Obama is AWOL on Iran

Where are you Mr. Obama.  Why can't you use that considerable respect you say you have garned around the world and get the world to speak with one voice, or at the very least - get all those who do not support Iran to speak with one voice.

What is more important than this?

No clear worldvoice on Iran nuke work

Published February 29, 2012

Associated Press

VIENNA – The U.S. and its European allies share fears that Iran might be seeking the capacity to make atomic arms as it forges ahead with its nuclear program. But they differ on whether it is actively working on such weapons, reflecting the difficulties of penetrating Tehran's wall of secrecy.

Comments by U.S. intelligence officials indicate that Washington still thinks the Islamic Republic stopped such secret work nine years ago. But Britain, France and Germany disagree, even though their officials are keen to show that they and the United States speak with one voice on the concerns that Iran may want to produce nuclear arms.

Such divergence could mean trouble for the West's strategy to keep Iran nuclear weapons-free.

The United States -- and more forcefully Israel -- have warned that armed attack is possible if Iran is seen to be actively working on a bomb. But the lack of consensus among allies could complicate making any such assessment. That could slow a joint response -- or result in a misguided one.

Publicly at least, the United States is standing by a 2007 U.S. intelligence assessment that said Iran had abandoned attempts to develop a nuclear bomb in 2003.

A revised report last year remains classified. But in outlining its findings to Congress last year, National Intelligence Director James Clapper avoided any suggestion that the U.S. now thinks it erred in its 2007 assessment.

Instead he focused on Iran's expanding uranium enrichment and other programs monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency as key concerns. Clapper said it's "technically feasible" that Tehran could produce a nuclear weapon in one or two years if its leaders decide to build one, "but practically not likely."

However, recent reports by the IAEA -- the U.N. nuclear agency -- explicitly challenge the U.S. view that any weapons development work was in the past. They say that some such activities "continued after 2003; and that some may still be ongoing."

The IAEA has not said what suspect work was conducted when. But in its most recent report last week repeated suspicions Iran may have:

-- conducted high-explosives testing to set off a nuclear charge
-- worked on computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead
-- prepared for a nuclear weapons test
-- worked on development of a nuclear payload for a missile that could reach Israel

Israel is the most public in backing the view that weapons work is continuing in Iran as it seeks to energize international public resolve to counter Tehran's nuclear drive -- and possibly pave the ground for an armed strike.

Former Mossad chief Danny Yatom told The Associated Press that the Americans have privately acknowledged that their 2007 assessment was wrong, and said: "The Iranians have never stopped their efforts to achieve military nuclear capability."

Other U.S. allies are more circumspect -- but also back the IAEA view that secret weapons work may be continuing into the present.

A British official told The Associated Press that London and Washington had the same analysis on Iran. But the official, who asked for anonymity in exchange for commenting on the confidential report answered "yes" when asked if his country agreed with the IAEA assessment.

Public statements by some British officials go even further. In a blunt statement on Iran during a visit to Washington in January, Defense Secretary Philip Hammond said his "working assumption is that they are working flat out" to produce a nuclear weapon.

Diplomats accredited to the IAEA, who also asked they not be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, said France and Germany also believed some work continued past 2003, and possibly into the present.

Complicating the picture, there are signs the U.S. may be continuing to act as a main intelligence source for the IAEA's case that Iran's weapons work is continuing -- even while publicly standing by earlier conclusions that Iran stopped nine years ago.

A senior international official refused to say directly whether Washington is providing intelligence that backs up such suspicions. He did say, however, that the United States is one of the main sources on Iran's atomic weapons work, and that the agency keeps "getting information about such activities after 2003 from all ... sources." He asked for anonymity because his information is confidential.

Experts note that U.S. intelligence sees disagreement among Iran's leaders on whether to build a bomb or just work to reach that capacity. That, they say, might even mean that some groups may be working on weapons without the knowledge of others.

"I'm not even sure the Iranians know themselves," says Bruno Tetrais, a senior research fellow with the French-based Foundation for Strategic Research. "There may be different factions with different objectives."

There is more clarity about Iran's nuclear enrichment program.

Iran has enriched tons of fuel-grade material since its clandestine program was discovered 10 years ago. More recently, worries have been compounded by its decision two years ago to start enriching at a higher level that can be turned into fissile warhead material much more quickly and easily than its low enriched uranium.

Its total low and higher-level stockpile is now enough for four weapons -- and is growing daily.
In Washington last week U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the former CIA director, said an Iranian decision to build a nuclear weapon "is the red line that would concern us and that would ensure that the international community, hopefully together, would respond," he said.

"We will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," he told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

But nuclear proliferation expert David Albright said that any breaching of the U.S. red line may only become obvious "when Iran makes a move to break out" by kicking out IAEA inspectors and openly diverting its low-enriched uranium stockpile to produce weapons-grade uranium deep underground and safe from attack.

"The warning time may not be great between such steps and the time they actually have the bomb," he said.

