US "rejects" Iranian Presidential Election

what a joke. I can just see the headlines from 2004 and 2008: "Iranian Government Rejects U.S. Election Results..."

U.S. Rejects Iran Election Results, To Investigate

CBS News Timeline: The U.S. And Iran

CBS News Interactive: About Iran

The U.S. on Saturday refused to accept hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim of a landslide re-election victory in Iran and said it was looking into allegations of election fraud.

Any hopes by the Obama administration of gaining a result similar to Lebanon's recent election, won by a Western-backed moderate coalition, appeared to be in jeopardy.

"We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran, but we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at a news conference with Canada's foreign affairs minister, Lawrence Cannon.

Minutes after Clinton spoke, the White House released a two-sentence statement praising "the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians," but expressing concern about "reports of irregularities."

Despite the challenge from reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi to incumbent Ahmadinejad, many officials and experts thought a Mousavi victory would result in only incremental shifts toward the U.S.

Because real power in Tehran is still wielded by religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, some say an Ahmadinejad re-election may make it easier to build an international consensus against Iran.

Administration officials remained silent out of concern that any comments might influence the results. But they were privately hoping for a victory by the more moderate Mousavi.

President Barack Obama's previous overtures include his recent address in Cairo to the Muslim world as well as, earlier, a televised New Year's address to the Iranian people and a series of diplomatic contacts. Officials say Obama's attempts to reach out have gone largely unanswered.

Neither Clinton nor the White House mentioned Ahmadinejad or his chief rival Mousavi, by name, or acknowledged the incumbent's victory declaration.

Iranian authorities reported that Ahmadinejad was re-elected with 62.6 percent of the vote. He called on the public to respect the vote. But Mousavi, a former prime minister who has become the hero of a youth-driven movement seeking greater liberties and a gentler face for Iran abroad, rejected the results and accused authorities of rigging Friday's vote.

Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Saturday that Ahmadinejad's claim of a victory puts the Obama administration in a tough position.

"I think it's going to make it incredibly difficult for the Obama administration to acquiesce on Iran's enrichment of uranium when there is a president in Tehran who continues to deny the Holocaust, and continues to be belligerent toward Israel," Sadjadpour said. "I don't see the probability of Ahmadinejad taking a more moderate or conciliatory approach his second time around. Similar to what President Bush said when he was re-elected in 2004, he said, 'I've earned political capital, and now I am going to use it.'"

In brief remarks in Canada, Clinton cited "the enthusiasm and the very vigorous debate and dialogue" in the run-up to the vote. "We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people," she said.

Disappointment in the results was summed up by the Anti-Defamation League, which noted Ahmadinejad's history of "extremist allegations and attacks" against Jews and Israel as well as the United States

"We are greatly disappointed by the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," the ADL said in a statement. "We had hoped that a different outcome to this election would have sent a message to the international community that Ahmadinejad's incendiary behavior is not reflective of the beliefs and views of the Iranian people. Unfortunately, the result for Iran is likely to be another four years of extremism and isolation."

The election focused on what the office of the Iranian president can influence: boosting Iran's sinking economy, pressing for greater media and political freedoms, and being Iran's main envoy to the world.

Iran does not allow international election monitors. During the 2005 election, when Ahmadinejad won the presidency, there were some allegations of vote rigging from losers, but the claims were never investigated.

(© 2009 The Associated Press.

source

Ahmadinejad: Holocaust Revisionist

Ahmadinejad slams ban on Holocaust probe
Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:20:31 GMT

President Ahmadinejad slams the West for blocking research on the Holocaust.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Western countries have blocked research on the Holocaust to achieve their political objectives.

"Western countries have prevented any kind of research on the Holocaust for almost 60 years to maintain their dominance over other nations," President Ahmadinejad said in a written message to a conference on the Holocaust on Tuesday.

The Holocaust - as defined by the West - has been used as a tool for countries including the US to prevent the emergence of any other power in the world, the message added.

President Ahmadinejad has been accused of harboring ill-will towards Israel and his criticism of European laws which ban research on the Holocaust.

