who have connections in the public sector and likely special interest motivations influencing their positions.

Go figure, Heather Hurlburt is a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright. Has been described as a ‘Michigan-based consultant and writer’. That explains a lot. Hisham Melham is a Lebanese journalist and bureau chief for As-Safir Daily, a Beirut, Lebanon, newspaper. That wraps up the brief descriptions of those offering their advice to Obama on the Middle East. Will his administration or any others in Washington offer better? Only time will tell. But there are a couple of points made in one or more of these videos that may in fact be valid.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Video: What Should Obama Say to the Middle East?

By Mohamed Elshinnawi
Washington
17 January 2009

So what should President Barack Obama say to the Middle East? That was the question before a panel of Middle East experts convened recently by two Washington-based nonprofit groups - the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Project for Middle East Democracy.

Click the videos below to view excerpts of the panelists’ addresses.

J. Scott Carpenter

Carpenter says the Obama administration must recognize the Bush administration’s mission to promote freedom in the Middle East failed. He says the U.S. must narrowly define its interests in the region.

Michele Dunne

Michele Dunne cautions the Obama administration against developing a rigid list of policy priorities for the Middle East and encourages officials instead to develop a framework for dealing with unexpected challenges that are likely to arise.

Heather Hurlburt

Heather Hurlburt encourages Obama’s administration to listen to leaders in the Middle East and promote cultural exchanges between Americans and Arabs.

Hisham Melhem

Hisham Melhem says Obama’s tone will be very important when he addresses the Middle East.

The most telling irony this week comes from Arab protesters quick to denounce Israel’s military response to Hamas rocket attacks. Where was this outrage when Hamas began the rocket attacks? The contrived outrage over Israel defending itself from Hamas rocket attacks is the Arab self-exposure of their true feelings. It is quite obvious now as it may have been before that the ‘Arab world’ supports attacking Israel and opposes Israel defending itself. This blog has resisted publishing a statement like this in the past for lack of a well defined example of the Arab position on Israel. Some may reject the idea of their not being one before as easily as others may reject the idea that there is one now. That’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The opinion here is that there is no argument remaining that the Arab world means Israel no harm.

For those who feel inspired to criticize Israel for military action against rocket attack from Hamas the following excerpt and link is provided as the first in the chronology presented in this post. Livni told Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Israel’s patience was exhausted after days of rocket barrages into Israel from Gaza, and that the Israeli government would no longer accept the status quo. This of course occured before any retaliation from Israel. It is not like the rocket attacks were quietly accepted until the defensive action began. Rockets were regularly fired on Israel from Hamas and no one in the ‘Arab world’ criticized Hamas.

Israel gave notice to Hamas and anyone else to stop the attack. Here is the second excerpt and link in this chronology.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has issued what he calls a “last minute” call to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, urging them to pressure their Hamas rulers to stop rocket fire into Israel.

Mr. Olmert made the appeal during a television interview with Arab station, Al-Arabiya on Thursday, during which he said Israel will not hesitate to strike Hamas or any other Palestinian militant group.

The remarks came as militants fired rockets and mortars into Israel for a second day in a row. Israeli officials say more than 80 rockets and mortar rounds hit southern Israel on Wednesday. No casualties were reported.

Meanwhile, Israeli defense officials say the military is preparing an operation against Hamas targets in Gaza.

The ‘Arab world’ remained quiet about the rocket attacks. Funny how they got all interested in the military response that contrary to their opinion is reasonable. Say nothing about militants attacking Israel but denounce Israel’s right to defend themselves against attack. And who was affected by the Israeli response?

Nearly 300 Palestinians, most of them armed militants, have been killed since Israel launched the offensive on Saturday. But let the protesters and certain media outlets lead you to believe that civilians are paying the price for Israel’s self-defense from rocket attack.

Where is the Arab criticism for the following?

Hundreds of Palestinians breached the Gaza border fence in four places and poured into Egypt on Sunday. Egyptian police opened fire, prompting gun battles with Palestinian militants. Several hours later, Egyptian officials said border guards restored order.

The breach followed Israel’s bombing of 40 tunnels in Gaza used by the ruling Islamic militant group Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies across Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.

‘Used by Islamic militant group Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies’ is the key portion in this report that falls on deaf Arab ears. Other reports indicate Arabs, Muslims, whatever, criticize Arab governments for their wimpy denouncement of Israel. So what’s new? Ignore any attack on Israel but make a great deal of noise when Israel responds to attacks. It is time the ‘religion of peace’ and its followers end the double standard toward Israel. If you want the insanity to stop you must not enable it by your action or inaction. If you want peace stop blaming everyone else for the problem and accept your own responsibility for finding peace.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

An AP report suggests Barack Obama will try to improve America’s image as viewed by other nations. The report also blames America’s image problem entirely on the war on terror. Could it be many nations are not happy with the US for refusing to do nothing about 9/11? Could it be those nations had hoped that after the attack on the World Trade Center America would simply withdraw from the international stage or offer surrender or appeasement to the terrorists and their state sponsors?

