Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ahmadinejad to meet with Palestinian leaders

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Ahmadinejad to meet with Palestinian leaders Wed Sep 5, 2007 Bethlehem – Ma an – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to meet Palestinian
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 6, 2007
      Ahmadinejad to meet with Palestinian leaders
      Wed Sep 5, 2007

      Bethlehem – Ma'an – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to meet
      Palestinian leaders-in-exile in Tehran on Thursday.

      United Arab Emirates newspaper Al-Khaleej reported that the Iranian
      leader will meet with head of the Hamas politburo, Khalid Mash'al,
      Secretary General of Islamic Jihad, Ramadan Shallah, Secretary General
      of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), Nayef
      Hawatmeh, and Secretary General of the Popular Front for the
      Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PDLP-GC), Ahmad Jibreel.

      Fatah leader-in-exile, Farouq Qaddoumi, who is currently visiting
      Iran, will also join the meeting.

      The meeting is to address methods to contain and resolve the current
      internal Palestinian crisis.


      Iran warns of 'problems' if US attacks
      By Agence France Presse (AFP)
      Wednesday, September 05, 2007

      TEHRAN: Iran on Tuesday issued a stark warning to the United States
      over the danger of launching a military attack, saying Washington
      could never foresee the size of its response against US troops in the
      region. "The US will face three problems if it attacks Iran. Firstly
      it does not know the volume of our response," said General Rahim Yahya
      Safavi, the new special military adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah
      Ali Khamenei.

      "Also it cannot evaluate the vulnerability of its 200,000 troops in
      the region since we have accurately identified all of their camps,"
      added Safavi.

      He also warned of how Iran's reaction to a US attack could affect
      Israel - Tehran's regional arch-foe - and also crude oil supply from
      the world's fourth-largest producer.

      "Secondly, it does not know what will happen to Israel and thirdly,
      the United States does not know what will happen to the oil flow," he
      was quoted by the ISNA news agency as saying.

      Washington has never ruled out taking military action against Tehran,
      and its tone has sharpened again over the past week with President
      George W. Bush warning that Iran's atomic program could lead to a
      "nuclear holocaust." Iran has always insisted it would never launch
      any attack against a foreign country but has also warned of a crushing
      response to any aggression against its soil.

      Tehran has an array of medium range missiles and claims that its
      longer-range Shahab-3 missile has a reach of 2,000 kilometers which
      would put Israel and US bases on the Arabian Peninsula within reach. - AFP


      When Wishful Thinking Replaces Resistance
      Why Bush Can Get Away with Attacking Iran
      September 4, 2007

      Many people in the antiwar movement try to reassure themselves: Bush
      cannot possibly attack Iran. He does not have the means to do so, or,
      perhaps, even he is not foolish enough to engage in such an
      enterprise. Various particular reasons are put forward, such as: If he
      attacks, the Shiites in Iraq will cut the US supply lines. If he
      attacks, the Iranians will block the Straits of Ormuz or will unleash
      dormant terrorist networks worldwide. Russia won't allow such an
      attack. China won't allow it -- they will dump the dollar. The Arab
      world will explode.

      All this is doubtful. The Shiites in Iraq are not simply obedient to
      Iran. If they don't rise against the United States when their own
      country is occupied (or if don't rise very systematically), they are
      not likely to rise against the US if a neighboring country is
      attacked. As for blocking the Straits or unleashing terrorism, this
      will just be another justification for more bombing of Iran. After
      all, a main casus belli against Iran is, incredibly, that it
      supposedly helps the resistance against U.S. troops in Iraq, as if
      those troops were at home there. If that can work as an argument for
      bombing Iran, then any counter-measure that Iran might take will
      simply "justify" more bombing, possibly nuclear. Iran is strong in the
      sense that it cannot be invaded, but there is little it can do against
      long range bombing, accompanied by nuclear threats.

      Russia will escalate its military buildup (which now lags far behind
      the U.S. one), but it can't do anything else, and Washington will be
      only too glad to use the Russian reaction as an argument for boosting
      its own military forces. China is solely concerned with its own
      development and won't drop the dollar for non-economic reasons. Most
      Arab governments, if not their populations, will look favorably on
      seeing the Iranian shiite leadership humiliated. Those governments
      have sufficient police forces to control any popular opposition--
      after all, that is what they managed to do after the attack on Iraq.

