Showing posts with label Iran United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran United States. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Petreaus Says Strike on Iran Could Spark Nationalism

A military strike on Iran could have the unintended consequence of stirring nationalist sentiment to the benefit of Tehran's hard-line government, U.S. General David Petraeus told Reuters.

Iran's June election gave President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a second term but sparked the worst internal crisis in the Islamic Republic's history, putting internal pressure on a government already facing the threat of more sanctions over its nuclear program.

"It's possible (a strike) could be used to play to nationalist tendencies," Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command region, which includes Iran, said in an interview this week.

"There is certainly a history, in other countries, of fairly autocratic regimes almost creating incidents that inflame nationalist sentiment. So that could be among the many different, second, third, or even fourth order effects (of a strike)."

Tensions over Iran's nuclear program have set off speculation that Israel could make good on veiled threats to hit its arch-foe pre-emptively. But Israel's envoy to Washington said in December the U.S.-Israeli dialogue on Iran has not reached the point of discussing the military option.

U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have warned that any strike on Iran would not stop the Islamic Republic from pursuing nuclear weapons. Instead, it would only delay Tehran, an opinion Petraeus said he shared.

Dennis Blair, the U.S. director of national intelligence, told Congress on Tuesday that Iran was keeping open the option of developing nuclear weapons but that it remained unclear whether Tehran had the political will to do so.

Petraeus, commenting on advances of Iran's nuclear program, said: "On the one hand, there is no question that there has been a continuation of various aspects of the nuclear program but I'm not sure it has always proceeded as rapidly as has been projected at various times."

GRADUAL BOOST IN DEFENSES

Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday Iran was ready to send its enriched uranium abroad in exchange for nuclear fuel under a plan the West hopes will stop the material from being used for atomic bombs.

The same day, Iran also said it would soon hang nine more rioters over unrest that erupted after the June presidential vote, which protesters said was rigged.

Petraeus cautioned that the "big winner" of the election had been Iran's security apparatus, expanding the influence the Revolutionary Guards Corps, including its elite Qods force.

"It's gone from I think a theocracy that had democratic elements in a narrow spectrum ... to a government that is the result of a hijacked election and a regime that is kept in power by security services to a vastly greater extent than has ever been the case before," he said.

Asked how this changed prospects diplomatically, Petraeus said: "I don't think it simplifies the situation for those who are trying to pursue diplomacy if the role of the Foreign Ministry is diminished further and the role of the Qods force has been augmented."

To counter the Iranian threat and reassure anxious Gulf allies, the United States has expanded land- and sea-based missile defense systems in and around the Gulf.

Petraeus stressed it had been a gradual build-up -- an approach shared by both the Obama and Bush administrations -- and not something sparked by events in Iran in recent months.

"This has been built up over years of inflammatory Iranian rhetoric, alarming Iranian activities and Iranian provision of arms, money, training, explosives and direction in some cases to a variety of different extremist elements," Petraeus said.

Iran has accused the United States of seeking to stoke "Iran phobia" in the Middle East by deploying the missile defense systems in the Gulf.

The United States and major European allies are pursuing broader U.N. sanctions against Iran due to its disputed nuclear activity. The United States, Britain, Germany and France have called for a fourth round of U.N. measures against Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment activities as demanded by five Security Council resolutions.

© 2010 Reuters. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

Note: Isn't this the same line of thought our government expectd BEFORE the United States attacked Iraq? How about looking at our nation's values, concluding that to attack a madman's threats towards both the U.S. and our ally Israel, is good cause to bomb Iran - forget about "nationalism for Iran" or whether or not flowers will be thrown at the feet of American soliders! It did not happen in Iraq, it will not happen in Iran - who cares??!! Do it for the safety of our nation and for no other reason! BeeSting

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Carter is to blame for the mess we are in.


Jimmy Carter, The Father Of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 In Iran

Why America plotted the downfall of the modernizer Shah of Iran?
Why Jimmy Carter Sold Iran to the anti-US terrorist Mullahs?
Why America & Britain destroyed Iran and & turned Iran in to a living hell for 70 millions of Iranians? (see video below this article)

To understand what really happened in Iran & the role Jimmy Carter played in creating the world’s number of anti-US terrorist state
this book by Dr. Mike Evans is a MUST.

