A new political discourse

Today, a Tamil visitor pointed me out to Iranian scholar's 10 academic questions to Lee Bollinger. Whether Bollinger responds to these questions is irrelevant. But a new form of political discourse is crystallizing around the (apparently careless!) statements made by Ahmadinejad.

The following is a comment by Nikogda Nichevo*. It is taken from the comment section of a post on the information clearing house. I have not sought the permission of the commentator to cross post, but there is something very fresh in this perspective which I endorse (and color-code! )

* Nikogda kindly dropped by and left his blog address

Language is the clothing of thought, and how the Iranian president used it in New York this week cloaks an entire tactical line.

The comportment of the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran during his recent visit to the United States, as well as the content of his discourse, are setting a standard of enlightened statecraft that is evidently lacking among the leaders of the U.S. and its most toadying "allies" from the Anglo-American bloc (UK, Canada, Australia etc.)

For decades the Anglo-American powers all prided themselves and patted one another on the back over their superior ability to "manage change". Then in 1979 the Iranian people rose up and had the temerity to get rid of the Anglo-Americans' most sacred totem, Shah Reza Pahlavi and his Asian-fascist "Peacock Throne". Ever since that epochal event, the situation for the Anglo-Americans in western Asia has gone from bad to worse. Specifically in Canada, no opportunity to smear the Iranian revolution has been overlooked.

Over the past year, for example, a political science professor, Shiraz Dossa of St Francis Xavier University, has been demonised in the national media for the crime of attending the last conference in Teheran about the European Judeocide. John Ibbitson — the former Washington correspondent of Canada 's leading national newspaper, The Globe and Mail in Toronto — practically foamed at the mouth like some rabid animal. He raged that Dr Dossa's derring-do cried out for some kind of redress. Perhaps a body to police Canadian academia so such cancers can't recur once they have been put into remission by an alerted university administration might be created, or the criminal code amended?

Ibbitson's idiocies recall to mind the crazed member of the Canadian Senate, Raoul Dandurand, back in the 1920s. In the interwar years following the First and preceding the Second World War, this individual was in love with Canada becoming a neocolony not just of Great Britain but of the United States as well. He enthused in public about how Canada was now "a fireproof house... free from inflammable materials".

That period of so-called "peace" was a time in which the British were exterminating the Irish nmational movement on a mass scale. The British government schemed to suffocate the Ataturk government in Turkey that had replaced the corrupt and moribund Ottoman caliphate. At this time, Canada's peaceable American neighbours were sending in the Marines repeatedly to murder the peoples of Haiti, Nicaragua, and elsewhere in the hemisphere. The US oil barons stopped at nothing — including political murders, bribery and corruption as well as invasion threats — to prevent the Mexican government's inevitable nationalisation of the country's oil. According to research published by Floyd Rudmin, the US Army was even planning the full-scale invasion and takeover of Canada.

Today, for the US and its toadying allies including the servile columnists of the corporate media, the room for such smugness and complacency among the ruling classes in Canada or any of the other Anglo-American countries has disappeared. Today, themost dangerously "inflammable material" is contemporary reality itself, with its daily proofs that Western global supremacy led by the Anglo-Americans cannot last forever.

Another world is possible and indeed necessary — but how to get there? World wars and genocides are not preferred methods. It is one thing if the imperial overlords compel the peoples fighting for liberation to turn the devastation of a world war or genocide to the account of the liberation struggle. However, this is certainly not the first choice of those fighting for social and national liberation. Some enormous disaster need not befall humanity first before anyone liberates their country from the yoke of empire. Averting such disasters is possible with enlightened statecraft. This seems to be objective #1 on the Iranian president's agenda.

With regard to enlightened statecraft, President Ahmadinejad sets a certain standard, and from a number of angles. He shares none of the bourgeois hangups of his Western imperial interlocutors and opponents. As a result, he comes across as apparently fearless. This always inspires confidence among those who want to see the imperial overlords brought down a peg or two.

No one was expecting a knockout punch at either the Columbia University engagement or the CBS 60 Minutes interview. However, what emerged there was better than a knockout bid. President Ahmadinejad's statecraft involved playing defence. However, it was a defence that upholds the Iranian nation's right-to-be by undermining the capabilities of the offence (led by the U.S.) to continue the offensive against the Iranian nation's right-to-be. Well... the Persians *are* one of the inventors of chess, no?

President Ahmadinejad builds a position on the basis of clearly articulated principle. Then, against the assault attempts of his opponents citing or hurling this detail or that detail against his wall of principle, he defends by reasserting the principle. The resulting drama of this confrontation serves to impress the principle on the listener-viewer. This is what gradually undermines any latent sympathy for the upholders of Western values etc.

It is brilliantly subversive. A friend of ours who was one of his students at Tehran University affirms that he is an inspired teacher. What has proven particularly stunning, however, are the effects of his style on North American audiences. No one can remember the last time any leader waged struggle for a political line in this manner.

On his last visit to New York City, when he accepted an invitation into the lion's den of the Council of Foreign Relations, he literally wiped the floor with those guys. The only individuals still bleating and babbling after he was done there were partisans of a certain notorious gang installed as a U.S.-backed junta on land stolen from the Palestinians on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean. Unsurprisingly, these are the partisans who are back once again for more punishment, spearheading the latest attempted public lynching of the Iranian president in New York City.

The first principle of the Islamic Republic's statecraft is the independence of the Iranian nation from foreign domination or subjugation. The first principle of the US-led bloc of imperial states is the unity and solidarity of their bloc. What is especially cunning is President Ahmadinejad's pitting of his government's first principle against the first principle of the US-led bloc. In this confrontation, it always emerges that the loudly proclaimed, allegedly "civilised values" of the US-led bloc are only rhetorical cover. What they= members of that bloc really have in mind are ruthlessly hegemonic schemes. Some scjemes entail the bankrupting of entire swaths of the global economy; other schemes envision invasions and occupations without end indefinitely into the future.

These are interimperialist contradictions. They are irrepressible. It eventually emerges further that the various members of the bloc proclaiming their vaunted unity around these "civilised values" are actually at one another's throats — over who gets to call the shots.

The Iranian President's approach serves to bring these contradictions back to the surface. When this happens, it simultaneously also deepens the contradictions in the ranks of the leaders of the US-led bloc, even as it alienates any remaining sympathies among the peoples of those countries for the stance of their government and their so-called "allies". If you doubt it, just look at the brouhaha that followed French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner's bloodthirsty imprecations against the Islamic Republic almost two weeks ago.

