اهداف جامعه ایرانی چیست؟ « ما چگونه فکر می کنیم» و آنچه که در ایران مهم انگاشته می شود.

۱۳۸۶ فروردین ۱۱, شنبه

Matthew Norman: We've lost the authority to lecture Iran (Independent)

Matthew Norman: We've lost the authority to lecture Iran
The Iraqi misadventure has rendered Britain too demoralised to respond with serious force
Published: 30 March 2007
This is an area of patriotic pride into which the Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad probably seldom stray when they meet for a cup of tea and a pot of finest Iranian beluga, but the birthplace of human rights was Iran. In 539BC, on being crowned king of Babylon, Cyrus the Great read out a declaration now held in the British Museum, and known as the First Charter of Human Rights.

"I announce that I will respect the traditions, customs and religions of the nations of my empire," recited the Persian monarch. "While I am the King of Iran, Babylon and the nations of the four directions, I will never let anyone oppress any others, and if it occurs I will... penalise the oppressor. I will never let anyone take possession of movable and landed properties of the others by force..."

Nothing specific there about such movables as Royal Navy vessels and their personnel (great warrior, that Cyrus, but no foresight), but you get the gist. That a country invented something important is no guarantee that it will remain a world leader in the field in perpetuity, as close followers of the England football team may have worked out for themselves. But Iran's regression in human rights terms since Cyrus blazed such a spectacular trail two and a half millennia ago (his insistence that "everyone is free to choose a religion" has a particularly poignant ring; so, alas, does his ambition to "exterminate slavery all over the world") puts the travails of Steve McClaren in the shade.

Having said that, the reaction to the televising of Faye Turney on Wednesday does seem slightly hysterical. It goes without saying that the seizure of the 15 sailors and marines, whether or not they had strayed into Iranian waters (and it seems certain that they didn't), is inexcusable on every level. So is the transparent coercion of a frightened young woman to say things she clearly didn't wish to say.

And yet although Leading Seaman Turney seemed stressed, naturally enough, she also looked healthy. There were no overt signs of any physical violence, and her hands were not cuffed. She was wearing civilian clothes, and was allowed to smoke. So on hearing Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, saying that it is "totally unacceptable to parade our people in this way", the image that flashes to mind is that of other people being paraded for a global television audience, their legs and hands chained together, their bodies immersed in lurid orange boiler suits.

The British Government wasn't directly responsible for Guantanamo Bay, but it colluded in the illegal seizure of suspects taken there and mistreated to an unimaginably worse degree than appears the case with LS Turney. It assisted the Americans in their pioneering extension of the concept of outsourcing to take in torture, allowing CIA jets to refuel at British airports while transporting suspects to countries with a similarly unCyrus-like approach to human rights as modern Iran.

And it never raised a squeak about such criminal acts as the kidnap of Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr, an EU citizen who was walking down a Milanese street in February 2003 when CIA operatives snatched him, bundled him into the back of a white van, and flew him to Cairo for interrogation.

None of this is to suggest, of course, that one nation's collusion in the illegal seizure of foreign nationals in any way justifies the use of the same indefensible tactics by another, or diminishes the seriousness of the offence. But British complicity in these American crimes raises questions about the source of the moral authority fuelling the current outrage about LS Turney's television appearance. If it did contravene the Geneva Convention, inmates of Camp X-Ray were expressly excluded from its protection, although they were supposedly captured in war (the abstract one against terrurrh), and no Cabinet minister publicly objected to that. It also highlights yet again the extent to which the catastrophic blunder in Iraq is undermining attempts to deal effectively with Iran.

Precisely why the Iranians captured the officers remains opaque, even now, a week after the event, largely because of the confused command structure at the top of their government and the factional nature of the military. What is crystal clear, however, is that Iran would never have dared so blatant an act of brinkmanship were it not convinced, quite correctly, that the Iraqi misadventure has rendered Britain too nervous and demoralised, not to mention militarily overstretched, to respond with serious force.

If the Iranians aren't remotely spooked by the presence in the region of US aircraft carriers designed to focus their minds on Mr Bush's warnings about the consequences of continuing with their nuclear programme, it's hard to imagine Margaret Beckett petrifying them into line. Not even if she uses that specially fierce tone of rebuke she usually reserves for boy racers tailgating the caravan on rural lanes.

Four years after joining a war notionally intended to defuse the threat of non-existent weapons of mass distraction, we see more clearly than ever how that war has emboldened Iraq's neighbour to develop real ones; and how impotent that war has left Britain and the US so far as containing a volatile, oil-rich country gripped by paranoia about the intentions of the local nuclear superpower, Israel, and presided over by the world stage's closest thing, in Mr Ahmadinejad, to a fully fledged village idiot.

Upsetting as the vision of a distressed young mother certainly is, in the nuclear scheme of things the manipulation of LS Turney for propaganda purposes looks a fairly small step on the long, winding and disturbingly signpost-free road towards regional nuclear proliferation. The anguish expressed here by politicians and pundits stems less, one suspects, from any genuine fear for the officers' safety - the Iranians may have become audacious, but they are not suicidally stupid and will release them unharmed, if traumatised, as in the similar incident of three years ago - than wounded pride that the naval officers of a once-dominant maritime power should be treated with such undisguised disdain.

Somewhere in all this lies a moral. Gunboat diplomacy is a thing of the past, even if we could find a spare gunboat, and for all the public pretence of "ratcheting up the heat" on the Iranians, they need to be handled with the softest of kid gloves, and cajoled into behaving by a coalition of international trading partners sympathetic to the plight of the sailors. For the days when Britain had the stature, self-confidence and façade of moral authority to play sergeant to the US chief inspector on the global stage are over, and the villains know it.

This is the legacy of Iraq, and if the posturing of the Iranians leaves Mr Blair's successors in less doubt than ever about that, the ordeal of Leading Seaman Turney and her 14 colleagues will not have been in vain.

Call that humiliation? (Guardian )

No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch

Terry Jones
Saturday March 31, 2007
The Guardian


I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.

The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!

What's more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting "stress positions", which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.

And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is "unhappy and stressed".

What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.

As Stephen Glover pointed out in the Daily Mail, perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer - whether by beefing up sanctions, as the Mail suggests, or simply by getting President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq.

· Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python
www.terry-jones.net

۱۳۸۶ فروردین ۱۰, جمعه

Iran Broadcasts New Video of Seized Britons (nytimes.com)

Published: March 30, 2007

LONDON, March 30 — Iranian television’s Arabic-language channel broadcast footage on Friday of a captured British Royal Marine seeming to apologize “deeply” for entering Iranian waters without permission. Iran also released what it said was a third letter from Faye Turney, the only woman among the captives, in which she purportedly complained of being “sacrificed” to British and American policies.

Al Alam TV, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Iran’s official Arabic-language television station broadcast today a new video of one of the British sailors seized a week ago.

Multimedia

Video Video: The Apology

The newest moves by Iran added to a deepening sense of revulsion and frustration among British officials.

Iranian television identified the latest Briton to be displayed as rifleman Nathan Thomas Summers. The marine was one of 15 British soldiers seized on March 23 and his appearance followed similar televised and written statements by Leading Seaman Turney.

As the confrontation between Britain and Teheran has mounted, British newspapers have taken to calling the episode a “hostage crisis,” and some analysts have said it shows the narrow limits of British authority four years after the invasion of Iraq. Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed “disgust” at British personnel being “paraded” and “manipulated.”

“They have got to be released,” he told a television interviewer.

Mr. Summers was shown wearing olive-and-sand-colored camouflage fatigues with the words “Royal Navy” and a small union jack badge on the shirt. He was seen sitting next to Leading Seaman Turney and another unidentified marine. Their whereabouts have not been publicly disclosed. Britain insists that the sailors were “ambushed” while operating under United Nations and Iraqi authority, 1.7 nautical miles within Iraqi waters.

In television footage that seemed to jump between camera angles as if it had been edited, Mr. Summers said Britain had promised after a similar incident in 2004 that its naval vessels would not trespass in Iranian waters.

“Again I deeply apologize for entering your waters,” Mr. Summers said.

In what was said to be Leading Seaman Turney’s third letter, the 26-year-old sailor went further than in previous letters when she has said she and the other personnel were in Iranian waters when they were captured, and apologizing for that. The previous missives were supposedly to be sent to her family and to parliament.

Addressed to the British people, the latest letter said: ”I am writing to you as a British serviceperson who has been sent to Iraq, sacrificed due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments.”

“Whereas we hear and see on the news the way that prisoners were treated in Abu Ghrayb and other Iraqi jails by the British and American personnel, I have received total respect and faced no harm,” the letter in her name said. “It is now our time to ask our government to make a change to its oppressive behavior towards other people.”

The British Foreign Office in London said the “manipulation” of its service personnel was “outrageous.”

The official IRNA news agency also publicized remarks by Mr. Summers, purportedly saying: “We entered Iranian waters without permission and we were detained by Iranian coast guards. I would like to apologize for this to the Iranian people.”

“Since our detention on March 23, everything has been very good and I’m completely satisfied about the situation,” he was quoted as saying.

His comments echoed remarks by Leading Seaman Turney about the alleged well-being of the Britons. In news clips interspersed with footage of their capture, some of them have been shown sharing a meal. The video shown on Friday depicted the three service personnel seeming to be smiling and relaxed.

Britain has been seeking international backing for its demand that Iran release the service personnel immediately, but failed to win full United Nations Security Council support on Thursday for a toughly-worded statement to that effect. Instead, the Security Council voiced “grave concern.”

