BBC: Iran & U.S. --A Good Read

Obama quashes Iran's hopes for change

By Jim Muir BBC News, Tehran

If anybody had hoped that Barack Obama's election victory would lead to a swift breakthrough in Washington's relations with one of its toughest adversaries, Iran, the honeymoon seems to be over before it even began.

Many Iranians, including some officials, were thrilled by the stunning election victory, seeing it as offering hope of a radical change in US foreign policy and relations.

The two countries have had no diplomatic relations since shortly after the Islamic revolution in 1979, and tensions have risen recently over Iran's nuclear programme.

Both Mr Obama and his future vice-president, Senator Joseph Biden, have in the past advocated unconditional dialogue with Iran.

That was one reason behind the excitement generated in Iran by their election success.

No 'knee-jerk' response

That excitement led the country's quixotic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to break with precedent and send a congratulatory message to the American president-elect.

But it swiftly became apparent that a whirlwind romance was out of the question, as political problems sprang up on both sides.

In Iran, both Mr Ahmadinejad's initiative and Mr Obama's cagey response drew fierce attacks from rival hard-line circles, where the political atmosphere is already heating up sharply in advance of Iranian presidential elections next June.

(Read more)

Statement by Rahm Emanuel's father

The following was written up in the Jerusalem Post regarding soon-to-be Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's father:

In an interview with Ma'ariv, Emanuel's father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son's appointment would be good for Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

More information can be found on the following link:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/will-the-arab-w.html

Obama Flops Again?

After retracting what he said at the AIPAC conference back on June 6 regarding East Jerusalem, Obama once again says Jerusalem will not be the Palestinian capital:

Bethlehem – Ma'an - US democratic candidate Barak Obama said during a press conference on Wednesday in Sderot, a city in the south of Israel, that he does not support the idea of East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.

Obama made it clear that Jerusalem would remain the capital of Israel and that he would not see the city divided. He added that this position needed to be fixed through negotiations with the Palestinians.

Recent years have seen Obama's position on Israel/Palestine shift dramatically towards the Israeli side. He previously stated that the issue of Jerusalem should be on the table of any peace negotiation, but after criticism of his 'naïve' stance, Obama dropped this position.

The press conference was held with Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, who said, "Israel and the USA have a common understanding of what must happen in the region."

Earlier Obama met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah, where he said that he would work hard to continue the peace process.

Obama stressed that if he takes office this fall he will not "start from zero" with the Palestinian peace process. Rather, he said, "we will continue peace process efforts." He also expressed the desire to show Palestinians that there was good reason to hope for a resolution.

Source: Ma'an News Agency: http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=30771

New Settlements...what peace?

The Associated Press is reporting that Israel is planning to expand their settlements in the West Bank by building a new settlement post. How will peace be achieved if the power broker in the deal, Israel, continues to build new settlements and expand old ones? Will the U.S. stand firm in their demands for Israel to halt their expansion?

I doubt it.

*

NYTimes op-ed columnist, Nicholas Kristof, has written an interesting article this morning regarding the future of US policy in Israel.

*

Ali Abunimah, the co-founder of Electronic Intifada (EI), details Obama's visit to Israel/Palestine and the disproportionate time he spent with Israeli officials compared to Palestinian officials. It's a good read.

*

Democracy Now! has published the following headline regarding Obama's visit to the Middle East:

Obama Avoids Gaza Strip on Mideast Trip

Senator Barack Obama has wrapped up his Mideast tour. On Wednesday, Obama held a series of meetings with Israeli leaders in Jerusalem.

Senator Barack Obama: “I’m here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States, my abiding commitment to Israel’s security and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a United States senator or as a president in bringing about a more lasting peace in the region.”

Obama also visited Ramallah for a low-key visit with Palestinian officials. He did not visit the Gaza Strip, where Israel has recently intensified its blockade. In Gaza, Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri said Obama is offering no alternative to Bush administration policy in the region.