Interestingly, the Iranian president headed straight to Bolivia and then Venezuela to strengthen relations with two more countries, in the Americas and not in Asia, that can no longer tolerate peaceful coexistence under the Yankee jackboot. And what comes in today's news but word from the United Nations the permanent members of the Security Council — including the U.S., Britain and France — have decided that they cannot touch the "Iran question" again until November at the earliest. In short: a dignified victory for the policy of refusing to bend on fundamental principles such as the independence of the country for which the people shed their blood. Like the best tailor — or the richest tradition — among truly civilised people, the Iranians measured the cloth seven times or more before their President cut it.

US, NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran

Global Research warns of the buildup for a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran!

Who are the axes of evil?!

Anti-warriors, have you checked your investment portfolio?

Defense stocks on Wednesday hit new highs as Defense Secretary Robert Gates requested an extra $42 billion in funding from Congress to cover military costs in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008.

You cannot blame the American government for not taking care of America's most valued value: PROSPERITY!

Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) analyst Robert Stallard said he expects war-related spending in fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010 to be $170 billion and $150 billion, respectively. And even after the peak, war spending is still likely to be more than $100 billion annually for the next few years to refurbish and replace war torn equipment used in Iraq.

This war and this new American century project all make perfect economic sense to me!

However. in case you are a real pacifist, make sure your money is invested in Ethical Funds.

It is through the citizen's social responsibility that the corporations will be forced to change their war-prone culture. They are not evil seekers, they just need to make money to survive. And in a culture where the money and the scientific! mantra of "survival of the fittest" are the new religious sermons, anything is permissible, even war with innocent countries who want to keep their own share of the pie!

A Nuclear Iran: What Does it Mean, and What Can be Done?

The Institute for National Security Studies of Israel had published a memorandum by Dr. Ephraim Kam, evaluating scenarios of Iran’s likely acquisition of nuclear weapons and possible diplomatic and military responses. You can get the full text of the memo from Israel’s Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies

Here's a few excerpts from this 90 page document:
(page 27)
Iran’s hostility towards and continued isolation from the United States have been prominent characteristics of the radical Islamic regime in Tehran from the outset, and concessions in this realm would be interpreted as substantial erosion of the regime’s ideology, if not of the regime itself. This makes it difficult for Iran to agree to a deal with the United States even though the American administration is willing to talk to Iran (which is not the case), and the antagonism within the Bush administration and political circles in the United States does not facilitate a deal with Iran anytime in the near future. (so the Jewish state is not really supportive of Bush's rhetoric either!) What does Iran’s conduct suggest about the chances of achieving a comprehensive agreement on the nuclear issue? On the one hand, Iran has shown that it is determined to build a full nuclear fuel cycle, which in practice will allow it to retain the option of pursuing nuclear weapons. Due to Iran’s staunch interest in attaining this goal, it is reasonable to assume that Iran will not make concessions on this issue. In addition, after committing itself publicly and repeatedly to continue building a full fuel cycle, which includes uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, it would be difficult for Tehran to concede this point without its being deemed surrender to the United States. In order for Iran to be willing to make a comprehensive deal on ending its drive towards nuclear weapons, some or all of certain conditions are critical: a change in the internal balance of power of the Iranian leadership in favor of elements amenable to compromise on the nuclear issue; Iranian willingness to begin a meaningful dialogue with the American government; American willingness to offer Iran far-reaching proposals in political, economic, and technological realms; an overall change in the relationship between Iran and the United States; and Iranian understanding that it will pay a heavy price for continuing its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. These conditions do not yet exist, and the chances that the parties involved will succeed in reaching a comprehensive solution do not appear imminent.
(page 30)
There is no guarantee that Iran's nuclear program would be stopped by economic sanctions, which can be violated, subverted, or exchanged for different economic arrangements, and in any case, Iran may decide not to succumb to pressure despite economic hardship. At the same time, comprehensive and substantive international sanctions might result in the suspension or halt of Iran’s nuclear program, due to the vulnerability of the Iranian economy and the implications of economic distress on domestic stability. Iran will be able to bear the sanctions to a certain degree, and the people of Iran are initially likely to support the regime in the face of pressures. And yet while extended sanctions are expected to cause social unrest, past behavior of various governments vis-à-vis their relations with Iran suggests that the imposition of sanctions will not garner wide endorsement, because at least in the short term, these governments do not regard Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons as a significant enough threat to justify the loss of substantial income due to sanctions.
(page 32)
For its part, Israel cannot contribute in any way to the diplomatic efforts underway to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Israel has nothing to offer the Iranians in exchange for halting their project, and it has no channels of meaningful dialogue with the Iranian regime. Israel has also not been a participant (direct or indirect) in the recent negotiations with Iran. In actuality, the only way Israel can contribute to the negotiations is by means of the intensified pressure resulting from the assumption that Israel possesses the military capability to attack Iranian nuclear facilities in the event that talks on the subject fail. Israel can also try to obtain high quality intelligence on Iran's nuclear program.
(on page 34 there is a fun-to-read description of how perilous it would be for Israelis to attack Iran from air! Admitting that Iran is not the piece of cake that Iraq was!)
This difficult and sensitive operation is complicated even further by the broad geographical distribution of Iranian nuclear facilities. It is impossible to neutralize Iran’s nuclear capability by attacking just one facility, as Israel did in Iraq. While comprehensive damage would not require destroying all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, it would require striking at least three or four sites involved with uranium enrichment and plutonium production. It is also doubtful whether Israel would be able to maintain the element of surprise as it did in Iraq, because the Iranians fear such an attack and have therefore prepared for it.
(Page 36)
Iran no longer appears to be significantly dependent on external sources for the acquisition of nuclear technology, and it already possesses most of the knowledge required for developing fissile material. Iran possesses nuclear raw material; it manufactures centrifuges for uranium enrichment; the large facility that it built for uranium enrichment is almost complete; it operates a facility for uranium conversion; it claims to have succeeded in enriching uranium; it has built a heavy water facility; it has carried out plutonium separation tests; and it appears to have a sufficient quantity of well-trained and professional personnel. This means that even if a few main Iranian facilities are attacked, Iran will be able to construct alternative sites within a short time if it is allowed to do so undisturbed.
(page 38, here he bring my point home about the Arab government's hypocrisy, sounds somehow nostalgic that Iran and Israel are not buddies:)
Finally, an Israeli attack that damages the Iranian nuclear program would serve the interests of many countries, such as the United States, other Western countries, and Muslim and Arab countries that regard Iran as a threat. Nonetheless, considerable criticism of such an attack would certainly emanate from these same countries. Some will see the attack as an act of aggression against the Muslim world as a whole, which could undermine Israel’s delicate relations with Arab and Muslim countries, and some might opt for diplomatic measures against Israel. In any event, many will see the attack as a joint AmericanIsraeli operation, especially if it becomes clear that there was advance coordination between the two countries. This could increase feelings of hostility towards the United States throughout the Arab and Muslim world. However, despite the expected criticism and condemnations, it is likely that for several reasons Israel in the long term will not be forced to pay a high price in the international arena: Iran’s nuclear activities are seen as defying the international consensus; the vast majority of the countries involved favor the destruction of the Iranian nuclear program; and President Ahmadinejad’s statements about wiping out Israel have bolstered the impression that Iran constitutes a threat to Israel’s existence, justifying actions of self-defense.
(now you see why this mistranslation is being so eternally used?!!)
Now in the hypothetical case that Iran DOES SUCCEED in obtaining the nuclear weapons, the memo proposes the following courses of action for Israel:
(page 11)
• Adopt the position that the leading powers, especially the United States, and not an individual country in the region, are responsible for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, (this is what I call chickenshit!) and disarming it by both military and political means should Iran achieve nuclear capability. A nuclear Iran threatens the critical interests of the United States and other countries, and a superpower is better equipped to address the threat and handle the outcome of its actions. (that's why AIPAC exists.) At the same time, Israel must make sure not to be seen as encouraging the American administration to attack Iran.
• Continue to declare publicly that under the present circumstances Israel cannot accept a nuclear-enabled Iran. In practical terms, Israel must develop an independent course of action against Iran's potential nuclearization.
• Bolster its deterrence against Iran, which might be reduced if Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
• Intensify strategic cooperation with the United States and other countries with regard to Iran. Israel’s aim should be for the American government to convey to Iran in no uncertain terms that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would be considered an attack on the United States itself...(work for AIPAC)
• Reassess its own policy of nuclear ambiguity.
• Examine the possibility of signing a peace treaty with Syria, in the hope that this severs Syria’s close relationship with Iran and Syrian support of Hizbollah. Entering into peaceful relations with Syria would result in further improvements in Israel’s relations with other Arab countries, reduce the influence of Iran’s militant approach, and perhaps result in a dialogue between Israel and Iran.