On Friday, Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy supreme, called the Iranian action a “big mistake.” He was speaking as he arrived at a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in Germany where Britain might press its European partners to support punitive action against Iran by suspending export credit guarantees crucial to trade between Iran and Europe.

The British authorities are also weighing a letter sent by the Iranian Foreign Ministry to the British Embassy in Tehran on Thursday, apparently softening Iran’s demand for an apology but seeking a guarantee that British naval vessels will steer clear of Iranian waters in the future.

But Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said there was “nothing in the letter to suggest that the Iranians are looking for a way out.” She also said it was “quite appalling and it is completely contrary to normal international convention to use people who are detained against their will, who have been detained for days now, to whom consular access is denied ... to use them for blatant propaganda in this way. I am quite horrified.”

However, it is unclear which part of the Iranian government has final control over the Britons’ destiny, with many news reports saying they are being held by Revolutionary Guards.

Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government is under domestic pressure to show itself as taking a hard line to force the release of the prisoners. But their prolonged detention has highlighted the constraints on Britain’s ability to put pressure on Iran, which is also in dispute with the west over its nuclear program.

In The Independent newspaper on Friday columnist Matthew Norman said British moral authority had been eroded by its association with the United States in the invasion of Iraq and the campaign against terrorism.

“What is crystal clear is that Iran would never have dared so blatant an act of brinksmanship were it not convinced, quite correctly, that the Iraqi misadventure has rendered Britain too nervous and demoralized, not to mention militarily overstretched, to respond with serious force,” he wrote.

“Gunboat diplomacy is a thing of the past, even if we could find a spare gunboat,” Mr. Norman said. “The days when Britain had the stature, self-confidence and façade of moral authority to play sergeant to the U.S. chief inspector on the global stage are over, and the villains know it.”

Iran seeks bilateral resolution to crisis (ft.com)

By Daniel Dombey in London and Fidelius Schmid in Bremen

Published: March 30 2007 15:08

Iran said on Friday it was seeking a diplomatic resolution of the dispute over its detention of 15 British sailors and marines, but the UK said Tehran had not made any concessions.

“The two governments have been closely examining and discussing the case,” the Iranian embassy in London said in a statement. ”This case can and should be settled through bilateral channels,” it added, censuring Britain for taking the issue to the United Nations Security Council.

In a press statement issued on Thursday night that fell well short of the UK’s initial draft, the Security Council called for British consular access to the detainees, and requested “an early resolution of this problem, including the release of the 15 United Kingdom personnel”. Britain had wanted the Security Council to call for the detainees’ immediate release.

On Friday, the Iranian embassy also released the text of a letter delivered to Britain the previous day which denounced what it said was Britain’s “illegal act in violating Iranian waters” and called on the UK to “guarantee to avoid the recurrence of such acts”.

While the UK insists that the personnel were in Iraqi waters, and has used GPS data to support its claim, Tehran says the sailors and marines were 0.5 km within Iranian territorial waters.

“There is nothing in the letter to suggest that the Iranians are looking for a way out,” said Margaret Beckett, UK foreign secretary. She also said that Iran had acted “completely contrary to normal international convention” in using the detainees “for blatant propaganda.”

Iran also released what it said was a third letter by Leading Seaman Faye Turney, the only woman among the 15 captives, which called on the UK to leave Iraq. It also showed footage of another detainee, Nathan Thomas Summers, who apologised for crossing into Iranian waters “without permission”.

Meeting in Bremen, Germany, European Union foreign ministers on Friday called for Iran to release the 15 UK sailors and marines held captive, but expressed caution about following London in suspending normal business with Iran.

“I think we have to be careful,” said Benita Ferrero-Waldner, EU external relations commissioner. “We are in a very delicate moment.”

The ministers are planning to issue a formal declaration of support on Friday night.

Massive U.S. war exercises threaten Iran

While blaming Tehran

Massive U.S. war exercises threaten Iran

Published Mar 29, 2007 8:57 PM

On March 27, the Associated Press reported that the U.S. had launched its largest naval exercises in the Persian Gulf since the invasion of Iraq.

Two immense aircraft carriers, the USS Eisenhower and the USS Stennis, were steaming off the coast of Iran, each one accompanied by a carrier strike group of vessels and planes. All together, more than 100 planes were involved in this obvious attempt to intimidate the Iranian people with a show of military might.

The magnitude of the operation was sketched by the AP: “Each carrier hosts an air wing of F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, S-3 Viking anti-submarine and refuelers, and E-2C Hawkeye airborne command-and-control craft. Also taking part were guided-missile destroyers USS Anzio, USS Ramage, USS O’Kane, USS Mason, USS Preble and USS Nitze; and minesweepers USS Scout, USS Gladiator and USS Ardent.”

The Eisenhower had moved to the Gulf from the coast of Somalia, where in December it provided cover for an invasion of that country by thousands of Ethiopian troops, coordinated by U.S. special forces. Washington’s objective was to break the political power of the popular Islamic Courts Union and firm up a “transitional government” of discredited “warlords” who had lost control of the country. As usual, the public relations flacks in Washington explained this outright aggression with one pat phrase: the “war on terror.”

British sailors, marines detained

Iran must have known that the current exercises were about to take place when on March 23 its navy stopped a vessel in the Shatt al-Arab waterway between Iraq and Iran and detained 15 British sailors and marines.

There are two accounts of why this happened. The U.S.-British account is that the British sailors were in Iraqi waters inspecting civilian ships suspected of smuggling and that the Iranians had no right to detain them.

The Iranian account is that the British had entered Iranian waters. It says the 15 detained sailors and marines have not been harmed but are being questioned to determine whether their violation of Iran’s sea boundaries was “intentional or unintentional.”

Meanwhile, the media in both Britain and the U.S. are pumping up an international crisis over the seizure of the 15. If they report at all on the huge war exercises going on, it is to give the impression that the U.S. is just responding to the “evil bully,” Iran.

How low can the monopolized corporate media go—especially the television “news” programs aimed at a mass audience? Lower than a snake’s belly.

They won’t ask the most elementary questions about this preposterous story, even though the whole world knows by now that the residents of both the White House and Downing Street are a pack of liars.

However, independent-minded people in the West should be able to figure this all out. There is plenty of historical precedent to understand what is going on.

First of all, it makes no sense that Iran would deliberately enter Iraqi waters and seize British naval personnel just as U.S. carriers were bearing down on its coast to carry out war maneuvers. The Iranians know very well that the U.S. is the world’s superpower when it comes to military might and would not help it create a pretext for aggression.

Second, the U.S. and Britain have long been in a partnership to dominate the oil-rich Middle East; it should be remembered that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. once controlled most of Iran’s oil. It DOES make sense that they would concoct a provocation just before the U.S. war maneuvers began.

Third, isn’t it suspicious that the charge against Iran came from London and Washington, not from Baghdad? Didn’t this allegedly happen in Iraqi waters?

Fourth, even though several accounts have appeared in the Western media—including in the series on U.S. military threats against Iran by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine—about U.S. special forces operating clandestinely inside Iran, promoting secessionist groups and gathering intelligence, the Iranian government has so far taken no action that might inflame its already tense relationship with Washington.

Finally, the penetration of a country’s territorial waters by U.S. warships or spying vessels has happened before.

Gulf of Tonkin, USS Pueblo

In August 1964, Congress passed a resolution that was later cited by President Lyndon Johnson as his authority to escalate the war in Vietnam. The so-called Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was based on a supposed “attack” by North Vietnamese patrol boats on U.S. warships in international waters. Later, with the publication of the Pentagon Papers, this pretext for the war was shown to be totally false.

In January 1968, the ship USS Pueblo and its crew of 83 men were captured by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea after entering the DPRK’s waters. The U.S. claimed the ship was on an innocent mission—until its captain apologized to the Koreans and admitted publicly that it had been intercepting the Koreans’ electronic communications.

No one outside the U.S./British high command knows where the present crisis is leading. It must not be allowed to become the excuse for an escalation of the imperialist military intervention in the Middle East, which has already brought so much misery and destruction to the region and to the soldiers coerced and tricked into going there.


Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php

۱۳۸۶ فروردین ۹, پنجشنبه

Bombs in Iraq kill at least 104 in Shia areas

Multiple suicide bombers struck predominantly Shia markets Thursday in Baghdad and north of the capital, killing at least 104 people and wounding dozens more.

Two of the suicide bombers struck a market in the Shaab neighbourhood of northeastern Baghdad at 6 p.m. local time, killing at least 61 people and wounding 40, Iraqi police and security officials said.

At about the same time, three suicide car bombers attacked a market in the town of Khalis north of Baghdad, killing at least 43 people and wounding 86, according to police and officials in the predominantly Shia town.

The first attacker in Khalis drove his explosives-laden car into the crowded area, followed in five-minute intervals by the other two bombers, who apparently were aiming at rescue crews and onlookers gathering in the aftermath, police said.

Police said the bombers came from two separate directions.

Khalis is in volatile Diyala province, where fighting has been raging among Sunni insurgents, Shia militiamen and U.S. and Iraqi troops.

It has been struck by bombings several times in recent months, most recently on Jan. 22 when a bomb followed by a mortar attack struck a market, killing at least 12 people and wounding 29, police said.

The Shaab neighbourhood of Baghdad was one of the first targets of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers searching for Shia militants and weapons in a six-week-old security sweep aimed at stopping the sectarian violence.

'I saw heads separated from the bodies'

By Ahmed Rasheed

Baghdad - Suicide bombers killed nearly 130 people in a crowded market in a Shi'a district of Baghdad and a mainly Shi'a town on Thursday, one of the bloodiest days in Iraq in months.