Rather than suggest America has an image problem it may be reasonable to suggest there are plenty of countries in the world that need to address their own ‘image’ problems. According to the USA Today on Feb 6, 2002 15 of the 19 hijackers from the 9/11 attack were from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis disputed this information and at one point suggested it was Israeli-inspired. Well no one is disputing Osama bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia and had his citizenship withdrawn in 1994.

What about those of power and influence in Saudi Arabia? The royal family in all its luxury and fundamentalist views has been accused of many things with regard to the way ordinary citizens are treated in their country. How much different is that to the way others are treated in countries like Iran, Syria, or even Iraq? In general, how are Muslims doing on matters of human rights, treatment of women, tolerance of other religions and violence or oppression of individuals in their midst who may not share their views? But America has an image problem. How ironic.

Yet President-elect Barack Hussein Obama (the full name as he intends to use at inauguration) intends to make his case to the Muslim world in an effort to improve America’s image as viewed by Islamic nations. Obama promised during his campaign that one of his top priorities would be to work to repair America’s reputation worldwide, and that one element of that effort would be a speech delivered in a Muslim capital. It is reported as customary for American presidents to be inaugurated using their full name. It is also reasonable to believe that Barack Obama’s parents are responsible for selecting his full name. But every choice made by Barack Obama as an adult is a responsibility he must shoulder. Does his intention to essentially ‘apologize’ to the Muslim world add support to the notion that liberals favor surrender and appeasement to those who favor our destruction as well as anyone else viewed as infidels. Which by the way sometimes includes members of their own religion.

“It’s something I intend to follow through on,” Obama said in an interview published Wednesday in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. “We’ve got a unique opportunity to reboot America’s image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular. So we need to take advantage of that.”

‘In the Muslim world in particular’ is a troubling statement. The President-elect seems to be focusing on an agenda item discussed by many during the 2008 campaign in which bloggers in particular were criticized for suggesting. That Barack Obama may demonstrate his affinity with the Muslim world through policy and initiatives while in the White House. Another major concern by those opposed to his election deals with his connection to corrupt Chicago politics all the way up to the Illinois governor who was arrested on corruption charges this week. How about the following excerpt in light of that and concerns with his associations with the likes of Tony Rezko and William Ayers, etc.

Obama said he, his wife Michelle and their two young daughters will make frequent visits during his presidency back to their home in Chicago, perhaps as often as every six weeks. “My Kennebunkport is on the South Side of Chicago,” he said. “Our friends are here. Our family is here. And so we are going to try to come back here as often as possible.”

His continued closeness with all things Chicago may be his undoing. Blagojevich is keeping that possibility alive. Here is another link on this story for you to ponder.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Parents worldwide inspired to name kids for Obama (Michelle Malkin)

It is not uncommon to find an analysis of the foreign policy differences between John McCain and Barack Obama. One such analysis below from down under agrees with the view from this blog and is used here to emphasize that point. Senator John McCain is in a much better position to deal with Iran than Barack Obama. Among all the issues that face the US now and will face the next President very soon, Iran and their pursuit of nuclear capabilities as well as the threats against Israel, the rest of the Middle East and the world in general ranks as critiical. So think about the other events related to Iran presented below and their historical implications.

Iran test candidates

In the end the result was much closer than anticipated, with most political pundits calling it tie. But on the crucial issue of Iran, Senator McCain struck a more convincing tone, giving him the edge on this most pressing of security issues. What to do about Iran’s nuclear weapons program will be one of the most difficult challenges to face the next occupant of the White House. A nuclear-armed Iran would spark an atomic arms race in the Middle East, threaten the world’s oil supplies and embolden Iran-sponsored extremist groups such as Hezbollah.

Senator Obama’s policy on Iran has been marked by missteps, most notably his offer to negotiate directly with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. In Saturday’s debate he backtracked on this position, saying he was no longer so sure. But he stuck to his belief that direct diplomacy would give the US more credibility to press for tougher sanctions. Senator McCain was more forthright, ruling out talks with Mr Ahmadinejad and reiterating his opposition to giving ground in any way that might legitimise the Iranian leader’s illegal behaviour.

At first glance, the title from an article in the Tehran Times suggested someone had lost their mind or this was simply propaganda from Iran.