The conclusion: Can Israel live with a nuclear Iran? The report concludes: Yup!! Under what condition? Open communication between Iran and Israel!


This is a very educational and balanced report, nonwithstanding the paranoia.

A Persian Response to an Imperialist Bigot:

Read the full transcript of the exchange between Bollinger and Ahmadinejad! In response to a barrage of opening insult by Bollinger, Ahmadinejad responded:

"At the outset, I want to complain a bit on the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran, tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite us as a -- to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment, and we don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in -- (applause) -- with a series of claims and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.

I think the text read by the (dear ?) gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment, we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all. Most certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak. And that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that is given to us in this country."

Update:
Dr. Farhang Jahanpour asks two interesting questions:

For the sake of argument, let us imagine that the shoe had been on the other foot. Let us imagine that the president of Tehran University had invited President Bush to speak at Tehran University and then had introduced him in the following manner: "Mr president! You have launched an illegal and immoral war against a nation that you falsely accused of possessing nuclear weapons. You killed over a million of its innocent people. You drove 2.4 millions away from their homes to be refugees in their own country, and you have driven another two million Iraqis into neighbouring countries that you also demonise. You have stolen their oil, shattered their country, destroyed its infrastructure, its civil society, and its civilian and military administration. You have created sectarian strife in a country where millions of Kurds, Shi'is and Sunnis had lived in peace for many centuries. You created torture chambers in Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo and scores of secret torture cells in different parts of the world. Domestically, you have imposed unprecedented surveillance on your people and have undermined their democratic rights. You have arrested a number of Iranian officials in Iraq without any justification and are still holding them despite the pleas of Iraqi leaders that they should be released. You have committed all these atrocities in the name of spreading democracy and human rights. This is a travesty of truth. Will you cease this outrage?"

...

Or let us imagine that Bollinger had invited the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to speak at Columbia University and had described him in the following vein: "Mr Prime Minister! You are a petty and cruel war criminal. Last year you launched a barbaric and devastating attack on your defenceless neighbour Lebanon – the fourth such invasion – and killed and wounded thousands of innocent Lebanese men, women and children. You demolished people's homes and apartments on top of their inhabitants. You indiscriminately bombed bridges, power stations, factories, mosques, churches and airports. On the last two days of your illegal invasion you scattered nearly three million cluster bombs over farms and residential areas in southern Lebanon, which is a war crime, and these kill and maim a large number of Lebanese people, especially children, each day. You have created a concentration camp for 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, who had been driven from their homes by you and by your predecessors, and you attack them from air, land and sea. In the past year alone, you have killed hundreds of Palestinians, including their elected representatives. You prevent anyone from getting in or out. You have even threatened to cut off all essential services to them. According to UN figures, some 80 per cent of the population is now living in absolute misery and poverty as the result of your actions. You continue to occupy Palestinian lands and build more illegal settlements on stolen land. Your government has secretly amassed a large arsenal of nuclear bombs in contravention of international laws, and yet you advocate war on a country that only wishes to have access to nuclear technology under the IAEA supervision. Will you cease this outrage?"

An American Hero? President Lee Bollinger!

Yesterday, when at the end of my busy day I realized the speech was not called off, I said:
It takes courage to do what Lee Bollinger did today!
I have not watched Ahmadinejad's speech. I do not care much for what he said. At this moment,what I take comfort from, is that America has not succumbed to Zionism/Neoconservativism. And that there ARE individuals who stand up to defend the foundations of their own civilization: freedom of speech and opinion in the case of a Western Civilization!
I will be back with more on this!
=======================
a few hours later, after hearing the cruel treatment Bollinger gave his guest speaker:
Well well, Lee Bollinger is a hero, but he is a very rude one! What kind of a civilization invites someone to give a speech and then starts name-calling? I guess a "heroic" American one!!! I sympathize with Bollinger though, he has to appease the fundamentalist Americans (AKA zionists and neoconservatives) but I doubt the most fundamentalist of Iranians would be calling (even) an invited "enemy" names! Certain cultures do not have proper manners! And I am planning to not waste time and sleep over this charade!