The upsurge in sectarian violence threatens all-out civil war and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shi'a, called for restraint and urged Iraqis to work with security forces to prevent the violence spiralling out of control. Bombs earlier this week in northern Iraq sparked mass reprisal killings.

Two suicide bombers wearing vests packed with explosives killed 76 people in a market in the Shaab district of northern Baghdad, police and medical sources said, in what appeared to be the latest of a string of attacks on Shi'a districts and towns blamed on al-Qaeda. More than 100 were wounded.


'It is impossible to tell the exact number of dead'
"It is impossible to tell the exact number of dead because we are basically counting body parts," said a health ministry official in Baghdad, who asked not to be named.

Most of the victims were women and children, who had been out shopping in the crowded market before the start of the nightly curfew, he said.

At about the same time, three suicide car bombs exploded within minutes of each other in Khalis, 80km north of Baghdad, killing 53 people and wounding 103, police said.

There has been a spike in bloodshed, particularly outside the Iraqi capital, in recent days. Violence between majority Shi'a and minority Sunnis has killed tens of thousands in the past year.

On Tuesday two truck bombs killed 85 people in a Shi'ite area of Tal Afar in northern Iraq. In the hours after those blasts Shi'ite gunmen, including police, shot dead up to 70 Sunni Arab men in reprisal.

'It was a scene of horror'
The top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, confirmed on Thursday police appeared to have carried out "retribution killings" after the bombings, which he blamed on al-Qaeda. Iraq's Sunni vice-president urged the Shi'a-led government to do more to purge the security forces of militias.

In Khalis, one car bomb exploded in a commercial area and a second at a police checkpoint leading to the police headquarters and court building, police said. A third bomber attacked police patrols rushing to the scene.

"It was a scene of horror. There were charred bodies and human remains scattered about," said one policeman who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A survivor of the Shaab market blast in Baghdad, Wissam Hashim Ali, 27, said the market had been "very, very crowded" at the time of the blasts.

"I saw heads separated from the bodies and legs blown off," he said in hospital, where he was receiving treatment for his wounds.

Maliki's office said in a statement the prime minister condemned the bombs and called on Iraqis "not to let evil-doers have their way and to cooperate with security forces, who are determined to cleanse Iraq of terrorism".

New US Ambassador Ryan Crocker told his swearing-in ceremony that "terrorists, insurgents and militias continue to threaten security in Baghdad and around the country" and called Iraq America's "most critical foreign policy challenge".

The US Senate, after the House of Representatives, passed a war-funding bill on Thursday that sets a goal of withdrawing all US combat soldiers from Iraq within a year.

President George Bush, who has vowed to veto the measure, is sending up to 30 000 additional troops to Iraq, most of them to support a major security crackdown under way in Baghdad, epicentre of the violence.

While this crackdown has succeeded in reducing the number of deaths in the capital, violence has surged elsewhere.

Additional reporting by Dean Yates and Claudia Parsons in Baghdad.

Mottaki at United Nations Security Council

نماینده احمدی نژاد در شورای امنیت

Saudi's on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' (cnn.com)

Saudi's on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' (cnn.com)
POSTED: 0046 GMT (0846 HKT), March 29, 2007

Story Highlights

NEW: U.S. disagrees; says forces are in Iraq legally and by Iraq's invitation
• Saudi king called U.S. presence in Iraq an "illegitimate foreign occupation"
• Saudi's quietly aided the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- King Abdullah's harsh -- and unexpected -- attack on the U.S. military presence in Iraq could be a Saudi attempt to signal to Washington its anger over the situation in Iraq and build credibility among fellow Arabs.

The White House, in a rare public retort Thursday, rejected the king's characterization of U.S. troops in Iraq as an "illegitimate foreign occupation," saying the United States was not in Iraq illegally.

"The United States and Saudi Arabia have a close and cooperative relationship on a wide range of issues," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "And when it comes to the coalition forces being in Iraq, we are there under the U.N. Security Council resolutions and at the invitation of the Iraqi people."

"We disagree with them," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told senators. "We were a little surprised to see those remarks."

The king made his remarks Wednesday at the opening session of the two-day Arab summit his country hosted in Riyadh. It was believed to be the first time the king publicly expressed that opinion.

"In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war," said Abdullah, whose country is a U.S. ally that quietly aided the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The next day, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani bristled at the comment in his speech to the summit, saying the term occupation has "negative implications" and is "in contradiction" to the vision of "Iraqi patriotic and national forces."

A Saudi official said the king was speaking as the president of the summit and his remarks reflected general frustration with the "patchwork" job the Americans were doing to end violence in Iraq.

The king also wanted to send a message that Iraq is an issue that Arabs cannot turn their back on, the official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.


It was not clear what kind of diplomatic fallout could result -- but the comments did nothing to help bring Arab nations closer to the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite.

The summit has taken a tough line on Iraq, demanding it change its constitution and military to include more Sunnis and end a program of uprooting former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party.

The Sunni-led governments of the Arab world have long been suspicious of Iraq's Shiite leadership, blaming it for fueling violence by discriminating against Sunni Arabs and accusing it of helping mainly Shiite Iran extend its influence in the region.

Abdullah's remarks came at a time when the kingdom is taking a more public role in efforts to defuse crises threatening to engulf the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia sponsored a reconciliation accord between Palestinian factions, has engaged Iran about its nuclear program, and has tried to settle simmering tensions in Lebanon. And the kingdom has been talking to various factions in Iraq.

Writers in some Arab media suggested before the summit that Saudi Arabia would seek solutions that would cater to U.S. interests.

"The king's remarks are the biggest proof that those accusations were false," said Dawood al-Shirian, a Saudi analyst. "In the issue of Iraq, Saudi Arabia went far beyond most other Arab countries. It went beyond the details and right to the cause."

Al-Shirian said he expected other Arab countries to follow Saudi Arabia's lead in considering the presence of U.S. troops an illegal occupation.

"If Saudi Arabia didn't blame the occupation, the blame would fall on the Iraqis, who are victims. How can you blame the victim?" he asked.

The U.S. called its presence in Iraq an occupation until the June 2004 handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis. U.S. troops remained in Iraq with permission from the Iraqi government and a mandate from the United Nations.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal stood by the king's remarks Thursday, implying at some points that Iraq's Shiite-led government doesn't have the legitimacy to approve the U.S. presence.

"If that country had chosen to have those troops, then it's something else. But any military action that is not requested by a specific country -- that is the definition of occupation," al-Faisal told reporters.

Oil surges above $66 amid Iran tensions(businessweek.com)

Oil surges above $66 amid Iran tensions

Crude oil prices surged above $66 a barrel Thursday, driven to a new six-month high by concerns that strained relations between Iran and the West could put oil exports in jeopardy as U.S. gasoline supplies wane and demand swells.

Pump prices keep rising as well: the average U.S. retail price of unleaded regular gasoline was $2.62 a gallon Thursday, 12 cents higher than a year ago, according to AAA.

Iran detained 15 British navy personnel last week, and on Thursday the country suspended the release of a female British sailor, and a top official said the captives may be put on trial. The incident comes several months into a standoff between Iran, the fourth-largest oil producer, and the United Nations over the country's nuclear program.

Worries related to Iran -- which is also located along a key waterway in the oil trade -- have led traders to put an extra premium on oil prices, which are already high due to seven straight weeks of declines in U.S. gasoline inventories.

Traders aren't saying they believe war with Iran is likely, but in an environment of high demand and falling domestic supplies, they maintain the effects of a large-scale conflict on the energy markets could be huge.

Iran is positioned along the Strait of Hormuz, through which tankers ship about 17 million barrels of crude oil per day, according to the Energy Information Administration. That accounts for two-fifths of the world's crude oil traded by tanker, and about one-fifth of total oil production. The exports exiting the narrow waterway are bound for the United States, Western Europe and Japan.

"We're in a short-term business. If oil were to stop flowing there for a period of time, fear will run rampant and oil will be in the 70s immediately," said James Cordier, president of Liberty Trading Group in Tampa, Fla.

Light, sweet crude futures for May soared $1.95 to settle at $66.03 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after rising as high as $66.50. It was the highest settlement price since Sept. 8, 2006, when crude finished at $66.25.

Cordier estimated that concerns related to Iran are adding about $3 to $4 to the price of crude right now, and actual supply disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would add another $4 or $5.

Gasoline futures on Nymex climbed 7.83 cents to settle at $2.1355 a gallon.

U.S. inventories of gasoline remain in the upper half of the typical range for this time of year, but U.S. gasoline demand averaged 9.2 million barrels a day over the past four weeks, up 1.6 percent from the same period last year, the EIA said Wednesday. Wachovia economist Jason Schenker pointed out that these demand levels weren't seen last year until May.

"Supply is down, demand is up. These are fundamentals that mean higher prices," Schenker said. "As long as the unemployment rate remains low and disposable income is up, gasoline demand is likely to be strong."

Gasoline prices at the pump -- which had surged about 20 percent since the beginning of the year even before Iran detained the British sailors -- continue to rise. Schenker noted that the average U.S. pump price is the highest it's ever been for March, and said it could reach a range of $2.75 to $3.35 a gallon by the summer. The highest recorded national average was $3.057 in September 2005, according to AAA, after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast.

Californians are seeing the highest prices in the country, with gas stations charging an average $3.216 a gallon for regular unleaded, AAA data showed.

Tom Kloza of the Oil Price Information Service in Wall, N.J., said it's normal for West Coast prices to be higher than the rest of the country, but that the disparity is wider than usual, largely because the state has seen more refinery downtime than other regions and little new production capacity in the offing.