Rabbis hail Ahmadinejad’s NY visit

A group of American rabbis welcome Iran’s President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York in a move aimed at countering an anti-Iran protest.

Iran promotes peace and respects Judaism, spokesman of Neturei Karta International (Jews United Against Zionism) Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss said in a statement issued on the eve of President Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York.

This is while a pro-Israeli group called the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations has made efforts to organize a rally in front of the UN headquarters on Sunday to protest President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s arrival in the U.S..

Right out of the blocks the claim that Iran ‘promotes peace and respects Judaism’ sends the BS meter off the charts. How is advocating the destruction of Israel promoting peace and respecting Judaism? The additional strange suggestion from the piece indicating Rabbis on both sides of the Iranian controversy. The report offered below also presents a combination of expected and unexpected responses to Iran.

A coalition of U.S. religious groups exchanged views with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a New York hotel.

The dialogue Thursday, sponsored by Mennonite, Quaker and other religious groups that press for world peace, had been sharply criticized by Jewish groups for allegedly legitimating the Iranian president’s anti-Semitic rhetoric and his oppression of religious minorities in Iran.

Expected: Jewish groups criticizing others for meeting with the Iranian President. Unexpected: other religious groups meeting with the Iranian President. While one might not reasonably expect everyone to hold the same opinion on Iran on every issue, recognizing Ahmadinejad’s call for the destruction of Israel and therefore condemning the Iranian Preisdent and refusing to meet with him should be SOP for religious groups as well as political leaders. Since Ahmadinejad has been compared to Hitler it is not a stretch to view some recent events as similar to the coddling manner by which many also treated Hitler during his rise to power in Germany. And we all know what happened then.

And then a surprise from the WSJ that would seem more appropriately located in the confines of the NYT based on past history. A reporter’s account of an invite and dinner with Ahmadinejad extended to those of Iranian heritage.

Inside Iran, sentiments are divided over him. The ultra conservatives praise his populist demeanor while others criticize him for his government’s economic policies that have contributed to the rise of unemployment and a 25% inflation rate, despite a country swimming in cash from soaring oil prices.

At the dinner party in New York, criticism of Mr. Ahmadinejad appeared to have been brushed aside and replaced with fervent nationalistic pride. Both the host and the attendees appeared to cling to the one strong, if only, tie: being Iranian.

And the same mixed reactions are of course not dead at the United Nations either.

Sound familiar? First there is tough talk from those in the UN and the IAEA that Iran is dangerous and pursuing nukes (or WMD) and that they are ignoring the United Nations and members that are demanding they cease and desist.

UN Nuclear Agency Accuses Iran of Blocking Investigation

September 15, 2008
The United Nations nuclear agency is accusing Iran of blocking a U.N. investigation into allegations that Tehran tried to make nuclear weapons.

The UN then speaks of enforcing sanctions and possibly announcing more to which Ahmadinejad promptly flips them off.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Dismisses Sanction Talk as Weak

September 18, 2008
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed talk of new sanctions over Iran’s disputed nuclear work as a sign of weakness by those making the threat.

And about a week later the Iranian President struts his stuff at the UN and essentially tells them to go pound sand

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Denounces ‘Bullying Powers’ in UN Address

Sept 26, 2008
The Iranian leader sounded a defiant tone at the United Nations, where preliminary consultations have been held on a possible fourth sanctions resolutions against Tehran in the Security Council because of its refusal to halt uranium enrichment.

Sounds like the UN responded with tougher sanctions after being bad mouthed by Iran.

Major Powers Agree on New UN Resolution on Iran

Sept 26, 2008
Putting aside differences over Georgia, the United States and Russia joined other major powers Friday in endorsing a new draft U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Iran to comply with international demands to halt its uranium enrichment program. The draft, expected to be approved by the full council next week, reaffirms existing U.N. sanctions against Iran but contains no new ones.

While the previous report indicates there were no new sanctions, the title and story below drive home the point.

Iran Avoids New Sanctions in Security Council Vote

By Margaret Besheer
27 September 2008

The United Nations Security Council has adopted a resolution ordering Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program — but the council did not impose any new sanctions.

And on top of all that comes a recent addition to the shameful actions of some Iranian citizens.

Young Iranians Release Book Caricaturing The Holocaust

Sunday, September 28, 2008

TEHRAN, Sept. 27 — Iranian students have released a book containing cartoons of the Holocaust, including some depicting hospitalized Jews on respiratory machines attached to canisters of Zyklon B, the gas used to exterminate Jews during World War II.

The students, members of a state militia, unveiled “Holocaust” in Tehran’s Palestine Square on Friday in the presence of Education Minister Ali Reza Ali-Ahmadi, during annual demonstrations calling for the retreat of “Zionists” from “occupied Palestine.”