Ridwan correctly criticizes my post for its over-simplicity. In his blog he writes:

Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia University’s president, spoke before Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today, and he made a mockery out of the valued principles of academic freedom and free speech.

Bollinger decided it was more important to defend his reputation and ward off patriot critics who would cast him as soft on terrorism.

In these terms, Bollinger is neither an academic nor a patriot of the Bush position on Iran. Instead, he is a selfish man who chose the shallowest of all positions to guard his reputation and his job.

There is nothing academic and principled in this position.

Rather, there is the usual buffoonery that typifies the gross and ugly American stereotype.

Brother Tim is also calling to task the American hypocrisy on the freedom of speech.

He first tackles those who protested Ahmadinejad's presence in Colombia:

Our dim-witted politicians and block-headed pundits have really shown their hypocritical colors. Freedom of Speech is only to be enjoyed by holders of American passports. The hypocrisy of the matter literally short-circuits my brain.

While our arrogance says that we have the best form of government, with guaranteed rights and liberties; and that others, mainly in the Middle-East, should emulate us. Those in power seek to deny his right to free speech.

He then characterizes Bollinger:

Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University, is at the top of my list. It was he who extended the invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak at the University. Then, after feeling the pressure from politicians and pundits, went into a lengthy, incoherent rant under the facade of an introduction. I was embarrassed for him. I think his lowest point was when he called Ahmadinejad petty and cruel. No, Mr. Bollinger, it was you, sir, who was petty and cruel. For you to belittle and insult him, after he accepted the invitation that YOU offered him, shows your crass and philistine character. When he responded to you, he took the moral high-ground, and didn't respond with the ad hominem attacks that YOU used on him. To me, you looked and sounded like a two-year old, trying to blame the dog for eating the cookies, while the crumbs were still on your lips.

Newt Gingrich, that slobbering dolt, said he should not be allowed to speak in America because he is a "pathological liar". By that standard, that would mean Bush and Cheney should not be allowed to speak in America (talk about heaven on earth).

Please do read Brother Tim's passionate post: Some may call it propaganda, but Ahmadinejad has extended the 'olive branch' many times, only to have his hand slapped. He was grateful to the U.S. for taking out his two main enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. He offered Iranian help, in both Afghanistan AND Iraq; and his offers were snubbed by the Bush Administration. Maybe if we had taken him up on his offer, we wouldn't be in the quagmire we're in right now. He has been fighting al Qaeda (the Wahhabis) for years, we could have made use of his help.

I like to add one more thing: WHO SAYS AHMADINEJAD IS A TERRORIST AND A CRUEL DICTATOR???!

Iran has seen cruel dictators, this little guy is NOT one of them.

How can a man be called terrorist based on MISTRANSLATION of his statement about the illegitimacy of ZIONISM?!

The theater of the absurd!

This is Guardian's breaking news: Iran Supplying Taliban!

The absurdity of this "news" is not just in allegation of Iran supplying its own old enemy: the Taliban! The absurdity is not just in the amnesia about Iran's aid in overthrowing the Taliban it is rather in the political nature of hypothetical assumptions behind such allegations.

So this time around its Admiral Fellan, (the boss of Petraeous, who perhaps feels he is left behind in the ranks of ass-kissers) that accuses Iran's Revolutionary Guard of "supplying roadside bomb parts for the type of sophisticated and deadly bombs found in Iraq known as explosively formed penetrators". Well, whatever the hell bomb-parts maybe? I am not a bomb expert, but if there is a piece of metal used in making a bomb, and if that piece is coming from Iran then it MUST definitely be the Revoloutionary Guards arm supply! For the General's convenience and the facile minds of his audience, let's not mention that Iran, for over 20 years, housed a population of 2 million Afghans who are frequenting the eastern borders of Iran, bidirectionally. The general cannot even be bothered to think the incoming insurgents from the Iranian side may in fact be Afghans!

With a typical American simplicity, the General says:
"The Iranians are clearly supplying some amount of lethal aid. There is no doubt ... that agents from Iran are involved in aiding the insurgency."

Fellan, of course, has acknowledged that Iran is providing development assistance in western Afghanistan, which he has labeled as helpful. However, subscribing to the paranoid and ungrateful mentality of his neoconservative master the Admiral has added: "I think they put a priority on causing us as much frustration as they can ...I think it's all aimed at embarrassing us and one of their long-standing aims is getting us out of the region. I think there are two very different stories going on here. One is about peace, one is about conflict.

He THINKS, therefor he IS! Since when are the soldiers asked to think?

Of course, no one is too bothered by the number of civilians who are killed by the NATO forces. No one is considering that Taliban will not give up the fighting, just as they didn't give up fighting the Russians. There cannot be any resistance movement in Afghanistan or in Iraq! Nope, this is all Iran's plotting to "embarrass" America out of the region. And god forbid if America is embarrassed! America will bomb the hell out of anyone who embarrasses the US. Just a few hours ago NATO bombs have killed four in a case of mistaken identity. the Death of over 600 CIVILIAN casualties in mistaken killings are not embarrassing NATO. But Iran is determined to embarrass US by supplying road bombs!! Americans are the greatest source of their own embarrassment, given the liberty with which they kill innocent people! And then say "oops, sorry!"

Mehr news puts the embarrassing actions of Americans in an amusing perspective: while the U.S. accuses Iran of smuggling weapons to Iraq--without providing any proof-- they find evidence that the Blackwater employees (can we say the United States?) is smuggling weapons to Iraq. Wouldn't this mean that U.S. troops are being killed by the U.S. weapons?

-----------------------------------
Half-related: watch Buddha Collapsed of Shame

What's new with Prince Bandar?

For those who do not know Prince Benadar, you can read about him from the Saudi embassy site or less officially: Go to the officious whitehouse website:

ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT
Good afternoon. I am His Royal Highness Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud. I serve America in the important dual role of longtime Bush family investor and official spokesman for the dictatorial Islamist monarchy that produced Osama bin Laden and fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. As a regular overnight guest in both the White House and Bush private residences in Crawford and Kennebunkport, I take great pains to selflessly dictate the President's thinking on American policy matters large and small – and have been a particularly valuable advisor in the war against eroding petroleum profits.