Many market watchers are saying that U.S. refinery production -- which last week inched up to 87 percent -- could be higher, but refiners are waiting for prices to rise more so they can make bigger profits.

The United States recently had the warmest winter on record, Cordier noted, and last year's hurricane season didn't bring any damaging storms.

"There's absolutely no excuse for tight gasoline supplies. I hate to step on any toes, but that's manipulation," he said. But "they're private companies; there's not much you can do or say."

In other Nymex trading Thursday, heating oil rose 4.98 cents to settle at $1.8772 per gallon, and natural gas slipped 6.3 cents to settle at $7.609 per 1,000 cubic feet.

The EIA reported Thursday that natural gas in storage in the United States fell by 22 billion cubic feet last week to 1.511 trillion cubic feet.

U.N. urges resolution of Iran seizure (chron.com)

March 29, 2007, 5:45PM
U.N. urges resolution of Iran seizure

By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council expressed "grave concern" Thursday over Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors and marines and called for an early resolution of the escalating dispute, but Iran's chief international negotiator suggested the captives might be put on trial.

As the standoff drove world oil prices to new six-month highs, Turkey, NATO's only Muslim member, reportedly sought to calm tensions by urging Iran to let a Turkish diplomat meet with the detainees and to free the lone woman among the Britons.

Tensions had seemed to be cooling a day earlier, but after Iran angered British leaders by airing a video of the prisoners and Britain touched a nerve in Tehran by seeking U.N. help, positions hardened even more Thursday.

Iran retreated from a pledge by Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki that the female sailor, Faye Turney, would be released soon. Mottaki then repeated that the matter could be resolved if Britain admitted its sailors mistakenly entered Iranian territorial waters last Friday.

Britain's Foreign Office insisted again that the sailors and marines were seized in an Iraqi-controlled area while searching merchant ships under a U.N. mandate and said no admission of error would be made.

With Britain taking its case to the United Nations, Ali Larijani, the top Iranian negotiator in all his country's foreign dealings, went on Iranian state radio to issue a warning.

He said that if Britain continued its current approach, "this case may face a legal path" — a clear reference to Iran prosecuting the sailors and marines in court. "British leaders have miscalculated this issue," he said.

Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, Iran's military chief, blamed the backtracking on releasing the British woman on "wrong behavior" by her government. "The release of a female British soldier has been suspended," the semiofficial Iranian news agency Mehr said.

The Security Council's statement was a watered-down version of a stronger draft sought by Britain to "deplore" Iranian actions and urge the immediate release of the prisoners, primarily because Russia opposed putting blame on the Tehran regime, diplomats said.

Russia also objected to the council adopting Britain's position that its sailors were operating in Iraqi waters when they were captured, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

With agreement required from all 15 members for a statement's wording, the parties spent more than four hours in private talks before emerging with wording softer than had been sought by Britain, which is also known as the United Kingdom.

"Members of the Security Council expressed grave concern at the capture by the Revolutionary Guard and the continuing detention by the government of Iran of 15 United Kingdom naval personnel and appealed to the government of Iran to allow consular access in terms of the relevant international laws," the statement said.

"Members of the Security Council support calls including by the secretary-general in his March 29 meeting with the Iranian foreign minister for an early resolution of this problem including the release of the 15 U.K. personnel."

British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry expressed hope it would send "the right message" to the Iranian government to provide immediate access to the prisoners and bring their prompt release.

Earlier, Iranian state television reported what was believed to be Ahmadinejad's first comment on the standoff, saying he accused Britain of using propaganda rather than trying to solve the matter quietly through diplomatic channels.

Iran's state TV also said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip had contacted Ahmadinejad seeking permission for a Turkish diplomat to meet with the seized Britons and urging the release of Turney, the female sailor.

Erdogan's move was seen as a possible opening to mediation in the faceoff because Turkey is one of the few countries that has good relations with both Iran and the West.

The report said Ahmadinejad promised that Erdogan's appeal would be studied, but also told the Turkish leader that the detention case had entered a legal investigation phase.

State television also broadcast a video it said showed show the operation that seized the British sailors and marines. In the clip, a helicopter hovers above inflatable boats in choppy seas, then the Royal Navy crews are seen seated in an Iranian vessel.

The video came a day after Iran broadcast a longer video showing the Britons in captivity. That video included a segment showing Turney saying her team had "trespassed" in Iranian waters.

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett condemned Iran's use of Turney for what she called "propaganda purposes," calling it "outrageous and cruel."

The Iranians released a letter Wednesday purportedly written by Turney to her family saying the British sailors were in Iranian waters. And the video aired Thursday showed another letter supposedly by Turney to Britain's Parliament calling for British troops to leave Iraq.

"I ask the representatives of the House of Commons, after the government promised that this kind of incident wouldn't happen again, why did they let this occur, and why has the government not been questioned over this," the letter read. "Isn't it time to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?"

Some experts raised questions about that letter, saying its wording hinted it was first composed in Farsi and then translated into English.

"It's obviously been dictated to her," said Nadim Shehadi, an expert on Iran at the Chatham House think tank in London. "There's no way she would phrase it like that."

Beckett said there were "grave concerns about the circumstances in which it was prepared and issued."

"This blatant attempt to use Leading Seaman Turney for propaganda purposes is outrageous and cruel," Beckett said.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said Britain wanted to resolve the crisis quickly and without having a "confrontation over this."

"We are not seeking to put Iran in a corner. We are simply saying, 'Please release the personnel who should not have been seized in the first place,'" said the spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with government policy.

But in a briefing to reporters, the spokesman said British officials had been angered by Tehran's decision to show video of the captives.

"Nobody should be put in that position. It is an impossible position to be put in," he said. "It is wrong. It is wrong in terms of the usual conventions that cover this. It is wrong in terms of basic humanity."

Iran demands Britain admit its sailors crossed border

TEHRAN, Iran: Iran demanded Thursday that Britain acknowledge that its sailors had violated Iranian waters before Tehran will release the 15 service members seized last week in disputed waters of the Persian Gulf.

The demand was made by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as Tehran withdrew an offer to soon free the only woman among the British crew, who were taken into custody last Friday after inspecting a merchant vessel suspected of smuggling cars.

"Britain should accept that this violation has been committed," Mottaki told Iranian state television, referring to Iran's claims that the Britons had strayed into Iranian waters.

"This will help in subsequent phases ... to resolve the issue quicker," Mottaki added, reiterating that after Iranian preliminary investigations, the British consulate in Iran will have access to the sailors.

Britain insists the 15 were seized in Iraqi waters and has asked the U.N. Security Council to support a call for their immediate release. Prime Minister Tony Blair's government also said it was freezing most contacts with Iran.

Britain's ambassador to Tehran was again summoned to Iran's foreign ministry Thursday evening and handed an official protest note over what Iran calls "illegal entry of British sailors" into Iranian territorial waters, the official Islamic Republic News Agency said.

In an effort to ease the crisis, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan urged Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejhad to allow a Turkish diplomat in Tehran to meet with the captives, Iranian TV reported.

Ahmadinejad accused Britain of trying to solve the crisis through propaganda and not diplomacy, the report said.

Heightened tensions over the standoff helped send crude oil prices surging above $66 a barrel Thursday, a new six-month high. Traders said the strained relations between Iran and the West could put oil exports in jeopardy.

The new tensions Thursday followed what appeared to be signs from Iran that it was prepared to resolve the crisis quickly.

On Wednesday, Mottaki told reporters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that woman sailor Faye Turney would be released soon, possibly Thursday.

But the Iranians rolled back on the offer after Britain threatened to freeze relations and refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council — moves that appeared to enrage Tehran.

Iranian military chief, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, said that owing to the "wrong behavior" of the British government, "the release of a female British soldier has been suspended."

Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani said the British leaders "have miscalculated this issue" and if they follow through with threats, the case "may face a legal path" — presumably putting the Britons on trial.

Iranian officials made clear the matter should be resolved between the two governments and that international mediation was unwelcome.

"This is a mutual issue and it is related to Iran and Britain," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said, adding that "intervention by unrelated parties will not help settle this issue."

Iranian state TV broadcast additional footage Thursday of what it said was the operation that led to the Britons' seizure.

The five-seconds long video showed a helicopter hovering above inflatable boats in choppy seas. Iranian guard boats are shown cruising around. Then, the British sailors — including Turney — appear seated in a boat with an Iranian flag, presumably after their capture.

Also in the broadcast, the Iranian chief coastal guard of the Arvand River — which is the Farsi name for the Shatt el-Arab waterway — was interviewed in an office, pointing to a map to show places where he claimed British sailors had earlier trespassed into Iranian waters.

Another letter also allegedly written by Turney, calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, was released by the Iranian government Thursday.

The letter, whose authenticity could not immediately be determined, was addressed to British lawmakers, and said that "unfortunately, we entered Iranian waters."

In related developments, the Iranian consul in Basra, Iraq, charged that British soldiers on Thursday had surrounded his office and fired shots into the air.

The Ministry of Defense in London said the shooting was an exchange of gunfire after British troops on a foot patrol near the Iranian consulate were ambushed.

But Iranian Consul-General Mohammed Ridha Nasir Baghban said British forces had engaged in a "provocative act" that "could worsen the situation of the British sailors."

Senate approves war bill with timetable for troop withdrawal (latimes.com)

Senate approves war bill with timetable for troop withdrawal

By Noam N. Levey and Joel Havemann, Times Staff Writers
9:04 AM PDT, March 29, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Within an hour of President Bush's most direct veto threat yet, the Senate gave final approval today to a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq as part of a bill to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars through Sept. 30.