Below is an excerpt of an account of the Iranian President’s stand on Israel.

Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis

Thursday, August 3, 2006; 10:49 AM

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.

“Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,” he said.

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off “without the existence of the Zionist regime.”

Israel “is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence,” he said.

There are enough examples in this post to reveal nearly every nation, organization or group is complicit in allowing the insanity that is Ahmadinejad to persist. Many are quick to condemn his behavior but few, especially the United Nations, are prepared to support that condemnation with action. This includes other Arab states who publicly support peace in the Middle East but whose actions offer little evidence that this is anything more than posturing.

It has been said that during the first Presidential debate John McCain was the only adult in the room. That would be a plus since Ahamdinejad contends since the US has nukes Iran should be able to also. An adult would handle that like any other lame argument from an unruly child and not allow the stupidity to continue. Whereas Barack Obama would simply say ‘no’ without follow up action like the fine parents who let their children raise hell in public to the disdain of others wishing the offending parent(s) knew how to raise children.

But of course that is an absurd analogy on the state of affairs with Iran equal to the inept response of world leaders to the very real threat of the stated goals of Iran.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

US Expresses Concern Over Saudi Arabia’s Complex Dealings with Iraq
By Judith Latham
Washington
03 August 2007

Judith Latham’s Report 1.2 Mb (Real) audio clip
Judith Latham’s Report 3.4 MB (MP3) audio clip
Listen to Judith Latham’s Report 3.4 MB (MP3) audio clip

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said this week he would send a diplomatic mission to Baghdad to “explore” reopening its embassy in Baghdad – a step that Washington has long sought to add legitimacy to the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The statement followed meetings in Jeddah with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Earlier in the week America’s ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad – formerly ambassador to Iraq – criticized Saudi Arabia and other Arab governments in the Gulf for not doing all they could to support U.S. policy on Iraq. Specifically he accused them of supporting Sunni militias in Iraq and of failing to engage the al-Maliki government.

Iranian journalist Ali-Reza Nourizadeh, who directs the Center for Arab-Iranian Studies in London, says he thinks Ambassador Khalilzad’s criticism does not accurately reflect the “situation on the ground.” Speaking with host Judith Latham of VOA News Now’s International Press Club, Mr. Nourizadeh reminds that the Saudis initially welcomed the changes in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. However, they gradually grew concerned about the “amount of Iranian involvement” in the Shi’a-led Iraqi government. He says the Saudis don’t want a neighbor that might call for an “uprising” by Saudi Arabia’s large Shi’a minority. So, unless Prime Minister al-Malaki can convince them he “genuinely wants to fight the militias,” Mr. Nourizadeh says he doubts “any support” will be forthcoming from Riyadh. In fact, last week The New York Times reported that officials in Washington say the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni militant groups in Iraq and that about 40 percent of the foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi. But Riyadh has denied the accusation.

During their joint visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the U.S. secretaries of State and Defense discussed arms sales of at least $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and five other Gulf nations in a bid to counter Iran’s influence in the region. Analysts say the fear of Iran’s ascendance unites Sunni Arab states with Washington, and even with Tel Aviv. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says he has no objections to the proposed U.S. arms sale to the Arab states, and he notes that Washington will offset the deal by increasing military aid to Israel. Israeli journalist Nathan Guttman of The Forward says strengthening Saudi Arabia makes “good diplomatic sense.” He suggests that the fear in Washington, and maybe in Tel Aviv, too, is that the “moderate regimes” in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan may eventually collapse, making way for an “extremist Islamist regime.”

Nadia Bilbassy, diplomatic correspondent for Al-Arabiya television, agrees that the U.S. attempt to bolster Iraq’s Sunni Arab neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia, makes sense. At the same time, she adds, these Sunni neighbors don’t want to see Iraq “disintegrate into chaos.” But Ms. Bilbassy says there are “conflicting statements” coming from the Bush administration – criticism of the Saudi role in Iraq coming from America’s U.N. ambassador and praise coming from the State Department concerning Riyadh’s “active engagement” in trying to cut off the flow of illicit funds to Sunni militants in Iraq. But even if Washington and Riyadh agree on the need to curb Iranian influence in the region, the two do not necessarily agree on other pressing issues, such as the Palestinian dilemma.

Nonetheless, Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said this week that Saudi Arabia would consider attending President Bush’s planned Israeli-Palestinian peace conference this fall, but it would need to deal with the “substance of peace, not just form.” And a pre-condition of Saudi attendance would be that the conference should tackle “final status issues.”