For Yatom, the ex-Mossad head, the time to stop Iran through diplomacy may already have passed.

"They have the know-how, the technology, the infrastructure, everything," he says. Once they decide to build a bomb, they will be able to build a bomb -- unless somebody stops them."

Iran

Iran: September / October ?

October Surprise?

US officials believe Iran sanctions will fail, making military action likely

guardian.co.uk

 Friday 17 February 2012 12.27 EST

Officials in key parts of the Obama administration are increasingly convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear programme, and believe that the US will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so.

The president has made clear in public, and in private to Israel, that he is determined to give sufficient time for recent measures, such as the financial blockade and the looming European oil embargo, to bite deeper into Iran's already battered economy before retreating from its principal strategy to pressure Tehran.

But there is a strong current of opinion within the administration – including in the Pentagon and the state department – that believes sanctions are doomed to fail, and that their principal use now is in delaying Israeli military action, as well as reassuring Europe that an attack will only come after other means have been tested.

"The White House wants to see sanctions work. This is not the Bush White House. It does not need another conflict," said an official knowledgeable on Middle East policy. "Its problem is that the guys in Tehran are behaving like sanctions don't matter, like their economy isn't collapsing, like Israel isn't going to do anything.

"Sanctions are all we've got to throw at the problem. If they fail then it's hard to see how we don't move to the 'in extremis' option."

The White House has said repeatedly that all options are on the table, including the use of force to stop Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, but that for now the emphasis is firmly on diplomacy and sanctions.

But long-held doubts among US officials about whether the Iranians can be enticed or cajoled into serious negotiations have been reinforced by recent events.

"We don't see a way forward," said one official. "The record shows that there is nothing to work with."

Scepticism about Iranian intent is rooted in Iran's repeated spurning of overtures from successive US presidents from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, who appealed within weeks of coming to office for "constructive ties" and "mutual respect" .

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim this week that Iran loaded its first domestically-made fuel rod into a nuclear reactor, and Iran's threat to cut oil supplies to six European countries, were read as further evidence that Tehran remains defiantly committed to its nuclear programme. That view was strengthened by the latest Iranian offer to negotiate with the UN security council in a letter that appeared to contain no significant new concessions.

If Obama were to conclude that there is no choice but to attack Iran, he is unlikely to order it before the presidential election in November unless there is an urgent reason to do so. The question is whether the Israelis will hold back that long.

Earlier this month, the US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, told the Washington Post that he thought the window for an Israeli attack on Iran is between April and June. But other official analysts working on Iran have identified what one described as a "sweet spot", where the mix of diplomacy, political timetables and practical issues come together to suggest that if Israel launches a unilateral assault it is more likely in September or October, although they describe that as a "best guess".

However, the Americans are uncertain as to whether Israel is serious about using force if sanctions fail or has ratcheted up threats primarily in order to pressure the US and Europeans in to stronger action. For its part, the US is keen to ensure that Tehran does not misinterpret a commitment to giving sanctions a chance to work as a lack of willingness to use force as a last resort.

American officials are resigned to the fact that the US will be seen in much of the world as a partner in any Israeli assault on Iran – whether or not Washington approved of it. The administration will then have to decide whether to, in the parlance of the US military, "pile on", by using its much greater firepower to finish what Israel starts.

"The sanctions are there to pressure Iran and reassure Israel that we are taking this issue seriously," said one official. "The focus is on demonstrating to Israel that this has a chance of working. Israel is sceptical but appreciates the effort. It is willing to give it a go, but how long will it wait?"

Colin Kahl, who was US deputy assistant secretary of defence for the Middle East until December, said: "With the European oil embargo and US sanctions on the central bank, the Israelis probably have to give some time now to let those crippling sanctions play out.

"If you look at the calendar, it doesn't make much sense that the Israelis would jump the gun. They probably need to provide a decent interval for those sanctions to be perceived as failing, because they care about whether an Israeli strike would be seen as philosophically legitimate; that is, as only having happened after other options were exhausted. So I think that will push them a little further into 2012."

The White House is working hard to keep alive the prospect that sanctions will deliver a diplomatic solution. It has pressed the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to quieten the belligerent chatter from his own cabinet about an attack on Iran. The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, general Martin Dempsey, was dispatched to Jerusalem last month to talk up the effect of sanctions and to press, unsuccessfully, for a commitment that Israel will not launch a unilateral attack against Iran.

Dennis Ross, Obama's former envoy for the Middle East and Iran, this week said that sanctions may be pushing Tehran toward negotiations.

But in other parts of the administration, the assumption is that sanctions will fail, and so calculations are being made about what follows, including how serious Israel is in its threat to launch a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear installations, and how the US responds.

But Iran's increasingly belligerent moves – such as the botched attempts, laid at Tehran's door, to attack Israeli diplomats in Thailand, India and Georgia – are compounding the sense that Iran is far from ready to negotiate.