The Senate today endorsed a goal of withdrawing U.S. forces by March 31, 2008. On Friday, the House passed a bill that mandates a withdrawal no later than August 2008, and sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet a series of benchmarks.

Leaders of the two chambers will meet immediately to reconcile the differences between the two plans, a process fraught with its own potential pitfalls because the bills were carefully crafted to draw enough support to pass.

The Senate vote for the $123-billion spending bill was 51 to 47, with 48 Democrats and one Independent joined by the same two Republicans -- Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon -- who voted Wednesday against an effort by the Republican leadership to strip the withdrawal provision from the bill.

Sen. David Pryor of Arkansas, who voted Wednesday to remove the timetable, voted for the bill. He was the lone senator, who voted one way on the timetable on Wednesday and the other way today.

One Independent, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, joined 46 Republicans in opposition to the bill.

Bush met with House Republican leaders at the White House and said afterward that he made it clear that he would veto any spending bill that contained a timetable for troop withdrawal.

"I'll veto a bill that restricts our commanders on the ground in Iraq, a bill that doesn't fund our troops, a bill that's got too much spending on it..., Bush said.

"We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got our troops in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded; when we got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders; and that we expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people's money."

His reference to spending the people's money was meant as criticism of the domestic spending provisions that Congress added to Bush's request mostly for war funding. Republicans have charged that Democrats added the domestic spending to attract enough Democratic votes to pass the bill.

Bush originally asked for $103 billion, mostly for the war, but $3 billion was included for aid to Gulf Coast hurricane victims and others, who have suffered from natural disasters.

The House-passed bill added $21 billion to the president's request and the Senate approved an additional $20 billion, mostly for such domestic interests as farmers.

Democrats told the president to drop what they called his confrontational way of dealing with Congress and recognize that the country has turned decisively against the war.

"Take a deep breath, Mr. President," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said as she urged President Bush to back away from threats to veto any war funding bill that sets dates for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

"Calm down with the threats," Pelosi said. "There's a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role. We want you to respect ours."

Democrats trained their sights on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where the president continues to declare he'll veto any legislation that limits what U.S. forces can do in Iraq.

In a pugnacious speech Wednesday morning to cattle ranchers, the president again threatened a veto and warned Democrats they would be blamed for holding up essential funding for the troops.

"Members of Congress need to stop making political statements, and start providing vital funds for our troops," the president said to enthusiastic applause.

"Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely," Bush continued. "That's not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

Previous presidents have won showdowns with Congress over foreign policy. A decade ago, President Clinton successfully turned aside a bid by congressional Republicans to force an end to U.S. military involvement in a peacekeeping mission in the Balkans.
But as this Congress prepares to send a bill to the president's desk next month, Democratic leaders appear to have settled on a strategy to try to isolate the White House by portraying Bush as the obstacle to a compromise that would bring the war to an end.

Over the past several days, Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other Democratic leaders have stressed their eagerness to work with the White House.

"Our phones are open any time of the day or night," Reid said at a news conference Wednesday afternoon with Pelosi. "The ball is in his court We hope that he will do what presidents have done for generations: Deal with a separate and independent branch of government. Sometimes they don't like to do it, but they recognize it's their obligation."

Reid and Pelosi also sent a confrontational letter to the president challenging him to work with them. "Rather than work with the Congress to develop a bill you could sign, you apparently intend to follow a political strategy that would needlessly delay funding for our troops," they wrote.

Pelosi and Reid face their own challenges as well.

As senior Democratic lawmakers work to craft a single war funding bill from the House and Senate versions, they must find a formula that can hold together the fragile coalitions they assembled to pass the timelines.

The timelines were approved in both chambers by thin margins.

That may be particularly challenging because the timelines in the House bill are considerably more aggressive than those in the Senate bill, which sets an earlier, but nonbinding, date for withdrawing U.S. forces.

Many antiwar lawmakers in the House only agreed to back the bill last week when they were assured by Pelosi and others that the timelines would remain firm. And Wednesday several said they would have a hard time supporting any legislation that weakens the timelines.

But Wednesday, Sen. Ben Nelson, a moderate Nebraska Democrat who provided key support in Tuesday's 50-48 vote endorsing the Senate's plan, said he couldn't support firm timelines.

"That's a problem," Nelson said. "A hard and fast date sends the wrong message, and it is just unworkable."

noam.levey@latimes.com

joel.havemann@latimes.com

Times staff writer Richard Simon contributed to this report.

Arab leaders urge Israel to accept peace offer

Arab leaders urge Israel to accept peace offer
Israel objects to important elements, including the proposed return to 1967 borders
Mar 29, 2007 10:13 AM


Reuters

RIYADH – Arab leaders endorsed a peace plan to end decades-old conflict with Israel and the Palestinian president warned of more violence if the "hand of peace" was rejected.

Speaking at the end of an Arab summit in Riyadh, Mahmoud Abbas urged Israel not to waste the chance for peace, and called for a committee led by Saudi Arabia to pursue it.

"I reiterate the sincerity of the Palestinian will in extending the hand of peace to the Israeli people ... We should not waste more chances in the history of this long and painful cause," Abbas told the closing ceremony of the two-day meeting.

"The entire region will be under renewed threats of war, explosions, as well as regional and international confrontations, as a result of the absence of a solution or the impossibility of implementing one."

The Arab summit drew world and Muslim leaders who backed the Arab plan offering Israel normal ties with all Arab countries in return for its withdrawal from land occupied in the 1967 Middle East war, the creation of a Palestinian state and a "just solution" for Palestinians displaced in 1948.

The final communiqué read by Arab League chief Amr Moussa at the close of the summit affirmed "just and comprehensive peace as a strategic option for the Arab nation in accordance with the Arab peace initiative" based on the "land for peace" formula.

Rejected by Israel when it was originally proposed at a Beirut summit in 2002, the plan has key hurdles to overcome.

Israel objects to important elements, including the proposed return to 1967 borders, the inclusion of Arab East Jerusalem in a Palestinian state and the return of Palestinian refugees to homes in what is now Israel. Backed by its U.S. ally, the Jewish state has said it prefers to negotiate the terms of peace first.

"I would say this: Let's conduct negotiations. You come with your positions, and we will come with ours," Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres told Israel Radio.

"I don't think we need to predetermine what we accept or don't accept. Each side should come with their own positions and negotiate from there."

Islamist group Hamas, which heads the Palestinian government, also has reservations about the plan. It has not voiced opposition but called on Arab leaders not to compromise on the right of refugees to return to homes lost in the turmoil surrounding the creation of Israel almost 60 years ago.

NUCLEAR RACE

The summit comes against a tense regional backdrop with fears high among Arab leaders that a U.S.-led attack on Shi'ite Muslim Iran, which has refused to comply with U.N. demands to halt atomic work, could further destabilize their region.

The summit communiqué warned of the danger of a nuclear arms race in the region, though it also stressed the right of every country to possess nuclear energy for peaceful uses.

Iran says its atomic programme is peaceful but Gulf Arab countries on its doorstep, most of them Sunni-led, share Western concerns that the Islamic Republic wants nuclear bombs.

Those suspicions add to long-running concerns among Gulf Arabs about non-Arab Iran's growing influence in the region's main hotspots – Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

Gulf Arab states said last year they would begin developing their own joint nuclear energy programme for electricity and water desalination, raising fears of a regional nuclear race.

The Arab summit communiqué also warned of the dangers of growing sectarianism in the region.

Iraq is mired in sectarian violence that has stoked Sunni-Shi'ite tensions across the region and with no end in sight to a crisis in Lebanon, Arabs are keen to avoid more tension in a Gulf region that supplies much of the world's oil.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani pledged in his speech to give more power to Iraqi Sunnis but also called on Arab states to help stem a Sunni insurgency in Iraq and forgive Iraqi debt.

"We are also of the opinion that the base of the political process should be widened," he said, acknowledging a need to end state "factionalism" in apparent reference to Shi'ite Muslims.

He said a de-Baathification committee, set up to remove remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, could be replaced by an "accountability and justice" process – a key Sunni demand.

But in return, he said: "We need all forms of support from you – security, political and economic, through ending the debts incurred by the former regime."