Synopsis:
He ran against an unpopular war and president in the name of change, human rights, and hope.

The late Shah of Iran, America’s strongest Muslim ally whispered to his closest confidant, “Who knows what sort of calamity he may unleash on the world?”

He Provided political and financial sponsorship. . . checks of $150 million to Neauphle-le-Chateau outside Paris. . . while Khomeini plotted to kill the Shah of Iran and overthrow his nation. The French, British, and Germans agreed to support his plan.

An Air France jet loaded with terrorists and journalists delivered Carter’s holy man to Tehran.

On April Fools Day 1980 Ayatollah Khomeini, the godfather of world terror, proclaimed “the first day of the government of God,” thus giving birth to what is now known as radical Islam.

The fuse had been lit; the Russians invaded Afghanistan, and Iraq went to war with Iran, resulting in the deaths of over 2.3 million innocent Muslims. Bin Laden used the number of deaths in Iran,
Iraq, and Afghanistan to justify his insane attack on 9/11.

Carter poured $500 million into the Muslim Brotherhood, calling them freedom fighters. We now call them the Taliban and al Qaeda.

On Inauguration Day 1980 shortly after 4:00 AM he wire-transferred $7.9 billion in an attempt to buy back the hostages after 444 days of humiliation.

On Inauguration Day 2009 he released his Plan for Peace in the Holy Land to persuade President Obama to weaken Israel, America’s strongest ally in the Middle East; support terror regimes that have murdered scores of Americans and Israelis; and heed the call to divide Jerusalem, giving East Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority as its Islamic capital.

This is an appeasement plan that will not solve the problems in the Holy Land; it will instead unify and embolden radical Islam once again.

Biography:
Dr. Michael D. Evans is one of America’s top experts on Israel and the Middle East. For over two decades he has been a personal confidant to many of Israel’s top leaders.

Dr. Evans is an award-winning journalist and has been published in the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, USA Today, The Washington Times, The Jerusalem Post, and newspapers throughout the world. He is a member of the National Press Club and has been covering events in the Middle East for decades.

Michael Evans is the author of eighteen books, including the #1 New York Times bestseller The Final Move Beyond Iraq, and New York Times bestsellers Beyond Iraq: The Next Move and The American Prophecies.

Millions around the world have seen his award-winning television documentaries on Israel based on his books. Dr. Evans is a top network analyst and is in constant demand. He has appeared on hundreds of network radio and television programs such as Fox, MSNBC, Nightline, Good Morning America, Crossfire,CNN World News, BBC, the Rush Limbaugh show, and others. Michael D. Evans has spoken to over 4,000 audiences worldwide. In the past decade alone, he has addressed more than one million people per year at public events, from the Kremlin Palace in Moscow to the World Summit on Terrorism in Jerusalem.

Jimmy Carter “Godfather of World Chaos”
See Mike Evan’s speech from minute 1.05 Must see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNYCxobtXFA&feature=channel_page

+++++

Jimmy Carter & Khomeini

Must see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tgeuXb-FxU&feature=email

Jimmy Carter, Father of the Islamic Revolution!? IRAN 1979 The result was magnificent!!! 8 years of needless war with over one million dead and many million injured for life. Cities and live destroyed as a result of the 8 year war but never rebuilt. 7 million refugees scattered around the world. Hundreds of thousands of executions, political assassinations, imprisonment, torture, Islamic approved rape of women before executions, amputation of limbs, eye extraction, stoning to death, public flogging hanging on cranes. The rise of the Islam fascism, Anti-Americanism, Hezbollah of Lebanon, suicide bombing, hostage taking, beheadings of the Americans, September the 11th, 2001. And now the prospect of crazy Mullahs with an atomic bomb at their disposal. In one word the total destruction
of Iranian nation as suggested by Professor Bernard Lewis of Britain.

Must see: Carter, Khomeini revolution! (640×480)

“What we did to the Shah of Iran is a black page in the history of America”. Ronald Reagan, the Governor of California, July 27th, 1980.