A favorite of the world's leaders (read UK/US), and a buddy of Collin Powel, Bandar and Powel were key players in the Iran-contra (involving shipment of American weapons through Israel to Iran, during the Iran-Iraq war.)

So what has he been up to lately?
Negotiating a £40bn arms deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia and receiving £1bn secret payments for over a decade, as a BBC probe has found.

And who is prince Bandar in cahoots with in rushing to war with Iran? Seymour Hersh revealed 6 months ago!

The key players behind the redirection [i.e. shift of Bush's mideast policy to confrontation with Iran]are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser.

Democracy (in)action.

Have you seen the video of a student getting violently tasered as he asks John Kerry too many questions about his Skull and Bones bother, George Bush?! See a sharper video and analysis at Ann's People's Geography.

Addendum
Dissident News, has posted Carolyn Baker's article entitled The Police State is Here and Now. In her article, she provides a critical review of Naomi Wolf's Guardian article "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps." Summarized by Baker, they are:

1. Invoking an external and internal threat
2. Establishing secret prisons
3. Developing a paramilitary force
4. Surveiling ordinary citizens
5. Infiltrating citizens' groups
6. Arbitrarily detaining and releasing citizens
7. Targeting key individuals
8. Restricting the press
9. Casting criticism as "espionage" and dissent as "treason"
10. Subverting the rule of law

Barker's point of departure from Wolf, however is in that she considers fascism not a potential but an actuality in present America.

The author of US History Uncensored is unforgiving of the role the corporations have played in the past and play today in installing fascist rule:

American history is replete with a preference on the part of corporations and the politicians they own for an economic and political system on the far right end of the spectrum. In fact, resistance to fascism in the United States has been an arduous and daunting struggle for those who have been able to understand and oppose the appeal that fascism has to the corporatocracy, and in fact, take seriously Mussolini's fundamental definition of fascism: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

She also draws on the analogy of the two political parties in America as mobster families: "They function like players in a crap game that feign opposition to each other, but when the chips are down, they will always unite to serve their common interests." (Without Baker's explicit mentioning, Kerry's inaction pops to mind.)

Baker considers Andrew Mayer's case of police brutality as a myth of the Shock Doctrine, a fascist strategy intended to shock the subversive individual into submission.

Did you know the world is bigger than UK-US-EU?

Brother Tim draws attention to the NAM: Non Aligned Movement.

Iraq's New Saddam

How George Bush Became the New Saddam by Patrick Graham of Canada's McLean's Magazine.

What have you done for Iraq?

Iran's Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani said on Wednesday that the recent report released by the US Ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker and Commander of US troops in Iraq General David Petreaus was full of contradictions. Larijani protested false reports of Iran's interference in Iraqi democracy: "Iran supplies Iraq with electricity and drinking water. What have you brought Iraq?" (Watch Chalmers Johnson and see what America is building in Iraq!) Iran has allocated $1 billion towards building schools, libraries and hospitals in Iraq.

"The US has turned Iraq into a military marketplace", he said, adding that they should tell that Iraqi people how many hospitals, schools and health centers have been constructed by them for the Iraqi nation.

Lieberman's Velvet Revolution!

He wants to inject 75 million $s into "democracy promotion" In Iran!!

The real promoters of Iranian democracy, i.e. those who RESIDE IN IRAN and face threats and harassments, such as Emadedin Baghi, the founder of the Organization for Prisoner's Right, have strongly opposed such allocation of funds towards democracy in Iran.

In a letter to the International Human Rights Organization, in May 2007, Baghi wrote:

The allocation of yearly funds has led to the Iranian government's widespread concern and suspicion towards civil society organizations and human rights activists, clearly exacerbating in significant ways pressures on them and the number of arrests. Undoubtedly, not all these pressures and arrests are reflective of recently developed government concerns and suspicions. Forces that are against liberty also use the U.S. budget allocation as a pretext or excuse to legitimize their opposition to civil liberties and to discredit their critics.

In such an atmosphere, individuals and organizations that are more active and well-known are easier to spot and hence easier to threaten. In the past two years, we have been witness to numerous accusations hurled against civil society institutions such as the Society for Defending Prisoner's Rights. Such organizations have also faced investigation and even closure of their offices. In the past 14 months, for instance, I have been summoned by the Iranian judiciary or intelligence organizations 7 times but have not publicized the matter in order to avoid political tensions. I think it time to change course and act in different ways. I would like to state categorically that it is neither wise nor morally justifiable for the United States to continue its path, without due respect or concern for the specific harm and harassment the so-called democracy fund entails for human rights activists in Iran. It is not right for independent individuals and institutions inside Iran to pay the price for allocated funds that the United States government spends on broadcasting from the United States into Iran or for the activities of exiled Iranian groups that cooperate with various American organizations.

Please write to Congress and oppose allocation of such funds! Spend them on your soldiers and veterans! Iran doesn't want some exiled "liberator"! Our activists and democratic leaders live in Iran! These American funds SERIOUSLY DAMAGE the course of democracy in Iran, and put innocent scholars such as Haleh Esfandiari in jail.

Where is Petraeus' Boss?

Think Progress reports that Gen Petraeus' boss, Adm. William Fallon is less than happy with General's "asskissing, chicken-shitting" behavior!

Read Gareth Porter's analysis of the causes of animosity between the two.

I didn't know about any of this last night but I found it interesting how Petraeus brushed off Jim Lehrer's question about "who is your boss?" He responded with:

"Admiral Fallon, the Central Command commander, of course up to the secretary of defense. But, in fact, the counterinsurgency manual, what it calls this is unity of effort. It's not unity of command. There's not one of us that's in charge of the other, but there has to be unity of effort."

Thanks Nunya for the tip!

Trivia: Did you know that in 1987, Petraeus completed a PhD thesis (in the Wilson Woodrow Center) entitled "The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam", examining the influence of the Vietnam War on military thinking regarding the use of force.
Here's a PDF version of his thesis.
Judging from the abstract, the General to become, seems to have been too sad that Vietnam had made the military too cautious to use force all the time and he seems to have suggested the post-Vietnam cautiousness to have been a pitfall!