Ebrahim Nabavi 1385 part 4

(در سال 1385 اتفاق افتاد( قسمت چهارم

ابراهيم نبوي e.nabavi@roozonline.com - پنجشنبه 9 فروردین 1386 [2007.03.29]

po_nabavi_01.jpg

در چهارمین بخش از مرور یک سال وقایع سیاسی ایران در سال 1385، در این نوشته موارد زیر را می خوانید: داستان بسته پیشنهادی غرب در مقابل تعلیق غنی سازی کی آن بسته همی گم شدن کرتاهه و ایران پاسخ ندادی و هشت کشور صنعتی پرنده ایران همی به شورای امنیت فرستادی و آصفی گفت: اوی ی ی. داستان افزایش قیمت ها و آن کی احمدی نژاد گفت گرانی کالاها واقعی نیست، پس تقصیر مطبوعات و بازار جهانی بود. و داستان بازگشت آن لشگر شکست خورده که برانکو برای همیشه رفت و دائی گم شد و دادکان گفت من به سه چیز افتخار می کنم. و داستان آن احمدی نژاد کی برای ما فاجعه بودی و برای افرنگیان قهرمان می نمودی، ای زورو، برو! و داستان آن اعتصاب غذای بی دلیل که اکبر گنجی در جهان راه انداختی که چی؟ و حکایت آن تونل رسالت کی ده عروس و داماد از آن پای کوبان بیرون آمدندی و گفتی کوچه تنگه نسبتا عروس قشنگه نسبتا و دو تن از آن ده طلاق گرفتی تا حال. و داستان کیم جونگ ایل در کره شمالی که آزمایش موشکی در روز استقلال آمریکا کردی و موشک وی در دریای ژاپن افتادی زرتی. و داستان جنگ لبنان که در تیرماه شروع شد....

ahmadichouzmotki.jpg

پوپولیسم ملی می شود
فرقی نمی کند که لیبرالیسم باشد یا مارکسیسم یا نیهیلیسم، یک باره می بینی همه ملت ایران علاقمند می شوند که دو سه ماهی هم به جای بازی با ماهی آکواریوم دنبال سه تار یا ذن یا نیهیلیسم یا پوپولیسم بروند. این جوری است. جالب این است که وقتی هم تصمیم می گیریم واقعیتی را کشف کنیم آن واقعیت را نه تنها در زمان حال کشف می کنیم، بلکه به زور ثابت می کنیم که کورش لیبرال و داریوش سوسیال دموکرات و خشاریارشاه پوپولیست بوده اند، حالا اشکالی ندارد! در مورد خودتان هرکاری می کنید، بکنید، چکار به تاریخ دارید؟ ربیعی، مسوول امور کارگری، امنیتی، اصلاحات در اقشار تحتانی جامعه و امور مربوط به موجودات محبوب، گفت: « حاكميت در ايران همواره علاقه مند به رابطه مستقيم با توده ها بوده است.» على اكبر جوانفكر، مشاور مطبوعاتى رئيس جمهور هم دم به دم پوپولیستی ربیعی داد و در گفت وگو با ايسنا گفت: «مردم به دولت نهم بيشتر از دولت هاى گذشته اعتماد دارند و احساس آرامش بيشترى مى كنند». هاشم آغاجري هم که فکر کرده بود در دوران اصلاحات، شریعتی هشت سالی دموکرات بوده، چطور است در این دوره عدالت خواهی هم هشت سالی سوسیالیست بشود، گفت: «شريعتي عدالت را به عنوان يكي از ابعاد وجود بشرمی دانست.» در رابطه با قضایای کارگری و سوسیالیستی معاون دبير كل خانه كارگر در تیرماه سال 85 گفت: «وزير كار و معاون او مي خواهند صنعت ر ا به نابودي بكشانند.»

در آن بسته پیشنهادی چه بود؟
شاید کسی بخوبی نفهمید که در آن بسته پیشنهادی غرب به ایران چه چیزهایی بود، لاریجانی می گفت آب نبات و شکلات است. احمدی نژاد که هر سندی را کاغذپاره می داند، می گفت مشتی کاغذ پاره است. اروپایی ها می گفتند در آن بسته پیشنهادی، چیزهای بامزه و جالبی( احتمالا شوکولات سوئیسی) است. اما دو موضوع مهم بود؛ اول اینکه آمریکا و اروپا انتظار داشتند که به بسته مذکور زودتر جواب داده شود، اما طرف ایرانی می گفت که نباید جز برای کارهای مهمی مثل به هم ریختن منطقه عجله کرد. شایع شده بود که چون پسر اجمدی نژاد از بسته پیشنهادی خوشش آمده، آن را برداشته و هرچه مقامات سیاسی و خارجی و عمه و خاله و باجناق اصرار می کنند، آنرا پس نمی دهد. و به همین دلیل اصلا معلوم نیست در بسته پیشنهادی چیست. ایران اعلام کرد که جواب بسته پیشنهادی را اواخر مرداد می دهد. در اوایل تیر بود که جرج بوش گفت: « آخر مرداد براى پاسخ به يك پيشنهاد به طرز وحشتناكى طولانى است.» متكي هم گفت: «محدود كردن زمان پاسخ به بسته پيشنهادي غیر منطقي است.» علی لاریجانی که بتدریج نقش وزیرخارجه « آقا» را بازی می کرد و زوج موفقی با سولانا( چقدر هم به هم می آمدند) تشکیل داده بود، روز شانزده تیر هرگونه زمان بندی برای پاسخ دادن را بکلی رد کرد. علی که دلش برای خاویر تنگ شده بود، اعلام کرد که برای دیدار با سولانا به اسپانیا می رود. اما بعدا ترسید در اسپانیا گاو شاخش بزند، به همین دلیل تصمیم گرفت در بروکسل به دیدار سولانا برود. در اواسط تیر ایران اعلام کرد که امشب لاریجانی با سولانا در بروکسل شام می خورد، ولی هیچ حرفی نمی زنند. قرار شد دو نفر از طرف شورای امنیت ملی ایران و سازمان ملل بالای سر آن دو نفر بایستند و به محض اینکه یک کلمه در مورد توافق حرف زدند با چوب پشت دست شان بزنند. اما لاریجانی دو سه بار سرما خورد و سولانا چند شب پای میز شام خوابش برد تا اینکه روز 21 تیرعلی لاریجانی در جریان دیدار با سولانا گفت که « بسته پیشنهادی غرب فقط عیبش این است که از ایران می خواهد که غنی سازی را تعلیق کند.» سولانا هم گفت که اصولا ما داریم این بسته را می دهیم که تعلیق کنید، وگرنه مغز خر نخوردیم که این همه شکلات و آب نبات بسته بندی کنیم. اما علی لاریجانی سر حرفش باقی ماند و با فلسفی ترین شکلی گفت: «تعلیق را معقول نمی دانیم.» در روز 21 تیر سران گروه هشت از ارسال پرونده اتمی ایران به شورای امنیت حمایت کردند. آصفی گفت: « ارجاع پرونده ایران به شورای امنیت به معنی نفی مذاکرات است.» با ارسال پرونده ایران به شورای امنیت، پیش بینی همه کسانی که فکر می کردند پرونده به شورا نمی رود درست از آب درآمد.

پاشنه آشیل در چاله اقتصاد
اصولا یکی از برنامه های احمدی نژاد برای تغییر سیاسی کشور، این بود که دولت از اقتصاد بیرون برود، حالا به کجا می رود، مهم نبود. مهم این بود که از اینجا بیرون برود، می خواهد برود کاراکاس یا بیروت، این دیگر مهم نبود. اما دولت روز بروز بیشتر در اقتصاد دخالت کرد. علی قنبری نماینده مجلس ششم و متخصص ایلات و عشایر گفت: « دولت هرچه سریعتر از اقتصاد بیرون برود.» محسن رضایی هم گفت: « تا کنون دولت سر راه مردم ایستاده بود.» محسن رضایی که در کلیه تشبیهاتش از چیزهای بزرگی مانند شیر و فیل و دایناسور و پلنگ و غیره استفاده می کند، گفت: « دولت در حال حاضر تبدیل به یک دولت پنگوئنی شده است و یک بدن سنگین روی پاهای ضعیف و ناتوان قرار گرفته است.» یک وب سایت اینترنتی در مورد سلامت و وضع مالی پنگوئن مورد نظر تضمین کافی را داد و گفت: « حقوق استانداران احمدی نژاد دومیلیون وششصد هزار تومان است.» اما در شهر اوضاع خراب بود، گروه وسیعی از ملت با افزایش قیمت بسیاری از کالاها( احتمالا منظور گرانی است) مشکل داشتند. حداد عادل که فکر می کرد گرانی وجود ندارد، بلکه شایعه است، گفت: «گرانى ها را بزرگ نكنيد.» کارشناسان ضمن نشان دادن موجودی غول پیکر که دائم بزرگتر می شد، گفتند: این خودش بزرگ هست، ما بزرگش نکردیم.

احمدی نژاد: مقصر گرانی مطبوعات است
در روز بیستم تیرماه محمود احمدی نژاد سیاست خود را در مورد واقعیات اعلام کرد و گفت: « گرانی ها جنگ روانی است که مطبوعات و مخالفان راه انداخته اند.»( مطبوعات را تعطیل کنید، قیمت ها پائین بیاید)، « قیمت شیر به دلیل اشتباه یک فرد سی تومان در هر لیتر اضافه شد و در نتیجه قیمت لبنیات هم بالا رفت.»( احتمالا آن فرد هاشمی رفسنجانی بود که روزی یک پارچ شیر می خورد)، احمدی نژاد افزایش قیمت آهن آلات را ناشی از جنگ روانی دشمن دانست، گفت: « متاسفانه به بهانه افزایش قیمت جهانی فولاد، قیمت فولاد را هم در ایران افزایش دادند.... بطوری که قیمت آهن آلات 30 تا 40 درصد افزایش یافته است.» احمدی نژاد در مورد افزایش قیمت مسکن گفت: « قیمت اجاره مسکن بدون هیچ دلیل خاصی بیش از 20 درصد افزایش یافته است، در حالی که هیچ بحرانی در اقتصاد کشور رخ نداده است.» مشکل بزرگ احمدی نژاد این بود که وجود خودش را به عنوان یک بحران نمی توانست قبول کند. احمدی نژاد گفت: « دولت احمدی نژاد به صراحت اعلام می کند که با افزایش قیمت حبوبات مخالف است.» وی گفت: این در حالی است که همه دولت های جهان با افزایش قیمت حبوبات موافقند. احمدی نژاد گفت شایعاتی که درباره سهمیه بندی بنزین وجود دارد نادرست است و گفت: « جوسازی در مورد سهمیه بندی بنزین غلط است و این برنامه از قبل وجود داشته است.» احمدی نژاد راه حل مشکلات اقتصادی کشور را ارائه داد. وی در یک طرح ابتکاری و دقیق و کارشناسانه اعلام کرد: « حتی اگر لازم باشد از راهکارهای مختلف استفاده می کنیم.» مصاحبه تیرماه احمدی نژاد وضع اقتصادی کشور را معلوم کرد. معلوم شد که دولت نمی خواهد و نمی تواند جلوی افزایش گرانی را بگیرد. دولت وزارت اطلاعات را مامور کرد تا کلیه حبوبات، تیرآهن، شوفاژ، گاوهای شیرده، آقای فولادی، کلیه کسانی که در مسکن سکونت دارند، تحت نظر قرار دهد تا متوجه شوند که کدام عوامل خارجی قیمت ها را افزایش داده اند.