The President however said in a September interview with CNN's Larry King that he saw a line between Zionism and Judaism.

"Iranians have nothing against the Jewish people or their religion," President Ahmadinejad said. "How can you be religious and kill women and children at the same time?" he argued.

In the interview, President Ahmadinejad also added that the Israeli regime would disappear in the same way as apartheid South Africa and the Soviet Union.

Iranian officials have repeatedly maintained that they do not recognize Israel and have condemned West's 'support' of Tel Aviv.

source

Iranian Students Demand Honest Money-must see

Ceasefire shows Israel's defeat in Gaza: Iran official

Indo-Asian News Service

Tehran, January 19, 2009

First Published: 06:32 IST(19/1/2009)

Last Updated: 06:33 IST(19/1/2009)

A senior official at Iran's presidential office on Sunday said that the unilateral ceasefire announced by Israel in Gaza was an admission of defeat, IRNA reported.

Ali-Reza Zaker Isfahani, chairman of the Strategic Studies, said Israel's unilateral ceasefire indicated its absolute defeat.

"This (unilateral truce) shows the Zionist (Israel's) regime is no longer capable of pursuing its vicious goals in the besieged area," the official said.

He said the objective behind Tel Aviv's atrocities in Gaza was "to destroy a generation and help another survive".

"Israel would never be proud of its war on Gaza as Palestinian resistance would someday annihilate the Zionist regime's false glory," he added.

He also criticised Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan for their silence over Israeli atrocities in Gaza. "The three Arab states have indeed supported the oppressor," he said.

Israel late Saturday announced a unilateral ceasefire to end its 22-day war against Hamas-led militant groups in Gaza. More than 1,000 people have been killed and over 5,000 others injured, mostly women and children, since the Israeli operation began on December 27.

source

A Warning to Israel From Russia: War Could Spread to Iran

War could go beyond Gaza, Israel may hit Iran: Russia

January 9, 2009 – 3:29 pm

Russia has warned Israel that the continuation of its military operation in the Gaza Strip could spread beyond the coastal sliver.

In a meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Friday, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov said the large-scale offensive in Gaza threatens the security of other regions as well.

The Israeli operation, launched on December 27, has caused a huge number of civilian casualties. Tel Aviv is also facing massive international outcries due to its camping in the densely-populated Gaza.

Meanwhile, A former US defense secretary says Israel will opt to take military action against Iran before Tehran makes a major nuclear breakthrough.

William Perry, the US Secretary of Defense under president Bill Clinton, said Thursday a conflict between Israel and Iran is highly likely to happen during US President-elect Barack Obama’s first year in office.

“It seems clear that Israel will not sit by idly while Iran takes defiant steps toward becoming a nuclear power,” said Perry.

His comments come at a time when Israel is moving forward with its full-scale incursion into the Gaza Strip, which has sparked universal condemnation.

Some 783 people have died since the start of the Israeli operation on December 27, while 3,300 others are reported wounded in Gaza.

source

US Attempts to Occupy the Whole World--What Happens If We Invade Iran? by Brandon Dean

US Attempts To Occupy the Whole World-What Happens if we Invade Iran?
by Brandon Dean
Thus Always To Tyrants
February 19, 2008

Being that Bush and Co. (not to mention Clinton, Obama, and McCain) all vocally plan on open war with Iran, I believe it is time to analyze exactly what may happen if we do invade Iran.
I think it's been succinctly proven we are under no imminent threat from Iran. Our sovereignty nor our freedom are threatened by Iran. So why all the talk of invading?
They keep bringing up that elements in Iran are "funding" and "aiding" their fellow "jihadists" (utterly ridiculous phrase which means nothing) in Iraq, thus justifying US incursions over the border into Iran. Al Qaida was originally funded by none other than the US GOVERNMENT in the 80's to help the Afghani "freedom fighters" fight off the Russian Invasion. The problem with that whole thing was: we were funding the Russians through "aid" and "grants" to do the very thing we were there to stop!! When will people wake up? Did any American believe that all our "aid moneys" were going to feed starving little Russian kids or something? Give me a god damn break...
So "we" (as in the rogue Central Intelligence Agency) started Al Qaida, and now we must invade every country in the Middle East to kill them all, or at least to kidnap them and take them to foreign countries where they can be tortured to death. We also (surprise of surprises) funded the Taliban originally in the 90's, and then all of a sudden they were "harboring a known fugitive" and we had to invade and "bring them down" under a "carpet of bombs." The arrogance of US statesmen never ceases to amaze me.

