Poll shows majority of Arabs view nuclear Iran in positive light

A new poll shows that the percentage of the Arab world that thinks a nuclear-armed Iran would be good for the Middle East has doubled since last year and now makes up the majority.

The 2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll found that 57 percent of respondents not only believe that Iran’s nuclear program aims to build a bomb but also view that goal positively — nearly double the 29 percent who thought so in 2009. The percentage of those who view an Iranian nuclear bomb negatively fell by more than half, from 46 percent to 21 percent.

But the Arab Public Opinion Poll’s findings on Iran stand in marked contrast to the stances of most Sunni Arab leaders, who fear the regional implications of an Iranian bomb.

“In my view, the Arab public position on Iran is largely a defiance vote or an ‘enemy of my enemy’ vote,” Mr. Telhami told the Washington Times.

Last month, The Times reported on unusually blunt remarks from the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the U.S., who said he favored airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites by U.S. or Israeli forces despite the consequences for the region.

“If you are asking me, ‘Am I willing to live with [the fallout from military action] versus living with a nuclear Iran,’ my answer is still the same: ‘We cannot live with a nuclear Iran,’“ Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba said during a conference in Aspen, Colo.

A day earlier, the Times of London reported that Saudi Arabia had given Israel tacit approval to use its airspace in the event of an aerial attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Officials from the kingdom vehemently denied the report, but most observers suspect that some Arab leaders would quietly cheer an Israeli attack, even if it generated riots in their capitals.

Iran repeatedly has denied that its nuclear program is devoted to anything but producing energy.

“There is no love for Iran in most of the Arab world,” Mr. Telhami said. “They fear Israel and U.S. foreign policy, so when we ask them, ‘Name the two countries that are most threatening to you personally,’ they identify first and foremost Israel and second the United States, and Iran is down on the list.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/6/poll-majority-of-arab-world-views-nuke-armed-iran-/

Obama’s Iran policy changes, thanks to the Saudis

The Israeli intelligence website DebkaFile has reported that Obama is now seriously considering an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities. His change of heart is not, according to Debka, prompted by the Israeli Netanyahu — whose nation is most directly threatened by Iranian nukes — but by an ultimatum from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who told Obama that his nation could not tolerate Iranian WMD, and would develop its own if Iran was allowed to acquire them. In other words, Netanyahu’s threat of a Middle Eastern conflict that could devastate Israel and escalate to all-out nuclear war carried less weight with Obama than the far less severe consequences threatened by the Saudis. Nevertheless, their threat moved them to the head of the queue. We know that Obama doesn’t want a nuclear weapons arms race, but is he also afraid of offending the Islamic monarchs before whom he dutifully genuflects?

It is, finally, all of a piece. Obama once promised an even-handed approach to the Middle-Eastern conflict, but in practice his seeming neutrality has barely disguised a decidedly Pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian bias. Thus, without first taking serious steps to check Palestinian terrorism, he has pushed for the two-state solution that would inevitably lead to Hamastan, and the conversion of the West Bank into yet another launching pad for Katyusha missiles. In addition, Obama continually leans on Israel to sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty that would cripple its major deterrent against an all-out attack by surrounding Arab nations. Smelling blood, those neighbors, now including the once-friendly Turkey, are becoming provocative and their terrorist residents are agitating for war. Angry because Israel would not stop building new housing for its growing population in Jerusalem, Obama went out of his way to publicly humiliate Netanyahu. He only relented and made nice when it became evident that his Israel-bashing was going to cost him many Jewish votes and much Jewish money.

Obama’s evident bias has been much noted and much discussed. The rationalizers and explainers usually refer to the influence of his radical base at a time when Israel has become the Left’s Little Satan. Others have pointed to his long-term associations with the noisily anti-Semitic Reverend Jeremiah Wright, as well as with his fellow Chicagoans, Rashid Khalidi and Ali Abunimah, both of them plausible academic propagandists for the Palestinian cause.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/05/obamas-muslim-daddies

Tea Party endorses Israel’s right to attack Iran

Almost two dozen Tea Party-affiliated lawmakers cosponsored a new resolution late last week that expresses their support for Israel “to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force.”

The lead sponsor of the resolution was Texas Republican Louie Gohmert, one of four congressmen to announce the formation of the 44-member Tea Party caucus at a press conference on July 21. The other three Tea Party Caucus leaders, Michele Bachmann, R-MN, Steve King, R-IA, and John Culberson, R-TX, are also sponsors of the resolution. In total, 21 Tea Party Caucus members have signed on, according to the latest list of caucus members put out by Bachmann’s office.

The resolution cites threats by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to “annihilate” the state of Israel, endorses other means to persuade Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, and states the lawmakers’ support for an Israeli military strike “if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time.”