Feeding in to the considerations are the timing of the American election, including its bearing on Israeli thinking, as well as the pace of Iranian advances in their nuclear programme.

Obama has publicly said that there are no differences with Israel on Iran, describing his administration as in "lock step" with the Jewish state.

But the US and Israel are at odds over the significance of Iran's claim to have begun enriching uranium at the underground facility at Fordow, near the holy city of Qom, and therefore the timing of any military action.

Israel's defence minister, Ehud Barak, has warned that Iran cannot be allowed to establish a "zone of immunity" at Fordow where it is able to work on a nuclear weapon deep underground protected from Israel's conventional weapons. Earlier this month, Barak said Israel must consider an attack before that happens.

The Americans say there is no such urgency because the facility is just one among many Tehran needs to build a nuclear weapon, and that other sites are still vulnerable to attack and sabotage in other ways. The US also has a more powerful military arsenal, although it is not clear whether it would be able to destroy the underground Fordow facility.

Kahl said part of Washington's calculation is to judge whether Israel is seriously contemplating attacking Iran, or is using the threat to pressure the US and Europe into confronting Tehran.

"It's not that the Israelis believe the Iranians are on the brink of a bomb. It's that the Israelis may fear that the Iranian programme is on the brink of becoming out of reach of an Israeli military strike, which means it creates a 'now-or-never' moment," he said.

"That's what's actually driving the timeline by the middle of this year. But there's a countervailing factor that [Ehud] Barak has mentioned – that they're not very close to making a decision and that they're also trying to ramp up concerns of an Israeli strike to drive the international community towards putting more pressure on the Iranians."

Israeli pressure for tougher measures against Tehran played a leading role in the US Congresss passing sanctions legislation targeting Iran's financial system and oil sales. Some US and European officials say those same sanctions have also become a means for Washington to pressure Israel not to act precipitously in attacking Iran.

The presidential election is also a part of Israel's calculation, not least the fractious relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, who has little reason to do the US president any political favours and has good reason to prefer a Republican in the White House next year.

There is a school of thought – a suspicion, even – within the administration that Netanyahu might consider the height of the US election campaign the ideal time to attack Iran. With a hawkish Republican candidate ever ready to accuse him of weakness, Obama's room to pressure or oppose Netanyahu would be more limited than after the election.

"One theory is that Netanyahu and Barak may calculate that if Obama doesn't support an Israeli strike, he's unlikely to punish Israel for taking unilateral action in a contested election year," said Kahl. "Doing something before the US gives the Israelis a bit more freedom of manoeuvre."

Obama is also under domestic political pressure from Republican presidential contenders, who accuse him of vacillating on Iran, and from a Congress highly sympathetic to Israel's more confrontational stance.

Thirty-two senators from both parties introduced a resolution on Thursday rejecting "any policy that would rely on efforts to 'contain' a nuclear weapons-capable Iran". The measure was dressed up as intended to protect the president's back, but it smacked of yet more pressure to take a firmer stand with Iran.

One of the sponsors, senator Joe Lieberman, said that he did not want to discount diplomatic options but if the president ordered an attack on Iran he would have strong bipartisan support in Congress. Other senators said there needed to be a greater sense of urgency on the part of the administration in dealing with Iran and that sanctions are not enough.

Others are critical of sanctions for a different reason. Congressman Dennis Kucinich said this week he fears sanctions are less about changing Tehran's policy than laying the ground for military action. He warned that "the latest drum beat of additional sanctions and war against Iran sounds too much like the lead-up to the Iraq war".

"If the crippling sanctions that the US and Europe have imposed are meant to push the Iranian regime to negotiations, it hasn't worked," he said. "As the war of words between the United States and Iran escalates it's more critical than ever that we highlight alternatives to war to avoid the same mistakes made in Iraq."

iran

War with Iran ?

January 18, 2012 9:50 AM

Sliding toward a war with Iran

By Kenneth M. Pollack

CBS News

With so much alarming going on in the Middle East, it's hard to keep track of everything that seems to be going wrong. No sooner had the Libyan civil war ended than another erupted in Syria. Iraq appears determined to follow, and perhaps overtake their Syrian neighbors. Egypt remains locked in a multi-sided struggle among the military, the Islamists and the secular liberals. And disturbing reports of low-level, but growing unrest in Saudi Arabia have begun to emerge.

Amid all of this, the one place that the United States has resolutely marched forward—or perhaps been dragged by the Congress and our European allies—has been in applying ever greater pressure on Iran. But if the Obama administration’s forward progress is clear enough when it comes to its Iran policy, its ultimate destination is not. The sanctions against Iran may well succeed on their own terms while producing regrettable, if unintended, consequences.