One of the side effects of the secularization of society (or rather, the declining control of dogmatic religious belief in favor of either abject apathy or a non-apathetic, personally discovered spirituality) in the west has been to make life seem much more precious to the secular person, whether it's because he's thought the matter through, or because his apathy dictates he not care about greater issues beyond himself. The religious person sees afterlife and heavenly glory as justification for fighting back, and even dying in the name of freedom or idealism. The thinking man, the rich man, or the politically apathetic man, finds life much more precious because it is much easier for him to make excuses for the oppression he feels. For these men, there is no heaven waiting to embrace martyrdom. Double-edged swords are fashioned out of more than just metal nowadays...
Have you ever noticed the more money someone has, the more they tend to think themselves worth, beyond just the financial aspect? All of a sudden their life has extra value, and their opinion somehow means something, because of their wealth. How long will people keep following the orders and advice of these people? In politics, the more popular a politician becomes, the harder it seems to be to remember what it was like to have no one listen to you. It actually works both ways for a celebrity actor/musician etc. They have money and popularity. But power breeds corruption, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as was once so eloquently said...
Now, have you noticed that ALL of the people calling for war with Iran have nothing to lose (at least as far as their limited vision can show them) by sending US troops there? What about the people who want to keep us in Iraq? THEY ALL HAVE MORE MONEY THAN YOU OR I.
So are rich people evil? Hell, no. I am no communist, and I don't want their money. Like I've explained in so many words: it's their expectations of what money or power brings that is evil. Money is not evil, and neither are politics. A charlatan will exploit anything to further his cause. Objects or concepts can neither be inherently good nor inherently evil. A person cannot be inherently evil. But a person can act evil using inanimate objects or concepts in an evil way. What is evil? Anything you know is wrong in your heart. It doesn't take a supreme being to realize what is right and wrong. All it takes is not lying to yourself. If you do not lie to yourself, you are doing great! Keep it up...
And scam artists exploiting many causes is exactly what we are seeing happening with Iraq/Iran. A bunch of charlatans are trying to convince us that we for some reason need to stay in Iraq and keep killing people and keep getting killed. Why? Their main argument is that if we leave, chaos will ensue. Well, what about all over the rest of the Earth? There is chaos all over the place, but we need to keep killing people in Iraq because a little more chaos may ensue in Iraq? What about all over Africa, where (man-made) plague and ruthless dictators are killing off the populations of third world countries? What about in China, where there are millions of people estimated to be slaves in work camps, creating cheap crap for Wal-Mart and others to sell in America? What about North Korea, where tens of thousands of homeless children starve to death on the streets a year?
Hey! What about down the street from my house in Los Angeles, California, here in the united States, where homeless vets hang out on the street corners and ask for change because the Veterans' Administration hospitals can't afford to house them or even help them? We can spend 500 billion dollars a year on a useless war to create more disabled homeless veterans, yet it would cost only a couple hundred million dollars to feed and house them for an entire year. Why can't we carve just a little bit out of the war chest to take care of these poor, deceived souls?