“Members of the Tea Party caucus can and do speak for themselves,” said Gohmert in an emailed statement, “but most if not all members have strong beliefs that we should not turn on our backs on our best friends and reward those bent on our destruction. This resolution was borne out of concern for the threat, not merely to Israel, but also to the United States.”

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/26/tea_party_caucus_members_endorse_israeli_attack_on_iran

Nuclear scientist found in U.S., claims to be kidnapped

A missing Iranian nuclear scientist, who Tehran claims was abducted by the U.S., has taken refuge at the Pakistani embassy in Washington and is asking to return to his homeland, Iran said Tuesday.

Iran has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. abducted Amiri — charges the Americans deny. U.S. media reported in March that the 32-year-old scientist had defected to the U.S. and was assisting the CIA in efforts to undermine Iran’s disputed nuclear program.

Adding to the confusion, Amiri himself appeared in a series of videos giving conflicting messages, including one where he claimed he was abducted by American and Saudi agents and taken to the U.S. and another saying he was freely studying in the United States.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/13/iranian-nuclear-scientist-seeks-refuge/

Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant to be ready by September–Thanks to the Russians

Iran says Wednesday that the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a joint project with Russia, would be ready for operation in two months, the ISNA news agency reported.

Atomic agency chief Ali-Akbar Salehi said important, so-called hot tests have been concluded and, according to both Russian and Iranian experts, the plant would be ready by September.

The light-water reactor in Bushehr is internationally tolerated because of Russia’s involvement and guarantees that the nuclear fuel would be delivered from and nuclear waste returned to Russia, reducing fears of nuclear proliferation.

This of course assumes that the Russians will live up to their commitments and that Iran won’t simply decide not to send the spent fuel to Russia. (Contrary to popular belief, spent fuel from a light water reactor can be used for weaponry.)

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/iran-says-bushehr-nuclear-plant-to-be-ready-by-september-1.300555

More on Iran’s Radar System in Syria and Iranian Efforts to Defend Against Possible Israeli Air Attack

The good folks over at In From the Cold blog have a good post about Iran’s recently revealed radar system installation in Syria. They also talk about other measures the Iranians are taking to defend against a possible Israeli air strike.

It is our belief that, should Israel use force against Iran’s nuclear program, it won’t be able to take the whole program out with air strikes alone–unless the Israelis have incredibly good intelligence and can pinpoint all those installations which are vital to the Iranian effort–and then take them out.

An Israeli effort to take out Iran’s nuclear program would more likely require a combination of fixed wing aircraft and cruise and ballistic missiles. Sabotage might also be needed. With the West pussyfooting around for years, Iran has has so much time to disperse, hide, defend and harden their nuclear installations, that no one should expect another Osirak…In fact, here is an article we wrote on that subject 5 years ago:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2005/me_iran_04_14.html

Some things have changed since then, but the challenge for Israel is still extremely daunting.

The only world power with the capability to take out Iran’s nuclear program with air strikes alone is of course the United States. But we all know that this simply will not happen under the Obama presidency.

So it may in fact be left up to the Israelis to carry out such an operation. It will be highly risky in terms of casualties and it will also have a small margin for error…

Here is the link to the informative analysis at In From The Cold:

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2010/07/state-of-art.html

Total CEO: The Ayatollahs’ French Whore

One of the absolute worst companies in the entire world is Total SA.

Back when the US first imposed sanctions on Iran and Libya barring US oil companies from giving corporate life support to the regime in Iran, Total established a business strategy to pursue business in those terrorist, rogue nations so they wouldn’t have to compete with US oil companies.

Last week, when the US imposed more stringent sanctions on Iran–sanctions which could have resulted in penalties for foreign oil companies that continue to help Iran fund its nefarious activities–Total decided to finally quit selling refined petroleum to Iran. This belated decision came after other companies, Royal Dutch Shell among them, had long ago decided that enabling the Iranian regime was a risky proposition and bad business practice:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10437336.stm

Now, Christophe de Margerie, Total’s shameless CEO, is whining over the new sanctions against Iran. It seems that de Margerie is suddenly worried about “ordinary” Iranians, claiming that the sanctions would harm the “population.” De Margerie went on to say that it was a mistake to “mix” things that were “political and civil.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j9Eq8NcJPlT6IBH1oDcMn3qBi2Wg

We are not sure what his definition of “civil” is, but we would ask Monsieur de Margerie if it would have been a mistake to “mix” things that were “political and civil” back in 1938 or 1939, a year or two before Hitler’s stormtroopers marched triumphantly into downtown Paris to accept the surrender of France?

After all, Germany’s largest trading partner at the time was none other than France.