“In January of 1980, the four leaders of Britain, America, France and Germany met in Guadeloupe, France. They took a unified stand against the Shah of Iran. They wanted the Shah out and they
decided to support Khomeini’s revolution. They planted a time bomb and they did not grasp the reality until it was too late with its shrapnel all over Iran”. Those I have known by President Anwar Sadat of Egypt.

    “By overthrowing the Late Shah of Iran in 1979, Jimmy Carter is single handedly is responsible for the creation, unleashing and the spreading the virus of radical Islam, for which he should be
    imprisoned”.

Mike Savage of Savage Nation.

Iran belongs to the followers of the 12th Imam & Shia Islam. Sooner the Shah of Iran & his regime is removed the better for all of us. We must do everything we can to empower the Shia religious leaders.
This will be better for everyone.
From Miss. S. K. Nancy Lambton’s remarks in the early 50’s.

Miss. S. K. Nancy Lambton was the British Press Attache in Iran in the early 40’s. She was instrumental in the overthrow and sending to exile of the founder of the Pahlavi Dynasty, Reza Shah the Great in 1941.

Reza Shah the Great was the father of the last Shah of Iran. S. K. Lambton identified, linked up and maintained great contact with over 75 terrorist Ayatollahs as well as many more anti-Shah elements
through out the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. Many of them including the mad Khomeini & Bazargan who later become the leaders of the British backed regressive revolution of 1979 in Iran.

Khomeini’s mass mess in Iran, the rise of the Islamic fascism, September the 11th and the war on terror is the direct result of the anti-Iran/ anti-Shah hostile policies of the greedy filthy Brits as well as Jimmy Carter & his criminal administration’s wrong doings in Iran in 1979.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

To understand the role the Brit played in the creation & the rise of the Islamo-fascism, the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt in 1921, the creation of the Devotees of Islam in Iran in 1941 & the Khomeini revolution of 1979 one MUST read Hostage to Khomeini by Robert Dreyfuss.

This book, published in USA in 1982 by
Benjamin Franklin is banned in Britain ever since.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

America & Britan’s oili revolution of 1979 in Iran.

Oil was the real reason for the west ditching the Shah of Iran. Please listen to the interview of the late Shah with Barbara Walters in 1977.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrCK6CD1dKM&feature=player_embedded

++++++++++++++++++++++++
…The Truth Is Out …
for more info please click:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sarbaz.org/000english/earticles/truth/AA240.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sarbaz.org/000english/earticles/Truth.htm&usg=__ssjYncnfT0g8rrWGrRfELpweW5I=&h=240&w=240&sz=15&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=u_4u77-ez4TkCM:&tbnh=110&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3DHostage%2Bto%2Bkhomeini%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1%26ie%3DUTF-8

The overthrow of the late Shah of Iran in 1979 by Jimmy Carter & Britain was the great mistake of the 20th century. Iranians will not forget nor forgive.

Reza Pardisan, London.

Israpundit.com


What's behind Venezuela's interception of U.S. plane

by Xinhua writers Yin Nan, Zhang Hua

CARACAS, Jan. 10 (Xinhua) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Friday that he has ordered two F-16 jets to intercept a U.S. military plane that twice violated Venezuelan airspace earlier in the day.

Chavez said the U.S. military plane, based on the Netherlands' Curacao island in the Caribbean, intruded in defiance of Venezuelan warnings, and were forced out of the Venezuelan airspace. The president said the U.S. provocative move was aimed at finding an excuse to launch a military attack against venezuela. However, the U.S. military has denied the allegation.

If the incident did happen, what would Chavez's tough and high-profile reaction affect the Venezuelan-U.S. relationship?

Political friction has been common between the two countries since Chavez took power in 1999. In September 2008, the two countries mutually expelled ambassadors.

Since U.S. President Barack Obama took office in 2009, Chavez has been looking forward to improving the bilateral ties. In April2009, Chavez and Obama met on the sidelines of a meeting of the Organization of American States. Two months later, the ambassadorial-level diplomatic relationship was restored between the two countries.