      With the replacement of Chirac by Sarkozy, and the near-complete
      elimination of what was left of the Gaullists (basically through
      lawsuits on rather trivial matters), France has been changed from the
      most independent European country to the most poodlish (this was in
      fact the main issue in the recent presidential election, but it was
      never even mentioned during the campaign). In France, moreover, the
      secular "left" is, in the main, gung-ho against Iran for the usual
      reasons (women, religion). There will be no large-scale demonstrations
      in France either before or after the bombing. And, without French
      support, Germany--where the war is probably very unpopular -- can
      always be silenced with memories of the Holocaust, so that no
      significant opposition to the war will come from Europe (except
      possibly from its Muslim population, which will be one more argument
      to prove that they are "backward", "extremist", and enemies of our
      "democratic civilization").

      All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The
      country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women,
      to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large
      part of the American "left". The issue of course is not whether Iran
      is nice or not ­according to our views -- but whether there is any
      legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant
      ideology of human rights has legitimized, specially in the left, the
      right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time,
      and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor
      issue of international law.

      Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for
      its political crimes--supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or
      questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are equally
      under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media. The
      antiwar movement is far too preoccupied with the security of Israel to
      seriously defend Iran and it won't attack the real architects of this
      coming war--the Zionists-- for fear of "provoking antisemitism".
      Blaming Big Oil for the Iraq war was quite debatable, but, in the case
      of Iran, since the country is about to be bombed but not invaded,
      there is no reason whatsoever to think that Big Oil wants the war, as
      opposed to the Zionists. In fact, Big Oil is probably very much
      opposed to the war, but it is as unable to stop it as the rest of us.

      As far as Israel is concerned, the United States is a de facto
      totalitarian society--no articulate opposition is acceptable. The U.S.
      Congress passes one pro-Israel or anti-Iran resolution after another
      with "Stalinist" majorities. The population does not seem to care. But
      if they did, but what could they do? Vote? The electoral system is
      extremely biased against the emergence of a third party and the two
      big parties are equally under Zionist influence.

      The only thing that might stop the war would be for Americans
      themselves to threaten their own government with massive civil
      disobedience. But that is not going to happen. A large part of the
      academic left long ago gave up informing the general public about the
      real world in order to debate whether Capital is a Signifier or a
      Signified, or worry about their Bodies and their Selves, while
      preachers tell their flocks to rejoice at each new sign that the end
      of the world is nigh. Children in Iran won't sleep at night, but the
      liberal American intelligentsia will lecture the ROW (rest of the
      world) about Human Rights. In fact, the prevalence of the "reassuring
      arguments" cited above proves that the antiwar movement is clinically
      dead. If it weren't, it would rely on its own forces to stop war, not
      speculate on how others might do the job.

      [This is the one paragraph that I disagree with. I don't blame the
      academic world or any other particular group for our current crisis.
      We're in a situation where the good guys, normal people wanting to
      live their lives in relative justice and peace are leaderless, and
      have been leaderless due to the sucess of the secret government's 60s
      assassinations of our natural leaders: JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm, and the
      resultant non appearance of those who would have normally followed.
      Into the vaccuum moved Reagan, Bush Sr Bush Jr to the point where
      there is no differnce between the secret and the public government. In
      a footnote, Clinton did as much as he could for the secret governnent
      from the Democratic side as in WTC 93 and Oklahoma City. --RB]

      Meanwhile, an enormous amount of hatred will have been spewed upon the
      world. But in the short term, it may look like a big Western
      "victory", just like the creation of Israel in 1948; just like the
      overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA in 1953; just like the annexation of
      Alsace-Lorraine seemed to be a big German victory after the French
      defeat at Sedan in 1870. The Bush administration will long be gone
      when the disastrous consequences of that war will be felt.

      PS: This text is not meant to be a prophecy, but a call to (urgent)
      action. I'll be more than happy if facts prove me wrong.

      Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium and is a member of the
      Brussels Tribunal. His new book, Humanitarian Imperialism, is
      published by Monthly Review Press.
      He can be reached at bricmont @ fyma.ucl.ac.be.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.