The latest salvo against Iran came a few short weeks ago, when President Obama signed into law the new Defense Appropriations bill, in which Congressional conservatives had tucked new, draconian sanctions prohibiting transactions with Central Bank of Iran (CBI), or anyone else doing business with the CBI. The importance of these sanctions is that prohibiting transactions with Iran’s Central Bank would preclude long-term oil sales contracts. If no country were willing to deal with the CBI, Iran would be forced to sell its oil either only to countries and companies willing to buck such U.S. sanctions, or rely on spot market sales for cash—an extremely inefficient method that would cut heavily into Iranian oil revenues. Some analysts, in fact, estimate that this could lead to a reduction of Iranian oil revenues by as much as one-third—and since Iran is heavily dependent on oil revenues, this could have a major impact on the Iranian economy.

Now that would seem to be a good thing, right? Maybe, but maybe not. Certainly the Iranian regime has shown absolutely no inclination to halt (let alone give up) its nuclear program in the face of previous sanctions, which are already having a serious impact on the Iranian economy. The hope is that going after Iranian oil revenues in this fashion would apply so much pressure on Iran’s economy, causing rampant inflation and even economic collapse, that the regime will have no choice but to compromise and accept international demands related to its nuclear program.

The problem is that these sanctions are potentially so damaging that they could backfire, creating at least three sets of consequences that would leave the United States in a worse position, whatever the impact on Iran.

Backfire I: The Impact on the U.S. Economy

One of the interesting things about going after Iranian oil exports in this fashion is that it is likely to simultaneously hurt Iran’s economy and our own. The bet is that it will hit the Iranian economy much harder and faster than our own. The sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran have already caused a sudden increase in inflation and a drop in the value of the Iranian rial as Iranians race to dump their rials in favor of dollars, pounds and euros—hard currency that they expect to both hold their value over time and be more easily traded internationally.

But limiting Iranian oil exports is likely to drive up the international price of oil. There is little slack oil production capacity left in the world. The Saudis have said that they would offset any drop in Iranian oil by increasing their own, but many analysts question Riyadh’s capacity to do so completely or for a sustained period of time. In addition, given Saudi Arabia’s own domestic concerns, Riyadh might be willing to tolerate price increases that bolster their own revenues as well.

To the extent that Iranian oil is truly off the market for the U.S. and Europe, it will increase the price for what remains. Even to the extent that Iranian oil finds its way back on to the market in various ways—legal ways, like the spot market, illegal ways, like the black market—the inefficiencies and increased transportation costs will also create a price increase. Estimates of the amount of this jump in price vary, but at least one source has projected a $20 increase in the price per barrel, which is roughly a 15 to 20 percent increase.

Opinion: Why Iran sanctions are doomed to fail
Iran: Oil embargo is economic suicide for EU
Saudis dismissive of Iran's oil blockade threats

In case you missed the past 40 years of American economic history, there is no commodity on earth that affects the American economy faster or more profoundly than oil. A 20 percent increase in the price of oil would result in a very significant increase in American gasoline prices, with a concomitant impact on prices (i.e., inflation) across the board. It’s worth noting that virtually every U.S. recession since the Second World War was preceded by an increase in oil prices. Indeed, our current economic problems were preceded by a tripling of oil prices between 2005 and 2007.

Backfire II: Eroding Sanctions

Another potentially fatal flaw in these sanctions is that they turn up the heat on Iran so much that they may well be unsustainable diplomatically, and that is very problematic because sanctions rarely work quickly. Historically, sanctions work very slowly, and when they do work—against South Africa in the 1980s or Libya in the 1990s, for example—they work because of the perception that they will simply keep getting worse and worse over time. Sanctions have a poor track record of suddenly shocking the targeted government into reversing course, and if the targeted government believes that the sanctions will erode over time, it usually resists, and this often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Our experience with Iraq in the 1990s ought to be an important warning about what may well happen with Iran. In the case of Iraq, the United States—and the entire international community, acting under the auspices of the UN Security Council—imposed draconian sanctions on Iraq in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War. Sanctions so severe that it was universally expected that Saddam would be forced to accede to all of the U.N. demands in a matter of a few months because no one, not even Saddam, would allow his people to starve to death. But that is precisely what he did. He refused to comply in full (he did not give up the last of his WMD programs until some time after 1995, and of course even then he refused to come clean about this in his self-defeating determination to convince his own people and the Iranians that he retained a covert WMD capability.) In Iraq, exactly as predicted, inflation soared, the dinar collapsed, the economy came to a near standstill. No one knows how many Iraqis died as a result of the sanctions and Saddam’s manipulation of them, but 200,000 is a fair estimate.

The death of so many innocents was not only a humanitarian catastrophe—it also directly undermined the sanctions regime, precisely because it appalled people across the world. Over time, international opinion turned decidedly against the Iraq sanctions because of what was happening to the Iraqi people. It became harder and harder for the United States to enforce the sanctions, to the point where by 2000, the sanctions were hemorrhaging and Iraq was taking in over a billion dollars (and growing) in illicit payments.