However, the short honeymoon was terminated by two major incidents: the Venezuelan government accused the U.S. government of masterminding a Honduras coup in late June, and denounced a military cooperation agreement between Colombia and the United States on the lease of seven Colombian military bases.

The United States said its agreement with Colombia was aimed at fighting drug trafficking and terrorism, but Venezuela and many other Latin American countries said the agreement posed a grave threat to regional peace, security and stability.

Venezuela said the agreement was "utterly unacceptable," because the United States' real intention was to use Colombia as a platform to strengthen its presence in and reinforce its control over Latin America, so as to restore its influence in the region, suppress left-wing governments, interfere with Latin American affairs and stem regional integration.

In the following diplomatic campaign, Venezuela reduced weapon imports from Colombia, froze diplomatic ties with the country and put further pressure on it. However, all the efforts failed to prevent Colombia and the United States from signing the agreement on Oct. 30.

From early December, the Venezuelan government complained for several times that unmanned reconnaissance planes from Colombia entered its airspace. It also produced evidence to show that the United States was preparing to use Dutch "colonial territories" of Aruba and Curacao as platforms to attack Venezuela.

On the one hand, the latest interception of the U.S. plane by Venezuela was to show its tough stance against the United States and send a warning to Colombia. On the other hand, Venezuela intended to achieve a favorable position and take a upper hand its struggle with the U.S. in the world media.

As western media have given a full coverage of the incident, both pro-government and opposition media in Venezuela only reported the news as an insignificant story.

The sharp contrast reflected that the Venezuelan people have been accustomed to their country's frequent frictions with the United States. At the same time, few people are worried about the possible deterioration of the U.S.-Venezuelan ties.

Despite the ideological and political differences that often caused tension between Venezuelan and U.S. governments, their economic and trade relations have been going well.

As more than 1 million barrels of oil are exported to the United States daily, incoming U.S. dollars support Venezuela's huge social programs and government reforms.

The United States has been sensitive over Venezuela's close relationship with Iran, its nationalization trend and its procurement of weapons from Russia. But analysts said the Latin American country would not become a priority in U.S. foreign policies.

A continued status quo is probably what is expected for the ties between Venezuela and the United States. As minor friction may continue to happen, further deterioration of ties or military actions are not likely to happen.

In a recent interview with Xinhua, Venezuelan parliament foreign policy committee member Roy Daza said the main objective of the Venezuelan foreign policy this year is to continue to oppose the establishment of U.S. military bases in Colombia and to prevent the implementation of the U.S.-Colombia agreement by all necessary means, because the issue involves Venezuela's "core national security interests."


Editor: Fang Yang

Saturday, December 19, 2009

US provides Massive Foreign Assistance to Her Enemies

September 5, 2009

by D. L. Gary-Pandol, Strategic Solutions for a new Middle East

Did you know that there has never been a time in American history that a president has chosen to sign into law, legislation that contributes $960 million in foreign assistance to the enemies of the United States, within a 12 month period, and at a time of deep economic crisis?

The first public announcement came on July 24, when Secretary of State Clinton, declared she wanted to “personally announce the delivery of $200 million” for the budget needs of the Palestinian Authority, (PA), under the present leadership of Mahmoud Abbas. By directing these contributions to the PA, the President may be in direct contravention of the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, (P.L. 111-8), Sec. 7039, (b) and (c).

Section 7039 (b) of the federal statute prohibits the funding and economic support of any “individual, private, or government entity, or educational institution . . . [that] advocates, plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist activity . . . .” Furthermore, Section 7039, (c) (1) notes, that funds cannot be granted to the West Bank and Gaza that “. . . may be made available for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit, or have committed acts of terrorism.”

To circumvent these important stipulations in Sec. 7039, in a Whitehouse memorandum, Presidential Determination, No. 2009-23, Obama signed a waiver of restriction on providing funds to the Palestinian Authority stating it was in the national security interests of the United States to do so. Is funding groups like the PA in the national security interests of the American people?