Sami Abu Zuhri: “These positions mean that there is no minimal hope to any change in the US foreign policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict. And this means that we are in front of one American policy, and the Palestinian people should depend on their own and on the Arab and Muslim world in facing this opposing American policy, which both the Democratic and Republican parties are adopting."

Really?

What is exactly the Guardian trying to say with this photo that accompanied their exclusive breaking news on the Bush administration's plans to open an intersect office in Tehran? The media went crazy this past week over The New Yorker's cover- a cartoon ridiculing the Republican's attempt to portray Barack and Michelle Obama as a team of unpatriotic Americans- yet not a single word is uttered when photos such as the one on the left and on the bottom of this post is used. The heading of the article, US plans to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979, is followed by a mural depicting a burning American flag. The photo editors of the Guardian must not think highly of the intellect of Iranians and their readers. Photos and videos in news are suppose to supplement reports. They are not meant to cause readers to jump to far fetching conclusions. This photo can steer the reader to sway his or opinion regarding the article before ever reading a single word. This photo is a single frame that has been captured in a country with a population of over 70 million people. It does not reflect the realities of Iran. Scholars and experts on Iran have stated on many occasions that Iranians are the most pro-American people in the Middle East (disregarding the Islamic Republic's official stance towards the U.S.). However, with one look at this photo, Iran is being pigeon-holed into an un-American, flag burning country. Furthermore, this photo subtly hints that a U.S. Intersect Office in Tehran may be a dangerous situation for American diplomats.

It gets even better! Check out today's picture on the Guardian website. I'm interested to hear what other people have to say!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/18/iran.usforeignpolicy2

Should We Be Worried?

It was difficult to watch Senator Obama's speech to AIPAC on Wednesday. Repeatedly throughout this campaign season he has promised to bring about change to the way Washington is run. He has promised that lobbyist will not set and dictate the agenda of his administration. If his speech was any indication of the change that he has been promising, we can rest assure that not much of anything will change. I've provided his entire speech below.

Castro on Obama

Excerpts of Fidel Castro's article published yesterday on Obama. A link to the full article is below:

Reflections of Fidel (May 26, 2008)

• I feel no resentment towards [Obama], for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor. I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him and about expressing my points of view on his words frankly.

• Presidential candidate Obama’s speech may be formulated as follows: hunger for the nation, remittances as charitable hand-outs and visits to Cuba as propaganda for consumerism and the unsustainable way of life behind it.

• What did he say in his speech in Miami, this man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency?

• What is the difference between what Monroe [in the Monroe Doctrine] proclaimed and what Obama proclaims and resuscitates in his speech two centuries later?

• In his speech, Obama portrays the Cuban Revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights. It is the exact same argument which, almost without exception, U.S. administrations have used again and again to justify their crimes against our country. The blockade, in and of itself, is an act of genocide. I don’t want to see U.S. children inculcated with those shameful values.

• We were always bound by previous forms of power and, following the institutionalization of this organization, we were elected by more than 90% of voters, as has become customary in Cuba, a process which does not in the least resemble the ridiculous levels of electoral participation which, many a time, as in the case of the United States, stay short of 50% of voters.

• I am not questioning Obama’s great intelligence, his debating skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race.

• Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record.

• Is it right for the president of the United States to order the assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext may be?
• Is it ethical for the president of the United States to order the torture of other human beings?
• Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the United States as an instrument to bring about peace on the planet?
• Can the United States do without immigrants, who grow vegetables, fruits, almonds and other delicacies for U.S. citizens? Who would sweep their streets, work as servants in their homes or do the worst and lowest-paid jobs?
• Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks on sixty or more dark corners of the world, as Bush calls them, whatever the pretext may be?
• Is it honorable and sane to invest millions and millions of dollars in the military industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over?

[just a sample of his questions...there are many more]

• Before judging our country, you should know that Cuba, with its education, health, sports, culture and sciences programs, implemented not only in its own territory but also in other poor countries around the world...