دادکان به سه چیز افتخار کرد
با بازگشت تیم ملی ایران از آلمان و خوردن غوره شکست در دو بازی اصلی، همه ملت و دولت دچار سردی شدند، علی دائی گم شد و برانکو برای ابد رفت، چنگیز( مترجم برانکو) هم دچار افسردگی مفرط تاریخی شد. تیم ملی فوتبال در میان سردی استقبال کنندگان به وطن بازگشت. محمد دادكان پس از بازگشت از كشور آلمان گفت: «به سه چيز در دوران رياست خود افتخار مي‌كنم. اول اينكه از سيد محمد خاتمي رئيس جمهور سابق نشان لياقت گرفتم، دوم از بابت صعود تيم ملي به جام جهاني و سوم از اين بابت كه در زمان رياست افرادي همچون علي‌آبادي از سمت خود بر كنار شدم.»

یک سال گذشت و انگار که یک قرن
با فرارسیدن تیر سال 85 احمدی نژاد متوجه شد که یک سال از دوره ریاست جمهوری او گذشته است. او در این یک سال موفق شده بود که در روابط ایران و منطقه بحران بوجود آورد و ایران را تا پای شورای امنیت بکشاند. اما موفقیت بزرگ او در عرصه مسائل داخلی بود که وی موفق شد کل نظام اقتصادی کشور را از بین ببرد. در تیر85 امیر محبیان نوشت: «احمدي‌نژاد بايد از فضاي انتخاباتي خارج شود.» عباس سليمي ‌نمين قضیه را جدی تر گرفت و گفت: «مردم سوم تير به شخص احمدي‌نژاد رای ندادند.» اما در جهان اتفاقات دیگری می افتاد، درست در همان زمانی که مردم ایران تازه می فهمیدند چه خاکی به سرخودشان ریخته اند، مردم جهان احساس می کردند یک قهرمان ظهور کرده است. روز نهم تیر یک روزنامه آمریکایی احمدی نژاد را چهره محبوب جهان عرب خواند. رئیس جمهور تصمیم گرفت در اجلاس آینده سران آفریقا شرکت کند. شاهرودی رئیس قوه قضائیه اعلام کرد که «مردم جهان عاشق مسوولان ما هستند.»

فاجعه ای برای ما، قهرمانی برای آنها

احمدی نژاد در دیدار با جرج پاپاندرئو، رئیس سازمان سوسیالیست بین المللی گفت: « آزادیخواهی، جمهوریخواهی و دموکرات بودن پوششی برای سلطه بر ملتهاست.» احمدی نژاد ماهی یک بار به دیدار چاوز می رفت. در دیدار تیرماه چاوز در حالی که احمدی نژاد را از یک سو و یکی از بانوان سوسیالیست را از سوی دیگر بغل کرده بود، دنیا را تکان تکان داد. در یک مراسم رسمی چاوز، سخنان احمدی نژاد را با الله اکبر تائید کرد و گفت: « من نسبت به تدبیر امام خامنه ای و شما اطمینان دارم.» از طرف دیگر فیدل کاسترو هم قبلا گفته بود: « اگر از فروپاشی کشورم نمی ترسیدم، اعلام می کردم که شیعه اثنی عشری هستم.» رسانه ها اعلام کردند که محبوب ترین مرد آمریکای لاتین چاوز است. وی در اکوادور 80.1 درصد و در ونزوئلا 68.9 درصد محبوبیت دارد. مردم ونزوئلا چون چاوز را بیشتر می شناختند کمتر از مردم اکوادور به او علاقمند بودند. در سال 85 ضرب المثل دوری و دوستی بار دیگر اثبات شد.

اصلاح طلبان پشیمان، کارگزاران زخمی، راست های متزلزل
کارگزاران که یک بار در سال 79 توسط اصلاح طلبان زخمی شده بودند و در سال 84 نیز با عنایات رهبری و تخلفات راست ضربه نهایی را دریافت کرده بودند، دو سه ماهی بود که از زیر چادر اکسیژن بیرون آمده بودند. راست های میانه رو نیز بعد از اینکه از چراغ جادوی انتخابات سوم تیر غول احمدی نژاد بیرون آمد و نه تنها سه آرزو، بلکه هیچ کدام از آرزوهای اربابش را اجرا نکرد، زیر پای شان لایه های یخ را در حال حرکت می دیدند. اما اصلاح طلبان مانند دختری که در شیی سرد مورد تجاوزی سخت قرار بگیرد، پس از یک روز که در بیمارستان به هوش آمده بود، به جای اینکه در پی شناسایی متجاوز و مجازات او باشد، دائم گریه می کرد و غر می زد و به خودش فحش می داد. صادق زيباکلام گفت: «برخورد باهاشمي ازاشتباهات استراتژيک اصلاح‌طلبان بود.» حمیدرضا جلایی پور در حالی که از بالا و پائین تحت فشار بود، اعلام کرد: « فشار از پائین جواب نمی دهد.»، شیرین عبادی گفت: «لس آنجلسی ها جنگ می خواهند و از حرف های من خوش شان نمی آید.» آگاهان گفتند: مشکل از لس آنجلسی بودن و جنگ طلب بودن آنها نیست، ما هم از شما خوشمان نمی آید، زنی که پس از پنجاه سال فرق لباس زیر مردانه و زنانه را نمی داند،به قول مهستی... من چه کنم تو خودت میل جدایی داشتی... علیرضا علوی تبار نیز گفت: « جنبش دانشجویی بازوی اجرایی روشنفکران است.» جنبش دانشجویی هم از اینکه مدتی است مخش قاط زده است، شکایت کرد. خاتمی هم که انگار در باغ حسنی مبارک و صدام جسین و عربستان سعودی و غیره نیست، گفت: «جهان، جای حکومت های مستبد و غیرمسوول نیست.» اما جالب تر از همه این نکته بود که در روز نوزدهم تیرماه 85 عماد افروغ که روزی یک بار در مجلس نطق می کرد، گفت: «فضای آزادی بیان تنگ تر شده است.» در عوض صادق زیبا کلام که چند ماه بود اجازه سخنرانی نداشت، اعلام کرد: «فضای آزادی بیان نسبت به قبل تنگ تر نشده است.»

برای جهانبگلو، اسانلو، موسوی خوئینی و زورافشان
در همان روز اکبرگنجی در جریان سخنرانی اش در دانشگاه سوآس لندن گفت: « با رژیم جمهوری سلامی و با مداخله نظامی، مخالفیم و برای برقراری یک جمهوری دموکراتیک مبارزه می کنیم.» در پی این سخنان گروه کثیری از ایرانیان اپوزیسیون خارج از کشور برای او دست زدند، عده ای شعار دادند: مرگ بر گنجی پاسدار، یکی گفت: چرا می زنی، به من چه؟ یکی دیگر گفت: برو کنار بگذار ازش عکس بگیرم، برای پرونده پناهندگی ام می خوام. اکبر گنجی برای آزادی سه زندانی سیاسی یعنی اسانلو، جهانبگلو و موسوی خوئینی ها اعلام اعتصاب غذای جهانی کرد. دفتر تحکیم اعلام حمایت از اعتصاب غذای گنجی کرده است. چپ ها به زور عکس ناصر زرافشان را هم وسط اعتصاب غذا تپاندند.

خشونت نبود، شوخی بود
حالا یک اشتباه ملی وحشتناک کردیم. اسمش را چرا عوض می کنیم؟ آن هم به وسیله یک پسر دسته گل فیلسوف و هایدگر خوانده و برکنار از سیاست. در روز چهارم تیر ماه 85 مهدی گیوی خلخالی، پس آیت الله خلخالی گفته شد: « اعدام های پدرم، هیچ ربطی به خشونت نداشت.»

عراق مال ماست، ما هم مال خودمانیم
درگیری در عراق بشدت ادامه داشت. تقریبا هر روز انفجارهای گروههای شیعه و سنی علیه یکدیگر و هرازگاهی علیه نیروهای آمریکایی انجام می شد. در روز پانزدهم تیرماه، افراد مسلح نقاب پوش رعد الحارث معاون وزیر برق و 19 تن از محافظان وی را در شرق بغداد به گروگان گرفتند. معلوم نیست تعداد گروگانگیرها چقدر بود که 20 نفر را گروگان گرفتند. برای اثبات عدم مداخله ایران در عراق، آیت الله فاضل لنکرانی اعلام کرد: « ما عراق را از خودمان می دانیم.» در پی اعلام این نکته موجی از سرور و شادمانی و بمب و خمپاره بغداد را فرا گرفت.

آمریکایی محبوب ایشان
آمارهای کاهش محبوبیت بوش در طول سال 85 ادامه داشت، بتدریج محبوبیت او چنان پائین آمد که به جای بوش، رایس که محبوبیتش از بوش هم کمتر بود، کارها را در دست گرفت. در یازدهم تیر مجله تایم اعلام کرد که میزان محبوبیت بوش باز هم سقوط کرده و به 35 درصد رسیده است. در روز نوزدهم تیر جرج بوش در سالگرد 60 سالگی اش گفت: « تعجب می کنم چرا اینقدر حالم خوب است.» پزشکان بوش به وی تذکر دادند که تو هنوز بدنت گرمه، احساس می کنی حالت خوبه، بذار چند روز بگذره، بعدا معلوم می شه.