Let’s get a few things straight about the Islamic Republic of Iran:

First of all, there is no “free enterprise” system running in Iran. Iran has a centralized economy and the regime, especially the Revolutionary Guard Corps, has their mitts on everything in one way or another. You can’t do business in/with Iran without benefiting the regime in some way. For instance, all the banks in Iran are state-owned and operated, which is why they’re all under sanctions in the first place. When Total’s CEO says that sanctions only hurt “ordinary” people, he’s either ignorant or else he’s lying.

In essence, when de Margerie speaks against sanctions against Iran, he is serving the interests of the Ayatollahs who run the brutal regime in Tehran, he’s not looking out for the interests of “ordinary” Iranians. I promise you, Christophe de Margerie couldn’t care less about ordinary Iranians and by doing billions of dollars of business with their rulers, he has prolonged their misery.

Now let’s review just why it’s such a bad idea to be providing corporate life support to the Ayatollahs:

• Iran is the world’s most active state sponsor of Jihadist terrorism.

They give training, arms and funding to HAMAS. Hezbollah is essentially a wing of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iran also aids Al Qaeda. For those who doubt that Shia Iran would help Salafi Sunni Al Qaeda, we would remind them that HAMAS is Sunni as well and no one doubts that Iran supports HAMAS. In fact, both HAMAS and Iran acknowledge this. Moreover, there are mountains of evidence of Iranian cooperation with Al Qaeda going back years:

http://article.nationalreview.com/352385/iranian-entanglements/christopher-w-holton

To our knowledge, Iran is one of two nations, the other being Syria, that is involved with HAMAS, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda at the same time.

• Iran played a large role in training, arming and funding the insurgents in Iraq and are now doing the same for the Taliban in Afghanistan.

These activities have led directly to the deaths of numerous American GIs, as well as the deaths of Allied servicemen as well. France has soldiers and airmen serving in Afghanistan, fighting against the Taliban. The Taliban are armed and supported by Iran. Total, France’s largest oil company, is cozy with the rulers of Iran.

Maybe that makes sense to Christophe de Margerie, but we doubt this guy agrees:

• Iran is working on nuclear weapons.

No rational, unbiased observer believes that Iran’s nuclear program is a peaceful energy program. Iran is awash in oil and sitting on huge amounts of natural gas. Moreover, as long ago as 1994, the US State Department was saying publicly that Iran’s nuclear program bore no resemblance to a peaceful energy program, but had all the hallmarks of a weapons program. Nothing has happened to change that assessment. In fact, Iran continues to enrich uranium to levels suitable for weaponry, in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions.

If there is one country in the world that you don’t want to have nuclear weapons, it’s Iran.

• Iran has a robust domestic ballistic missile program.

Iran continues to develop ballistic missiles with intercontinental reach. This makes their other weapons programs all the more worrisome.

Training and supplying terrorists costs money.

Enriching uranium costs money.

Building ballistic missiles costs money.

Western companies like Total that do business with the Ayatollahs enable the Iranians to earn money to develop the means with which to kill us. Despite what Christophe de Margerie says, it doesn’t have anything to do with “politics.” It’s much more important than that.

Iran postponed nuclear talks for two months

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday that Iran will penalize world powers by freezing nuclear talks for two months, as he laid down several conditions for resuming the negotiations.

The hardliner said Iran wanted more countries to be involved in talks over its nuclear program, and added world powers must clarify Israel’s status of nuclear arsenal and what exactly they sought from the discussions.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_to_discipline_West_by_holding_off_nuclear_talks_999.html

New Iran sanctions passed, Obama given right to waive

Congress has approved new U.S. sanctions against Iran with legislation that reserves for President Obama the right to waive the sanctions on a case-by-case basis.

The sanctions, passed by the House and Senate on June 24, were meant to target Iran’s banking and energy sectors. Under the legislation, passed about two weeks after sanctions by the United Nations Security Council, foreign companies with links to Iranian energy projects and banks would also be banned from doing business in the United States.

At one point, the White House pressed the Democratic leadership in Congress to grant Obama the power to grant blanket exemptions from sanctions. Instead, the bill would allow the president to waive sanctions on companies on a case-by-case basis for no more than a year.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_iran0572_06_25.asp

Iran defies U.N., enriches more uranium

Iran’s nuclear chief said Wednesday his country has produced 17 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20 percent, defying U.N. demands to halt the controversial program.

The 20 percent level, needed to produce fuel for a medical research reactor, is far below the more than 90 percent required to build a nuclear weapon, but U.S. officials have expressed concern Iran may be moving closer to the ability to reach weapons-grade level.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/23/iran-says-produced-kilograms-enriched-uranium/?test=latestnews