Just what is the Palestinian Authority and who is Mahmoud Abbas? The PA is the political offshoot of the Palestine Liberation Organization, (PLO), a terrorist group, known to have murdered several Americans and Israelis and has a history of working with and supporting other radical organizations. Mahmoud Abbas has been the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization since November 11, 2004, following the death of Yasser Arafat. In their early years, Abbas and Arafat were active inside Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood until Egypt expelled both men in 1950. The Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic terrorist group, even by Egypt’s standards, has been around since the early part of the last century and considered a forerunner of HAMAS, the Islamic Resistance Movement, and another major Palestinian terrorist organization that now controls Gaza following Israel’s disengagement from the area.

Yasser Arafat, referred to as the Father of modern terrorism, soon founded Fatah, also a terrorist organization, and in 1961, recruited Abbas into its ranks. During the late 1950s, early1960s, many wealthy Palestinians were enlisted into the movement from several Persian Gulf countries including Qatar and Kuwait and it was later suggested that Abbas provided the funding for the Munich Massacre in which 11 innocent Israeli athletes were murdered at the Olympic Games in Munich, Germany in 1972. Later on 23 November 2008, the PLO’s Central Council chose Mahmoud Abbas as their President. He ran on the Fatah ticket and he remains the PA President, Chairman and Fatah chief. On a personal note, Abbas chose to name one of his three sons after Yasser Arafat, a man who stood for the use of terror over the course of a lifetime.

Both within the PA and the PLO, Fatah remains the largest Palestinian political and military faction and espouses a leftist, socialist agenda, maintaining a number of terrorist groups such as Force 17, Black September, Fatah Hawks, Tanzim, and Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades. While doing research for this piece there was another Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade attack, Wednesday, August 12th in Binyamin, Israel. While Abbas has stated publicly that the group had been disbanded, the group in fact remains actively engaged. Moreover, at Fatah’s Conference in August, Fatah reaffirmed its endorsement of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade and announced that it would serve as Fatah’s military wing.

On the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations prior to 1989 and designated a terrorist group under Israeli law, Fatah decided to publicly renounce terrorism in 1988. Fatah was subsequently removed from the State Department’s list, but never ended calls for violence nor did they stop terrorizing Israeli citizens. Their strategies and objectives have remained unchanged. For example, this summer, during the PA’s Fatah General Conference, Fatah’s internal charter, Section 17 was left unabridged. It states: “Popular armed revolution is the imperative and the only way to liberate Palestine.” [See Middle East Media Research Institute, Inquiry and Analysis, No. 541, August 13, 2009, at memri@memri.org., for an in-depth examination of Conference results].

Furthermore, both the print and electronic media have been and continue to be under the control of the Palestinian Authority. Their themes remain the same i.e., for all Palestinians to initiate “violence and terror” as it is “capable” . . . that the goal of the Palestinians has never been peace, rather “. . . peace is a means; the goal is Palestine,” the total elimination of a Jewish state in Israel. For extensive coverage of PA television programming and interviews of PA and Fatah officials, other news publications and broadcasts, please see Palestinian Media Watch at www.pmw.org.il.

The Palestinian Authority, the ruling entity over Palestinians living in Judea and Samaria, (the West Bank), has named schools, street names, city squares, soccer fields and even soccer tournaments after terrorists to honor and glorify their deeds. Even through television programming, special broadcasts air to venerate terrorism. In March of 2009, there was a “television special” to celebrate a terror attack and pay tribute to Mughrabi, a terrorist who murdered 37 people. The broadcast referred to Mughrabi as a “hero”. [www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_May2009.htm].

So while the United States government continues to fund the Palestinians, one of the largest per capita recipients of foreign aid worldwide, the American people must challenge the U.S. government with the question? Has this massive welfare system of huge cash donations or incentives, stopped terrorism against Jews and Americans around the world over the last 60+ years? No, indeed!

Next question: Then why does Washington embrace a foreign policy approach that provides massive amounts of foreign aid to the Palestinians and in particular, the PA, in the belief that this will bring stability between the West and the Islamic world? Answer: The conventional wisdom in Washington from the “experts” purports that vast sums of money will buy influence and thus, modify and moderate behavior.