US seeks pact with enemies

LA Times: Us is negotiating with the Shiite militia, previously considered a terrorist group!
The military is in talks with elements of cleric Sadr's powerful group, which is accused of attacks against soldiers but which holds sway in much of Baghdad and parts of Iraq."

BAGHDAD -- -- U.S. diplomats and military officers have been in talks with members of the armed movement loyal to Muqtada Sadr, a sharp reversal of policy and a grudging recognition that the radical Shiite cleric holds a dominant position in much of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq.

The secret dialogue has been going on since at least early 2006, but appeared to yield a tangible result only in the last week -- with relative calm in an area of west Baghdad that has been among the capital's most dangerous sections.

The discussions have been complicated by divisions within Sadr's movement as well as the cleric's public vow never to meet with Iraq's occupiers. Underlying the issue's sensitivity, Sadrists publicly deny any contact with the Americans or British -- fully aware the price of acknowledging such meetings would be banishment from the movement or worse.

The dialogue represents a drastic turnaround in the U.S. approach to Sadr and his militia, the Mahdi Army.The military hopes to negotiate the same kind of marriage of convenience it has reached in other parts of Iraq with former insurgent groups, many Saddam Hussein loyalists, and the Sunni tribes that supported them. Both efforts are examples of how U.S. officials have sought to end violence by cooperating with groups they once considered intractable enemies.
...
In his testimony to Congress on Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, underscored the importance of reaching out to the Mahdi Army, deflecting a suggestion that the U.S. declare the movement a terrorist group.

"You're not going to kill or capture all of the Sadr militia anymore than we are going to kill or capture all the insurgents in Iraq," Petraeus said. "Some of this is a little bit distasteful. It's not easy sitting across the table, let's say, or drinking tea with someone whose tribal members may have shot at our forces or in fact drawn the blood -- killed our forces."

MORALE of the Story: Talk first, before making enemies, to whom you end up speaking "distastefully"!

Rare Look Inside Iran's Notorious Jail

Associated Press: Iran Opens Doors of Feared Evin Prison

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran opened the doors of its most feared prison to journalists Tuesday, allowing them to interview a jailed Iranian-American academic in a move seen as an effort to blunt criticism of the country's human rights record.

The rare look inside Evin Prison — where inmates were seen swimming in an open-air pool, cooking meals and studying for university exams — contrasted sharply with tales of harsh treatment from some recently released prisoners.

Amnesty International said the tour was not representative of a facility where people have been tortured and political prisoners have been held without charges.

Forty journalists were taken on a 4-hour tour of five cellblocks at the sprawling facility in northern Tehran on the slopes of the Alborz Mountains. The reporters were allowed to talk freely with prisoners in their cells and in the halls. Guards were nearby during the interviews, but did not intervene. Read more.

P.S. Last year, BBC reporters were also allowed to visit the prison.

And here is the human rights lawyers and Nobel laureate, Shirin Ebadi's personal experience in Evin.

Sex Education in the Islamic Republic of Iran

The instructor held up an unfurled green condom as she lectured a dozen Iranian brides-to-be on details of family planning. But birth control was only one aspect of the class, provided by the government and mandatory for all couples before marriage. The other was about sex, and the message from the state was that women should enjoy themselves as much as men and that men needed to be patient, because women need more time to become aroused.

Read more on International Herald Tribune. Michael Slackman writes "Iran is full of surprises."

Also, BBC's Jim Muir's report on Iran's flavourful condom production!

(Although abortion remains illegal, unless the mother's health is endangered, condoms and birth control pills are dispensed for FREE at government funded health centers across Iran.)

A defiant nation and its foes

Beyond the high political drama, Christopher de Bellaigue, a long-term resident of Tehran and a fluent Persian speaker, gives a sense of the complexities of Iranian culture and society through striking portraits of Iranians going about their daily lives—reading the poetry of Rumi, looking at modern art, making films under the threat of censorship, trying to get by despite domestic turmoil and military threats. His keen analyses of Iran's politics and its people offer fascinating insights into a often misunderstood nation that poses some of the most challenging problems facing the world today.

"An eloquent and sensitive memoir of an increasingly bleak political situation, this selection deserves special recognition for its emphasis on young Iranians' efforts to hybridize Islam and Western values and its implicit suggestion that such efforts may be the way of the future." --Booklist

Remembering America Shooting Down Flight 655

The neoconservative Judge's ruling makes us think of the passenger airplane, shot down by Americans in 1988! Still haunted by the image of a baby, floating on the Persian gulf.

"While issuing notes of regret over the loss of human life, the U.S. government has, to date, neither admitted any wrongdoing or responsibility in this tragedy, nor apologized, but continues to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Commander Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement", his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" having enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure."

Reagan cut a deal with Iran's Islamists to overthrow Carter

Barbara Honegger (a researcher and policy analyst with the Reagan/Bush campaign in 1980):
"The very possibility that Carter could bring the hostages home was close to certain to wreck a Reagan bid for the presidency. So the Reagan campaign took phenomenal secret measures to ensure that the Carter white house was not successful. Reagan's 1980 campaign manager, William Casey, was knowledgable, before the fact, of the upcoming Carter Desert 1 rescue attempt of April, 1980. Now that is a phenomenal fact, because many of even the highest level officers in Carter's own CIA were kept in the dark about that very operation."
Read more ...

I have previously also posted on the curious relations between Iran's fundamentalists and America's Neoconservatives.

Hashemi's Urge to Talk confirms my earlier suggestions that the recent rhetorical exchanges are a part of the political game that Hashemi has been playing with Neocons, since Iran-Contra. Stay tuned!
----------------
To remember: Robert Parry's investigation into the players involved in the surprise release of the American Hostages.
(Thanks rickB. I didn't post it before because I didn't want to mix Jamshid Hashemi, with the Hashemi I am talking about in this post.)
--------------------

Juidiciary joins the war criminals?!

This is Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
Judge Lamberth received his appointment to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in November 1987 by President Reagan. He was appointed Presiding Judge of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in May 1995 by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Judge Lamberth graduated from the University of Texas and from the University of Texas School of Law, receiving an LL.B. in 1967. He served as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General�s Corps of the United States Army from 1968 to 1974, including one year in Vietnam. Something tells me Judge Lamberth, an avid proponent of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the court that warrants wire-tapping!) has a seriouslyRepublicain Agenda! as he has presided over a few cases against the Clintons!