So..... What will happen if we invade Iran?
First of all, Iran is not Iraq. Iraq is an already-defeated country who had a dictator "we" propped up in the first place---Saddam Hussein---and he was the guy we helped fight the Iranians in the 80's by selling him weapons technology, including the ingredients to make chemical weapons, which he used not against helpless villagers (as reported by the mass media to inject baseless anti Iraq sentiment before the first "Gulf War)," but against Kurds who were fighting for the Iranians, whom Iraq was at war with! Yet we condemn HIM for genocide... Has not the seller responsibility? Methinks he does...
Iraq was created after World War I by the British, when the British divided up the Middle East, creating Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Palestine, among others. It wasn't until WWII that Israel came into existence. My point is Iraq and these other newly formed, WESTERNIZED countries have no deep sense of nationality. Guess what? Iran does! They are one of the oldest surviving cultures and countries on the face of the Earth, and they are rather proud of it. The Iranians have been Iranian for hundreds of years, and before that they were Persians, but they were essentially the same people.
They have a strong sense of who they are, and they have not forgotten what "our" CIA did to them in the 1950's. The CIA overthrew the government of Muhammed Mosadeq, who was not only pro-USA, but also DULY ELECTED by his own people. He decided he wanted to control just a SMALL part of the oil profits flowing out of HIS country, and he was summarily deposed for it.
All the British and American "secret agents" (license to kill?) had to do was fool the Iranian people into believing Mosadeq was anti-Muslim--an atheist and a communist--which is not a popular sentiment in the Muslim world, to say the least... They spread leaflets supposedly made by Mosadeq saying "Down with Allah!! Up with Communism!!" When this didn't produce the desired effect, British and American agents actually went around dressed as Iranians SHOOTING and BOMBING civilians, claiming to represent Mosadeq.
Mosadeq spent the rest of his life in prison. Most of his cabinet were hung or beheaded, and the Shah of Iran was re-installed to continue his royal tendency of oppressing his own population. He was so ruthless against his own people that roughly twenty years later there was a religious coup, which overthrew the Shah's government. There is now an extreme theocracy which dictates rule in Iran instead of an elected leader, and it is related most assuredly to our meddling there (let's not of course forget British meddling).

So......... The Iranians are slightly pissed off about these FACTS, and they haven't forgotten. It was the MAIN cause cited for the Iranian hostage crisis of the late 70's, where Americans were kidnapped by Iranian students, and held until George Bush (former DIRECTOR of the CIA) worked a deal to get them released (the day Reagan was inaugurated).
So we as the "USA" have a long history of meddling in the affairs of Iran, and they are quite frankly sick of it. So there's that...

The other thing not discussed in the mainstream media is that WE DON'T HAVE THE STRENGTH OF TROOPS OR THE MONEY TO LEAD A GROUND INVASION OF IRAN. There will be an initial air strike aimed at taking out their infrastructure, but like always, an air campaign will need ground support to work. They will proclaim it is just an air war until they are ready to send in ground troops, who will become mired without funds or equipment long before they reach Tehran. Our troops are all over the world, fighting many stupid battles, or using up billions to do nothing other than sit and guard our corporate interests. We, as a country, have troops PERMANENTLY stationed in over 120 countries on the face of this Earth! Think about that!
Even if it weren't morally wrong to station our troops on foreign soil permanently, we simply do not have the funds to continue this occupation of the world. Our funds will be cut off by no choice of our own mid-invasion, should we invade Iran. What are we to do once this happens?
Oh, don't you worry. This will have been planned from the beginning. They will "have to" perform a tactical nuclear strike to "save our troops" once they become mired. Official US policy at this point provides that if the president feels a large enough amount of US troops face a large enough threat, he can authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a non-nuclear environment. Comforting, eh?
Do you think I'm crazy? Yes? Really? Well, if you would like a little corroboration from someone who should know, why not listen to Scott Ritter, who was our UN weapons inspector, and who told us Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction (which he didn't) before we invaded? Scott Ritter resigned when his news was ignored. Watch this short video clip to see exactly what I'm talking about. This man may not be an Albert Einstein, but he certainly has a more informed perspective on this matter than any of us can pretend to have:



Scott Ritter (from the video):

"So, for any Americans out there tonight who say 'you know what, taking on Iran is a good thing'-- I just told you, if we take on Iran, we're going to use nuclear weapons, and if we use nuclear weapons, the genie ain't goin' back in the bottle until an American city is taken out by an Islamic weapon in retaliation. So tell me you want to go to war with Iran----pick your city... Tell me which one you want gone! Seattle, LA, Boston, New York, Miami? Pick one, because at least one's going..."

Wow, I think I'll just leave it at that.


copyright Brandon Dean 2008