However, contributions have never stabilized and/or moderated Palestinian behavior. The PA together with Palestinian terrorist groups continue their strategies unabated and with widespread support from the local population. Moreover, Palestinians still manage to cling ideologically to America’s enemies such as North Korea, Chavez’s Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Syria, and Hezbollah.[info@pmw.org.il]

What the Whitehouse and Congress have not been telling the American people is that the PA/Fatah and the PLO have not been representative governing bodies, but corrupt, political and military machines that continue to work with militant forces using terrorism to achieve their goals and silence their opposition.

Perhaps now is a good time to open an investigation into the merits of President Obama’s Presidential Determination No. 2009-23 indicating that support for the PA is in the national security interests of the United States?

Consider the historical record as well. After conducting research at the National Archives, records indicated that during the first quarter of the last century monies had been solicited by Muslim Arabs who came to live in an area the League of Nations called Palestine under the British Mandate. Likewise, donations poured in from around the Muslim Arab world, years before the rebirth of Israel in 1948. Donations to the Muslim Arabs with the new “Palestinian” identity and passport were needed to wage a war of terror against the non-Muslim, Jewish population, a people who had lived there since time immemorial. How extraordinary that a century later contributions still go to the Palestinian movement and into the coffers of militants who still terrorize the Jewish people.

In summary, many Israelis believe that they will remain in a state of war, a war of attrition waged by the Palestinians, as the Obama administration and this Congress fund terror groups through governing entities like the PA.

The incitement to hate and kill Jews and Christians continues among the Palestinian people and their leadership, the PA and Fatah. The electronic and print media, schools and mosques, summer camps for children, in point of fact, every aspect of the life of a Palestinian is socialized to hate Israel, the Jews, and the American people. (Recall the scenes of street celebrations as the Palestinians danced and passed out candy to celebrate the deaths of over 3,000 people on 9/11).

Does the American taxpayer want their dollars spent on Palestinians and the terrorist groups they continue to support and maintain? Are the national security interests of the United States and Israel served by prolonging a massive welfare system for people that remain committed to war against the West?

In reality, no nation can purchase stability and peace with a people brought up in an environment of hate and determined to wage war and destruction.

It is a time for action. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress is currently considering FY2010 appropriations legislation (H.R. 3081 and S. 1434). These bills will give an additional $500 million in assistance to the Palestinians.

Let your United States’ Representatives and Senators know your views. And email the President at President@Whitehouse.com.

Note: I have quoted on USA TODAY comments from this article on numerous occasions! I have posted this article on my profile page of USA TODAY! It is the best demonstration and example of President Obama's intentions towards both Israel and for the Palestinians. The liberals usually go silent when this information is posted - they are simply unaware of how dangerous Obama's foreign policies and aid to our enemies is to the United States and our ally, Israel. BeeSting

Two Big Developments: Hillary Announces Start of Sanctions Push, Arab Poll Says Iran is Bigger Threat than Israel.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

by Barry Rubin

It may well be that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has given the signal for the new phase of U.S. policy toward Iran. On December 14, she said that the engagement policy with Tehran hadn’t worked and now it needs to press for additional sanctions.

Either this is her attempt to lobby for a tougher line against other administration officials or it's the long-awaited start of the sanctions made necessary by the looming of the administration’s own end-of-the-year deadline to get a deal with Iran or impose more sanctions.

Trying to negotiate, she said, has "produced very little" so "additional pressure is going to be called for."

Her phrasing was interesting, almost as if she was taking a poke at rivals in the administration who are reluctant to take action. "I don't think anyone can doubt that our outreach has produced very little in terms of any kind of a positive response from the Iranians," Clinton said, as if daring someone in the White House to disagree?

So what is the administration going to do? Try to get the UN and EU to support more sanctions. Here the administration likes to claim that its popularity and patient (arguably too patient) coalition-building will bring broad support.

Yet there’s another development that shows the opposite may be true. An important meeting to discuss sanctions, set for December 22, has been postponed at China’s request. As an
AP account put it:

Russia in recent days has moved away from suggesting it would support [sanctions]. And recent statements from Chinese officials indicate that Beijing has not changed its traditional opposition to new sanctions. While Russia and China signed on to three previous sets of UN sanctions against Iran, they also forced their Western Security Council partners to water them down substantially.”