Similarly draconian sanctions on Iran could follow a similar trajectory. In the near term, they would doubtless do tremendous damage to the Iranian economy, and with it, the Iranian people—as they already are. However, this regime has shown absolutely no inclination to allow economic hardship to sway their nuclear intentions. Indeed, it is important to keep in mind that those who rule in Tehran are very different from the more divided groups that ran the country in the past. Amid the 2009 Green revolution, Iran’s hardliners purged the government of its more moderate elements, such that today those running the Iranian regime are more homogeneous and more hardline than at any time since the early days of the Iranian revolution. They appear determined to resist all international pressure, they are famously indifferent to the plight of the Iranian economy, and they have shown tremendous attachment to their nuclear program. All of which suggests they will continue to stand firm, as Saddam did, amid economic ruin. And over time, there is a high likelihood that other countries will come to see the misery of the Iranian people as being the fault of the United States, not of the Iranian leadership, exactly as happened with Saddam. At that point, we may find that with Iran, as was the case with Iraq, overly harsh sanctions will become self-defeating and will crumble where more gradual and moderate sanctions might have been sustained and more likely to achieve their goal.

Backfire III: Inadvertent War

It is hard to miss the signals from the Obama Administration that it is not looking for a fight with Iran. Administration officials have kept dutifully intoning that “all options are on the table” with Iran, but then immediately enumerating why the military option is a terrible one. The President himself has made clear that he wants to reduce the number of wars that the U.S. is waging in the Middle East, not increase them. Unfortunately, its moves toward Iran may push us into the war that the Administration is seeking to avoid.

It’s important to try to see the world from Tehran’s perspective. What the Iranians see is a concerted, undeclared war being waged against them by a coalition of the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and some European states. The fact that all of these countries are not necessarily always coordinating their actions is doubtless lost on the Iranian leadership. They are under cyber attack like the Stuxnet virus. Someone is killing their nuclear scientists in the streets of Tehran and blowing up their missile facilities. The United States and Europeans have ratcheted up their contacts with the Iranian opposition. The Iranians believe that foreign elements are also making contact with dissident groups like the Kurds, the Baluch, and the Arabs in Khuzestan. The United States has ratcheted up its efforts to broadcast into Iran to undermine the regime’s control over information. Washington is building up the military capabilities of states in the Gulf Cooperation Council. The Saudis are funding proxies to fight against Iran’s proxies from Bahrain to Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen. And the Americans and Europeans are waging economic warfare in the form of increasingly crippling sanctions.

From the vantage of Iran’s leadership, it would be easy to see an all-out, undeclared, covert (but multi-pronged) offensive being mounted against them. And the Iranians seem to be fighting back however they can. While I have no independent confirmation that the Iranians really did try to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States last fall, U.S. government officials at all levels appear remarkably certain that they did, and claim that it was one of only several operations the Iranians were developing. It would certainly make a lot of sense that given the campaign they see being waged against them, the Iranians would strike back in exactly that fashion—going after a symbol of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, and doing it in the American capital in retaliation for the assassinations taking place in their own.

What’s more, it seems unlikely that that will be their last such effort. Their threats to close the Strait of Hormuz are not serious—they know full well that doing so would be horribly counterproductive to their own cause—but they were undoubtedly an effort to panic the oil market, driving up prices which help them and hurt us. It was a bid at economic warfare of their own. We should expect more.

The great problem is that at some point, the Iranians might succeed in one of their retaliatory gambits. Imagine how the American people would have reacted had they succeeded in blowing up a restaurant in the heart of Washington, D.C., killing dozens and injuring scores more? Of course, Americans would have seen it as an unprovoked attack and there likely would have been a public cry for blood. In short, the more we turn up the heat on Iran, the more Iran will fight back, and the way they like to fight back could easily lead to unintended escalation.

Doubtless such a war would leave Iran far, far worse off than it would leave us. But it would be painful for us too, and it might last far longer than anyone wants because that is the nature of wars, especially wars involving this Iranian regime. Thus, if we continue down this path, we had best be ready to walk it to its very end. And if we don’t have the stomach to realistically prepare for war, we should seriously reconsider our current embrace of sanctions.

bin laden

Iran: Amadinejad and Bush - throw the shoes and see where they land.

I can't remember.  What happened to the guy who threw shoes at Bush?  You know, Muntadar al-Zeidi.  The guy who threw his shoes at Bush in December 2008. 

Defiant Iranian Likely to Face Execution for Tossing Shoes at MahmoudAhmadinejad

By Perry Chiaramonte

Published December 29, 2011

FoxNews.com

The man who was arrested for tossing his shoes at Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a speech earlier this month could face execution for his act of defiance.

Rashid Shahbandi, who has been in custody since his arrest at the time of the incident, has been tortured and is facing heavy punishment with a strong possibility of a death sentence, opposition groups told the Iran Khabar Agency, an independent news service.

The former textile worker, who had recently lost his job at the factory in the city of Sari, was in attendance there when Ahmadinejad was speaking to workers about the great achievements of his government.