Judge Lambert misconductin the Indian Trust Fund Case had him removed from the case by the Court of Appeals.Judge Lamberth has thus gone back to his particular interest in Iran: he holds Iran responsible for any act of terrorism, with or without proof!

Last year, when the Bush-Drums of war were beating and the UN was being coyed to sanction Iran, Judge Lamberth decided to hold Iran responsible for the 96 attack in Saudi Arabia!

This year, as the Bush-drums of war are beating and the IAEA is being coerced to condemn Iran, in spite of lack of evidence, Judge Lamberth has fined Iran for 1983 attack on US barracks in Beirut

How timely!

FOX and CNN are the first to report on this!
=======================================================================
Iran's Response:

TEHRAN (AFP) — Iran said Saturday that a US federal court decision to fine Tehran 2.65 billion dollars for the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut was "baseless" and aimed at plundering Iranian assets.

"This decision is baseless. Unfortunately some courts in the United States, without listening to the other side's views and without investigation, issue verdicts that are not legally defendable," Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.

"These decision show political pressures to plunder Iran's assets in the US," he said, adding that Tehran would follow up the case through its representative at the United Nations.

Victor and Albert Museum: 16th century Persian carpet, Ardabil.

Major General S. d. Butler: War is a Racket

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War.
"

h/t to The Peoples' Party

Read the book here. Or, read polishifer's illuminating excerpts.

Fanonite: the United State of Israel

In case you are wondering who has been/is/will be running America!

Also: this is what Bush counts on to get away with attacking Iran

Next Quagmire!

Speaks Chris Hedges

WHY IS IT ...

that when the twin towers, the American symbol of might, fall, a huge atrocity has taken place. But when America talks about bombing the PEACEFUL NUCLEAR technology, that Iran has been painstakingly developing--to symbolize its technological abilities--, we shake our heads with a shy approval of the necessity of the attack????

How would you feel if I told you that Germany is planning to bomb and dismantle MIT?

These are UNIVERSITIES that your CRIMINAL PENTAGON is planning to target!

Just Say NO!

Little snippets of gossip are guaging our tolerance for a new war with Iran!

As Lydia Cornelle wrote: "We have to stop saying "Bush is going to attack Iran" as if it's a done deal. We can say, "We will not tolerate this any longer" but let's get active. We need to get out on the streets.

and as Dave wisely suggests: Just say NO!

We did it last year but we need to be louder this year.

Signing a Petition IS NOT ENOUGH!

In the whole America, ONLY THREE CITIES have passed a No War On Iran Resolution. You can get your cities involved.

WP: accessory to NYT, the instrument of the crime!

Well New York Times and Washington Post seem to be in cahoots! No big surprise!

In the previous post, I have provided the REAL text of the IAEA agreements with Iran regarding the nuclear issue. So that door is slammed in their face! But they are now accusing Iranians of killing Americans!

Says who?
On August 21st, Washington Post comes up with this jolly editorial: Tougher on Iran: The Revolutionary Guard is at war with the United States. Why not fight back? Where is this line coming from? The Israel Lobby!

And what are these facts based on?
As Garth Porter of The American Prospect reveals: The New York Times military reporter Michael Gordon!

Who is Michael Gordon?

Gordon played a key role, along with Judith Miller, in legitimizing a major theme of the Bush administration's Iraq propaganda -- the infamous aluminum tubes argument -- as the White House Iraq Group kicked off its campaign to prepare public opinion for war in September 2002.

Now whom does Gordon claim to derive his facts from?

"supposedly" from Brig. Gen. Bergner!

But what did Brig. Gen. Bergner actually say?

• Brig. Gen. Bergner offered no real evidence of Iranian involvement in planning the January attack in his press briefing on July 2.
• Bergner never even explicitly claimed such direct Iranian involvement in the planning.
• When in the press release Bergner failed to claim a direct Iranian involvement -- or even through a Hezbollah operative in Iraq -- in the planning of the January raid in Karbala, Gordon pushed him to state clearly that the Iranians not only helped plan but actually "directed" the attack on Americans.
• He responded: "Michael, I can't substantiate that proposition."
• What Bergner said in his prepared statement was that both Hezbollah operative Ali Musa Daqduq, who was in liaison with the militia group which carried out the attack, and Kais Khazali, the Iraqi said to have been in charge of the group.
• Bergner provided a number of details in the briefing about Hezbollah training of Shiite militia groups in Iran, including the number of sites, their location, and the number of militiamen trained at any given time, he did not claim that the specific group in question had been trained by Hezbollah, either in Iran or anywhere else.
• In that briefing, Gordon pushed Bergner to say that the purpose of Iranians was to try to "capture these American soldiers in the hope of trading them for the detained IraqiBergner refrained from addressing Gordon's restatement of the story as Iranian help and guidance of the January attack." officials."

What had Gen Petraeus said about the Iranian involvement in American killings?

In an April 26 press briefing, Petraeus had referred to a 22-page memorandum captured with the Shiite prisoners that he said "detailed the planning, preparation, approval process and conduct of the operation that resulted in five of our soldiers being killed in Karbala." But he did not claim that either the document or the interrogation of Khazali had suggested any Iranian or Hezbollah participation in, much less direction of the planning of the Karbala assault.

Petreaus even insisted that they had no evidence of Iranian involvement: "No. No. No. That -- first of all, that was the operation that you mentioned, and we do not have a direct link to Iranian involvement in that particular case."

At the time Petraeus made this statement, Khazali, the chief of the militia group that had carried out the attack, had been in U.S. custody for more than a month. Despite nearly five weeks of intensive interrogation of Khazali, Petraeus's comments would indicate that U.S. officials had not learned anything that implicated Iran or Hezbollah in the planning or execution of the Karbala attack.

====================================================
As I intend to disappear for the next little while:

Here's some food for thought and topics for discussion:

James Joiner talking about why Bush is controlling us.

I also had a good find this afternoon, picking up a DVD on sale: This Film is Not Rated by Dick Kirby. It is a hilarious documentary uncovering the secrecy of Hollywood's MPA, but more importantly about Hollywood's sinister ties to Washington, Military, and Church (and I won't rule out the mob!! Excellent film! Please let me know if you have seen this film, and what you think about it. I'd appreciate yoru thoughts VERY MUCH!