Note that the administration keeps claiming that Moscow and Peking are on board. We are going to see something quite different when the negotiations get serious in January and February.

Buried in a paragraph of an
obscure article is explosively important news. A survey of people in 18 Arabic-speaking countries commissioned by a Qatari group—and not fully released yet-- found that a majority see Iran as a bigger threat to their security than Israel and one-third believing Iran is as big a threat as Israel.

This is of historic importance and, of course, reflects reality. This doesn’t mean the Arab attitude toward Israel is going to change drastically, but it does indicate that the real main demand of Arabs toward the West is not making instant Israel-Palestinian peace but protecting them from Iran’s extremist Islamist regime. Western policymakers should take note.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

US: Iraq not 'pushed around' by Iran

BAGHDAD — Iraq is "not going to be pushed around" by Iran, the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq said Saturday following an Iranian takeover of an oil well along the two nations' disputed border.

U.S. officials said they approved of Iraq's speedy defense of its sovereignty amid ongoing concerns over Iran's influence on its Mideast neighbor.

"It does speak to the overall view here that they are not going to be pushed around by Iran," U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill told reporters.

Iranian forces earlier this week crossed into Iraq, seizing an oil well just over the border in the southern Maysan province. The takeover — which included planting an Iranian flag on the well — was met by protests from Baghdad.

It served as a dramatic display of the sometimes tense relations between the wary allies.

Iraqi authorities on Saturday prevented media representatives from visiting the area at the al-Fakkah oil field, located about 200 miles (about 320 kilometers) southeast of Baghdad.

Top Iraqi national security officials said the well was clearly in Iraqi territory and demanded that the Iranians leave immediately.

High-level diplomatic talks between Iraq and Iran are continuing, said Iraqi deputy foreign minister Labid Abbawi.

"The situation this morning is the same: the Iranians have not withdrawn from the well," Abbawi told The Associated Press. "We are still sticking to our position in demanding an immediate withdrawal of Iranian forces from the oil well."

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Rahmin Mehmanparast denied that Tehran had seized the oil well and sought only to reduce tensions between the neighbors, accusing foreign media of spreading false news to "disrupt good relations" between Tehran and Baghdad.

"Diplomatic and technical mechanisms" were the way to deal with the issue, said Hasan Kazemi Qomi, the ambassador to Iraq, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.

Army Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, told reporters that the Iranian forces had withdrawn from the oil well as of Saturday morning. But an oil worker at the field said five Iranians remain inside the well, and the Iranian flag still flew above it.

The worker, who did not want to be identified for fear of retribution, said Iranian troops were watching the well from a hillside on Iran's side of the border.

An Iraqi Interior Ministry official, meanwhile, said Iraqi troops and border guards have moved to a staging ground about a kilometer from the well, awaiting orders. The official, who was at the scene, was not authorized to discuss the situation with the media and spoke on condition of anonymity.

It was not clear as well what kind of Iranian forces had been at the well. An Iraqi official and an eyewitness described them as soldiers. The Iraqi government spokesman described them only as an armed Iranians.

Earlier Saturday, the top American military official said the oil well takeover appeared to be the latest example of Iran flexing its influence over Iraq and other Mideast nations. However, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen called it an issue for the Iraqi government to settle, and said there were no plans by the United States to intervene.

Once bitter enemies, Iraq and Iran settled into a more positive, if still uneasy, relationship after a Shiite-led government came to power following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

"I continue to worry about the influence of Iran," Mullen, in Iraq for a two-day visit with U.S. and Iraqi authorities, said at a news conference in Baghdad. "I still think it's important that Iran have a constructive, positive influence in this region and globally. And there are just too many examples where that is not the case."

Odierno also said Iran continues to fund and train fighters in Iraq, as well as send weapons and equipment over the border — although less frequently now than in the past.

Analysts said it was too early to say whether the incident would mushroom into greater tension but said it could raise concerns with oil companies looking to invest in Iraq.

Oil prices rose slightly after news of the incident.