Sources say Shahbandi, who is under financial distress due to the high medical cost of his son’s burn injuries, grew angry while listening to the speech and hurled his shoes — considered an ultimate insult across the Middle East — at Ahmadinejad.

Shahbandi has a history of defiance; he has previously insulted Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and thrown eggs at former President Sayyid Mohammad Khatami when he was in office.

It was not immediately clear when and if Shahbandi will have a trial.
At the time of his arrest, Western observers speculated that Shahbandi might have started a movement to ignite public discourse in Iran.

“Iran is an autocratic society. If people start to lose fear of that autocratic regime, then it collapses,” Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a public policy think tank, told FoxNews.com at the time of the incident.

“He might unfortunately be a little bit of a martyr. But Iranians rally around a martyr, which could make him a hero. The fact that someone doing this in public shows that there is cracks in the regime. Perhaps the Supreme Leader has no clothes.”

iran 

Iranian Islamic Intolerance

Iranian Authorities Pressuring Jailed Christian Pastor to Convert to Islam, Sources Say


By Lisa Daftari
November 04, 2011
FoxNews.com

Government officials in Iran are trying to convince a jailed pastor to return to Islam as he waits for the nation’s supreme leader to decide whether he should be executed for converting to Christianity, sources close to the case told FoxNews.com.

Iran’s secret service officials recently approached 34-year-old pastor Youcef Nadarkhani at his prison site in Rasht and presented him with a book on Islamic literature, telling him they would be back to discuss the material and hear his opinion, the sources said.

FoxNews.com obtained a digital copy of the book given to Nadarkhani, a 300-page compilation entitled "Beshaarat-eh Ahdein," meaning “Message of the Two Eras,” referring to the New and Old Testaments. Through various narratives, the book claims Christianity is a fabrication and attempts to establish the superiority of Islam.

“This isn’t the first time that we have seen this strategy used in the Iranian jail system,” said attorney Tiffany Barrans, the international legal director for the American Center for Law and Justice.

Barrans questioned whether this signaled the ayatollah's willingness to give Nadarkhani another chance, or rather "another way to trap him to allow the regime to continue to punish him or have documented evidence of blasphemy against Islam.”

Barrans, who said she has been in frequent contact with Nadarkhani’s attorneys, said he has been advised by family members, members of the church and lawyers to remain silent, out of fear that the Iranian government may try to use his statements against him, a strategy she said is commonly employed by the regime.

Nadarkhani remains in prison, awaiting a final verdict that has been drawn out and delayed amid heavy and targeted international attention to his case. Iran’s judiciary has been caught in a bind, fearing the ultimate decision will have far-reaching political implications.

If Nadarkhani is released, the judiciary risks appearing disrespectful of the tenets of Shariah law. But if he is executed, Iran will face increasing criticism from the international community, which continues to petition for the pastor’s release.

A few weeks ago, a letter on behalf of the judiciary was sent to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation’s highest authority in interpreting Shariah Law, asking him to make the final decision.

It is unusual for the supreme leader to be asked to weigh in on a case, but officials said this case is rare in nature and requires Khamenei’s stamp of approval in order to issue an execution.

Nadarkhani came under the regime’s radar in 2006 when he applied for his church to be registered with the state. According to sources, he was arrested at that time and then soon released.

In 2009, Nadarkhani went to local officials to complain about Islamic indoctrination in his school district, arguing that his children should not be forced to learn about Islam.

He was subsequently arrested and has been held since.

Barrans said there has been much confusion in the story, in part deliberately caused by the Iranian regime through its state-controlled media. She said that in an effort to distract the media, the Iranian government denied that the charge against Nadarkhani was apostasy, or leaving Islam, and instead alleged that he was being held for rape and extortion.

But according to details provided by Barrans and confirmed by FoxNews.com with sources close to the case in Iran, Nadarkhani was arrested in October 2009 and was tried and found guilty of apostasy by a lower court in Gilan, a province in Rasht. He was then given verbal notification of an impending death-by-hanging sentence.

In December, his lawyers appealed the decision, and the case was sent to Iran’s Supreme Court, which by June stated that it upheld the lower court’s decision of execution, provided it could be proven that he had been a practicing Muslim from the age of adulthood, 15 in Islamic law, to age 19, the time when he converted.

In September, the lower court ruled that Nadarkhani had not practiced Islam during his adult life but still upheld the apostasy charge because he was born into a Muslim family. The court then gave Nadarkhani the opportunity to recant, as the law requires a man to be given three chances to recant his beliefs and return to Islam.

Nadarkhani refused.

Experts credit international support of Nadarkhani in keeping him alive. Christian advocacy groups and human rights organizations have mounted numerous global campaigns and petitions against the Iranian government.

“For me, as a husband and a father of two, the first thing I think about is being in his situation,” said the Rev. Jason DeMars, founder of Present Truth Ministries, a support group for persecuted church communities in the Middle East.