براندازی گرم و نرم
تقریبا در طول دستگیری چهارماهه رامین جهانبگلو، همه کسانی که او را می شناختند، می خواستند از او دفاع کنند، اما کسی نمی دانست از کسی که اهل سیاست نیست و به بزرگترین جرم سیاسی ممکن متهم شده است، چگونه می شود دفاع کرد. روز 12 تیر مقامات امنیتی اظهار داشتند که کشفیات جدیدی در مورد اهداف دشمن برای براندازی نرم از طریق رامین جهانبگلو صورت گرفته است. وزیر اطلاعات گفت: « رامین جانبگلو قرار بود نظام را از طریق براندازی نرم از بین ببرد.»

تونل رسالت افتتاح شد
بزرگترین اقدامات عمرانی و پیشرفت های علمی ممکن در طول سال 85 نزدیک بود صورت بگیرد. دولت احمدی نژاد تمام پروژه هایی که سالها دولت های قبلی صرف احداث آن یا تحقیق آن کرده بودند، افتتاح کرد. « تونل رسالت» با سروصدا و جلال و جبروت فراوان افتتاح و به مظهر سازندگی احمدی نژاد تبدیل شد. این تونل دوکیلومتری که ساخت آن در دوران خاتمی در نه سال صورت گرفته بود، در ماه تیر آغاز به افتتاح شد. قرار شد برای افتتاح تونل از ده عروس و داماد استفاده شود. هیچ کس توضیح نداد که بین بازکردن تونل و عروسی چه رابطه ای می تواند وجود داشته باشد. برخی کارشناسان ازدواج و طلاق اعلام کردند که براساس آمار اولین سال حکومت احمدی نژاد که طی آن از هر ده ازدواج دو مورد آن منجر به طلاق شده و این رکورد در تاریخ 25 ساله ایران بی سابقه است، احتمالا تا زمانی که این ده عروس و داماد از سر تونل به ته تونل برسند، حداقل دو زوج شان از هم جدا می شوند. این کشفیات ابتکاری ادامه داشت و در 16 تیر اعلام شد که طراحی 100 نوع مانتو و 20 نوع چادر صورت گرفته و به زودی نمایشگاه این مانتوها و چادرها افتتاح می شود.

دفاع از خود، ما صد تا بودیم، اونها دوتا، ترسیدیم
در حالی که موسوی خوئینی نماینده مجلس ششم که در تظاهرات 8 مارس سال 85 زندانی شده بود، هنوز آزاد نشده بود و تصاویر خواهران قلدر و پهناوری که زنان اجتماع کننده در میدان هفت تیر را با باتوم کتک زده و زندانی کرده بودند در اینترنت موجود بود، سردار طلائی فرمانده نیروی انتظامی تهران بزرگ که می خواست نماینده شوراها بشود، در مورد این درگیری گفت: «برخورد در میدان هفت تیر دفاع از خود بود.»

حالا دیگه منو نگاه کنین
شانزدهم تیر 85، سیاست جلب توجه کوتوله ها سرانجام حسادت کیم جونگ ایل را برانگیخت و رئیس جمهور کره شمالی و تنها مقام این کشور که حق زدن عینک دودی و پوشیدن کاپشن سفید و انتشار عکسش را دارد، دستور پرتاب تعدادی موشک را داد. در همین سال رسانه های دولتی( که شامل کل رسانه های کره شمالی می شود) اطلاعیه ای را چاپ کرده بودند که در آن اعلام شده بود که بلند کردن مو بیش از 5 سانت در حکم جنگ با حکومت را دارد و از نظر بهداشتی خطرناک است. اما با توجه به اینکه بلند کردن مو موضوع مهمی برای صلح بین المللی نبود، کسی چیزی به کیم جونگ ایل نگفت. در سالروز استقلال آمریکا، این موشک ها بطور آزمایشی بطرف ژاپن( چه ربطی دارد به استقلال آمریکا، بماند) شلیک شد. ظاهرا این موشک ها چهل ثانیه پس از پرتاب، دچار نقص فنی شده و در دریای ژاپن سقوط کردند. پیونگ یانگ اخطار داد که اگر آمریکا دست به حمله پیشگیرانه علیه تاسیسات اتمی کره شمالی بزند، یک حمله ویرانگر اتمی علیه آن کشور انجام خواهد داد. یک مقام رسمی در پیونگ یانگ گفت: «آزمایش موشکی حق مسلم ماست.» در پی این «جلب توجه خواهی» جهانی پیمان شش جانبه کار خودش را جدی گرفت و در عرض پنج ماه کره شمالی خلع سلاح اتمی را در مقابل کمک مالی آمریکا پذیرفت.

تجاوز پلنگ تیز دندان بر گوسفندان
هوا هم در آشتیان و هم در بغداد گرم بود. و طبیعتا در دنیای متمدن گرمای کافی دلیل مناسب برای تجاوز محسوب می شود. در روز نوزدهم تیر ماه خبر تجاوز بازجوی نیروی انتظامی به یک دختر دانشجودر آشتیان منتشر شد، گروهی به آن اعتراض کردند و کتک خوردند یا بازداشت شدند. همزمان با این واقعه داستان تجاوز سرباز آمریکایی به یک دختر عراقی موضوع رسانه های دولتی ایران شد. این دختر که روز اول دوازده ساله بود، روز به روز سنش بالاتر رفت و سرانجام به سن پانزده سال رسید. همزمان با اعلام همین موضوع یک نویسنده تونسی خبر جدیدی را فاش کرد. وی گفت که در 27 ژوئن 1943 میلادی سربازان آمریکایی به یک دختر نوجوان تونسی تجاوز کردند. ظاهرا ایشان در این 63 سال وقت نداشت که این موضوع را فاش کند. در این میان سرباز آمریکایی متجاوز به سالها زندان محکوم شد و دانشجوی آشتیانی مورد تجاوز نیز زندانی شد.

حیدر بابا، دونیا یالان دونیا دی
روز 25 تیرماه 85 احمدی نژاد سفر شهرستانی خود را به استان آذربایجان شرقی که بتازگی در مورد کاریکاتورچاپ شده در روزنامه ایران به انبار باروت( خیلی هم جدی نبود) تبدیل شده بود، رفت. وی در کمال بدجنسی( این کمال عضو خانواده کمال خرازی نیست) همان طور که در لرستان لری حرف زده بود، در تبریز و مراغه و عجب شیر نیز چند کلمه ای به ترکی حرف زد و اشعار شهریار را به ترکی خواند. وی در مراغه خطاب به غرب گفت: « رژیم صهیونیستی دموکراسی است یا دیکتاتوری؟» آگاهان گفتند: خب، طبیعتا دموکراسی، حالا که چی؟

جنگ لبنان آغاز شد
درست در شرایطی که ایران تحت فشار در مورد غنی سازی بود و همزمان با قدرت گرفتن حماس در فلسطین، نیروهای حزب الله لبنان دست به یک گروگانگیری از سربازان اسرائیلی زدند. این موضوع باعث ایجاد بحران در لبنان شد. نظام الدین گل حسنی، کنسول ایران در بیروت گفت: «ایرانیان از لبنان جنگ زده خارج شدند.» و همزمان با اعلام این موضوع « پروازهای تهران به بیروت متوقف شد» اما محمدی، سخنگوی ستاد پاسداشت شهدای جهان اسلام(استشهادیون) اعلام کرد: « 27 نفر در دو گروه آموزش دیده از استشهادیون ایران برای حضور در جبهه های لبنان به این کشور اعزام شدند. اعزام این نیروها کاملا داوطلبانه و با استفاده از قوانین بین المللی در پوشش افراد عادی صورت پذیرفته است.» متکی نیز برای یک دیدار سرزده به سوریه رفت. البته آصفی سخنگوی رسمی وزارت خارجه گفت: «موشک و سپاه ایرانی به کمک حزب الله نرفته است.» اما فرمانده سپاه اعلام کرد: «سرنوشت فلسطین، لبنان، سوریه، عراق و ایران به هم پیوسته است.» احمدی نژاد گفت: «اگر به سوریه حمله شود، بی پاسخ نمی ماند» رهبری نیز اعلام کرد: « حزب الله هرگز خلع سلاح نمی شود.» از سوی دیگر وزیر اطلاعات گفت: « در صورت جنگ با آمریکا تمام منافع این کشور را در تمام جهان مورد هدف قرار خواهیم داد.» و بدین ترتیب از 26 تیر 85 جنگ لبنان آغاز شد. با آغاز جنگ لبنان، رومانو پرودی، نخست وزیر ایتالیا که ظاهرا شماره تلفن کوفی عنان یا حسنی مبارک را عوضی گرفته بود، به علی لاریجانی تلفن کرد و از جمهوری اسلامی خواست که برای صلح میان لبنان و اسرائیل میانجیگری کند.

عشق من بود، کشتمش
عشق مفرط ایرانی و علاقه عجیب به پاکی اخلاقی در آذربایجان شرقی باعث قتل شد. در روز 27 تیر بنا به نوشته وب سایت انتخاب، مردی در آذربایجان شرقی به دلیل عشق مفرط به همسر و فرزندش، بعد از طلاق سراغ زنش رفت و از ترس اینکه فرزندش در آینده دچار مشکل نشود، زنش را کشت.