NYT: accessory to crime

New York Times seems to have become an accessory to The Architecture of Perpetual Wars. This time, NYT's distorts IAEA's report on Iran's Nuclear Program! (source: payvand news.) You should ask yourselves why Americans are distorting these FACTS in the name of journalism?!?!!! Militarism may be the real answer! (Thanks to filasteen.wordpress.com!) But, Do we have the courage to stop the war with Iran? Remember to try the poll!

Here's the truth of the ACTUAL developments between IAEA and Iran. The text (copied in full here) is available on the IAEA web site.

Understandings of The Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues Tehran – 21 August 2007

Pursuant to the negotiations between H.E. Dr. Larijani, I. R. of Iran's Secretary of Supreme National Security Council and H.E. Dr. ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, in Vienna; following the initiative and good will of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the agreement made, a high ranking delegation consisting of the directors of technical, legal and political departments of the IAEA, paid a visit to Tehran from 11 to 12 July 2007 during which “Understandings of The Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues, Tehran 12 July 2007” were prepared.

A second meeting took place in Vienna on 24 July 2007 followed by a further meeting in Iran from 20 to 21 August 2007. The Agency's delegation had the opportunity to have meetings with H.E. Dr. Larijani during both visits to Tehran. Following these three consecutive meetings, both Parties reached the following understandings:
I. Latest Developments:
Based on the modalities agreed upon on 12 July 2007, the following decisions were made:
1. Present Issues:
A. Enrichment Programme
The Agency and Iran agreed to cooperate in preparing the safeguards approach for the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant in accordance with Iran's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. The draft text of the safeguards approach paper, and the facility attachment of IRN- were provided to Iran on 23 July 2007. The safeguards approach and the facility attachment were discussed during technical meetings in Iran between the Agency and the AEOI from 6 to 8 August 2007. Further discussions will be held with the aim of finalizing the facility attachment by the end of September 2007.

B. Heavy Water Research Reactor in Arak
Iran agreed with the Agency's request to visit the heavy water research reactor (IR40) site in Arak. A successful visit took place on 30 July 2007.

C. Designation of new inspectors
On 12 July 2007, Iran accepted the designation of five additional inspectors.

D. Issue of multiple entry visas
On 12 July 2007, Iran agreed to issue one year multiple entry visas for 14 inspectors and staff of the Agency.

2. Past Outstanding Issues:

A. Plutonium Experiments
In order to conclude and close the file of the issue of plutonium (Pu), the Agency provided Iran with the remaining questions on 23 July 2007. During a meeting in Iran between representatives of the Agency and Iran, Iran provided clarifications to the Agency that helped to explain the remaining questions. In addition, on 7 August 2007, Iran sent a letter to the Agency providing additional clarifications to some of the questions. On 20 August 2007 the Agency stated that earlier statements made by Iran are consistent with the Agency’s findings, and thus this matter is resolved. This will be communicated officially by the Agency to Iran through a letter.

B. Issue of P1-P2:
Based on agreed modalities of 12 July 2007, Iran and the Agency agreed the following procedural steps to resolve the P1-P2 issue. The proposed timeline assumes that the Agency announces the closure of the Pu-experiments outstanding issue by 31 August 2007, and its subsequent reporting in the Director General’s report to the September 2007 Board of Governors.

The Agency will provide all remaining questions on this issue by 31 August 2007. Iran and the Agency will have discussions in Iran on 24-25 September 2007 to clarify the questions provided. This will be followed up by a further meeting in mid-October 2007 to further clarify the written answers provided. The Agency's target date for the closure of this issue is November 2007.

C. Source of Contamination
Based on the agreed modalities on 12 July 2007 and given the Agency's findings which tend, on balance, to support Iran's statement about the foreign origin of the observed HEU contamination, the only remaining outstanding issue on contamination is the contamination found at a Technical University in Tehran. Iran and the Agency agreed on the following procedural steps to address this issue, starting once the P1-P2 issue is concluded and the file is closed. The Agency will again provide Iran with the remaining questions regarding the contamination found at a Technical University in Tehran by 15 September 2007. After 2 weeks of the closure of the P1-P2 issue Iran and the Agency will have discussions in Iran on this issue.

D. U Metal Document
Upon the request of the Agency, Iran agreed to cooperate with the Agency in facilitating the comparison of the relevant sections of the document. Iran is presently reviewing the proposals already made during the first meeting on 12 July 2007. After taking this step by Iran, the Agency undertakes to close this issue.

II. Modalities of Resolution of other Outstanding Issues
A. Po210
Based on agreed modalities of 12 July 2007, Iran agreed to deal with this issue, once all the above mentioned issues are concluded and their files are closed. Iran and the Agency agreed upon the following procedural steps: regarding this issue, the Agency will provide Iran in writing with all its remaining questions by 15 September 2007. After 2 weeks from conclusion and closure of the issues of the source of contamination and U-metal, reflected in the Director General's report to the Board of Governors, Iran and the Agency will have discussions in Iran where Iran will provide explanations on the Po210.
B. Ghachine Mine
Based on agreed modalities of 12 July 2007, Iran agreed to deal with this issue, once the issue of Po210 is concluded and its file is closed. Iran and the Agency agreed upon the following procedural steps: regarding this issue, the Agency will provide Iran in writing with all its remaining questions by 15 September 2007. After 2 weeks from conclusion and closure of the issue of Po210, reflected in the Director General's report to the Board of Governors, Iran and the Agency will have discussions in Iran where Iran will provide explanations to the Agency about Ghachine Mine.

III. Alleged Studies
Iran reiterated that it considers the following alleged studies as politically motivated and baseless allegations. The Agency will however provide Iran with access to the documentation it has in its possession regarding: the Green Salt Project, the high explosive testing and the missile re-entry vehicle. As a sign of good will and cooperation with the Agency, upon receiving all related documents, Iran will review and inform the Agency of its assessment.

IV. General Understandings

1. These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.
   
2. The Agency agreed to provide Iran with all remaining questions according to the above work plan. This means that after receiving the questions, no other questions are left. Iran will provide the Agency with the required clarifications and information.
   
3. The Agency's delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear activities.
   
4. The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.
5. The Agency and Iran agreed that after the implementation of the above work plan agreed modalities for resolving the outstanding issues, the implementation of safeguards in Iran will be conducted in a routine manner.