DeMars has been linked to the network of churches in Iran to which Nadarkhani belonged, providing these communities with materials, mission coordination and international support.

“Politically, Iran wants to spread its influence and revolution throughout the Middle East. If we don’t raise our voices now, this persecution is going to affect Christians in other countries as well,” he said.

Apostasy is punishable by death in Shariah law. Article 225 of the Iranian penal code states, "Punishment for an Innate Apostate is death," and "Punishment for a Parental Apostate is death.”

Under this law, a Muslim who converts to Christian is called a mortad, meaning one who leaves Islam. If the convert attempts to convert others, he is called a mortad harbi, or a convert who is waging war against Islam. Death sentences for such individuals are prescribed both by fatwas, or legal decrees, and reinforced by Iran’s penal code.

All religious minorities in Iran, including Bahais, Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians, have faced various forms of persecution and political and social marginalization throughout the regime’s 30-year reign. But the government saves its harshest retribution for those who have abandoned Islam.

Khamenei is not expected to announce a public decision on the case; he traditionally has influenced cases behind closed doors. Should he decline, the lower court will be responsible for making final judgment.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iRAN

All Cultures and Beliefs are Equal

Iranian Pastor Sentenced to Death Could Be Executed if He Doesn’t Recant, Says Verdict




By Amy Kellogg
Published July 13, 2011
FoxNews.com

Iran's Supreme Court says an evangelical pastor charged with apostasy can be executed if he does not recant his faith, according to a copy of the verdict obtained by a religious rights activist group.

Christian Solidarity World says Iranian-born Yousef Nadarkhani, who was arrested in 2009 and given the death sentence late last year, could have his sentence suspended on the grounds that he renounce his faith.

Those who know him say he is not likely to do that, for if he were disposed to giving it up, he would have done it long ago.

If Nadarkhani does not recant, his fate is unclear. It’s believed his case would then be remanded to lower courts in Iran.

Recently the U.S. State Department issued the following remarks: “We are dismayed over reports that the Iranian courts are requiring Yousef Nadarkhani to recant his faith or face the death penalty for apostasy, a charge based on his religious beliefs. If carried out, it would be the first execution for apostasy in Iran since 1990. He is just one of thousands who face persecution for their religious beliefs in Iran, including the seven leaders of the Baha’i community whose imprisonment was increased to twenty years for practicing their faith and hundreds of Sufis who have been flogged in public because of their beliefs.”

Christian and human rights groups say apostasy isn’t even codified in Iranian law.

“From a human rights perspective, you can’t criminalize someone’s choice of religion, much less execute them for that,” says Hadi Ghaemi, executive director of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.

Nadarkhani, from Rasht, on the Caspian Sea, converted to Christianity as a teenager. He is reportedly an effective pastor, who has converted an unknown number of people from Islam to Christianity.

Some believe he has about 400 people in his church.

Iran has ancient Armenian and Assyrian churches. The Evangelical Church of Iran is relatively new, church officials tell Fox News, a product of the legacy of Anglican missionaries who were in Iran in the last two centuries. Even after the Islamic Revolution, Iran been fairly tolerant of the older Armenian and Assyrian orders, which date back to the early days of Christianity, but has been less accepting of Evangelical conversions.

Firouz Khandjani, a spokesman for the evangelical Church of Iran, lives in exile in Eastern Europe. He fled Iran for Turkey for security reasons, but says even in his new homeland he's not safe, and was informed he could be targeted by Iranian agents in Turkey.

Khandjani says a sort of “soft persecution” began after the Revolution, with Christians generally losing many civil rights, including access to top jobs in the country, but has increased since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in 2005.

Khandjani himself was arrested and released 18 years ago. But he says about 40 people have been arrested, many of them also released, since Ahmadinejad became President.

“I can’t say Ahmadinejad is persecuting us, but the hard-liners around him are. The leadership needs hard-liners to permit them to do what they want. They need their support.”

It is hard to get a number on how many Evangelical Christians there are in Iran. It is not a large number in this country of 70 million, but reportedly, the numbers continue to grow. The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran estimates there may be 4,000. Khandjani believes the number to be as high as 200,000. Many of them watch evangelical television stations beamed into Iran from the United States.

Ghaemi says, “Most churches in Iran operate with some degree of secrecy. They operate in homes. People take their batteries out of their cellphones and leave them at the door. They show up at random times so as to avoid the appearance of a crowd filing in. The current government sees them as a threat.”

Ghaemi says there had been a tacit agreement between the Ministry of Intelligence and the Church of Iran, whereby if worshippers were open, and told the Ministry where they were going, the government would leave them alone. The government appears to have broken that “gentlemen’s agreement.”

Firouz Khandjani said the church wanted to be out in the open, and had asked to have physical churches in which to operate under the previous presidential administration.

“It was in the time of Khatami. We believed it was possible. He was more open to minority groups, but unfortunately, he didn’t have the will. We had believed in him.”

A court in Shiraz, Iran, recently released a group of Christians who had been arrested for subversion. The court ultimately ruled that they were just exercising their right to practice their religion. Human rights advocates say the higher courts should follow their example.

Sources say while the Iranian regime doesn’t look fondly upon conversion, it is proselytizing that really rankles them.

Khandjani made a plea to America.

“The U.S., which is fighting for freedom, has to take care of this situation. This is the 21st century. We are not a military group. We want to worship God, according to the Gospel, and being persecuted is not acceptable.”

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Iran

Saudi Arabia - A Nuclear State ?

Admittedly this is not an Obama creation.  It has been festering for about four years, and was allowed to fester by the Bush administration, and now given voice under an Obama administration unconcerned with a nuclear Iran and the impact on Israel and the world.




Riyadh will build nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, Saudi prince warns


Prospect of a nuclear conflict in the Middle East is raised by senior diplomat and member of the Saudi ruling family




Jason Burke in Riyadh
guardian.co.uk
Wednesday 29 June 2011


Prince Turki al-Faisal: he said that if Iran came close to developing nuclear weapons Riyadh would not stand idly by.

A senior Saudi Arabian diplomat and member of the ruling royal family has raised the spectre of nuclear conflict in the Middle East if Iran comes close to developing a nuclear weapon.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Washington, warned senior Nato military officials that the existence of such a device "would compel Saudi Arabia … to pursue policies which could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences".

He did not state explicitly what these policies would be, but a senior official in Riyadh who is close to the prince said yesterday his message was clear.

"We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don't. It's as simple as that," the official said. "If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, that will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit."

Officials in Riyadh said that Saudi Arabia would reluctantly push ahead with its own civilian nuclear programme. Peaceful use of nuclear power, Turki said, was the right of all nations.

Turki was speaking earlier this month at an unpublicised meeting at RAF Molesworth, the airbase in Cambridgeshire used by Nato as a centre for gathering and collating intelligence on the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

According to a transcript of his speech obtained by the Guardian, Turki told his audience that Iran was a "paper tiger with steel claws" that was "meddling and destabilising" across the region.

"Iran … is very sensitive about other countries meddling in its affairs. But it should treat others like it expects to be treated. The kingdom expects Iran to practise what it preaches," Turki said.

Turki holds no official post in Saudi Arabia but is seen as an ambassador at large for the kingdom and a potential future foreign minister,

Diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and published by the Guardian last year revealed that King Abdullah, who has ruled Saudi Arabia since 2005, had privately warned Washington in 2008 that if Iran developed nuclear weapons "everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia".

Saudi Arabian diplomats and officials have launched a serious campaign in recent weeks to rally global and regional powers against Iran, fearful that their country's larger but poorer regional rival is exploiting the Arab Spring to gain influence in the region and within the kingdom itself.

Turki also accused Iran of interfering in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and in the Gulf state of Bahrain, where Saudi troops were deployed this year as part of a Gulf Co-operation Council force following widespread protests from those calling for greater democratic rights.

Though there has previously been little public comment from Riyadh on developments in Syria, Turki told his audience at Molesworth that President Bashar al-Assad "will cling to power till the last Syrian is killed".

Syria presents a dilemma for Saudi policymakers: although they would prefer not to see popular protest unseat another regime in the region, they view the Damascus regime, which is dominated by members of Syria's Shia minority, as a proxy for Iran.

"The loss of life [in Syria] in the present internal struggle is deplorable. The government is woefully deficient in its handling of the situation," Turki said at the Molesworth meeting, which took place on 8 June.

Though analysts say demonstrations in Bahrain were not sectarian in nature, two senior Saudi officials in Riyadh said this week that Tehran had mobilised the largely Shia protesters against the Sunni rulers of the Gulf state. Iran has a predominantly Shia population. Around 15% of Saudis are Shia. The officials described this minority, which suffers extensive discrimination despite recent attempts at reform, as "vulnerable to external influence".

Though there has been negligible unrest internally, Saudi Arabia has been shaken by the events across the Arab world in recent months and has watched anxiously as a number of allies – such as President Hosni Mubarak – have been ousted or have found themselves in grave difficulties. President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen is being treated in a Saudi Arabian hospital for wounds caused by a mysterious blast that forced him to leave his country this month.

The former Tunisian ruler Zine al-Abedine ben Ali, whose relations with Riyadh were complex, is reported to have been housed in a luxurious villa in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah after he fled his homeland for Saudi Arabia.

Saudi officials admitted that decision-makers in Saudi Arabia were "not keen" on demonstrators ousting governments, but said they were "even less keen on killing and massacres".

Turki also warned that al-Qaida has been able to create "a sanctuary not unlike Pakistan's tribal areas" in Yemen.

Saudi Arabian foreign policy historically has been pro-western, although differences have emerged with the United States in recent years. The Arab Spring has also caused some tension, with the deployment of troops in Bahrain opposed by Washington.

There has also been conflict following western charges that the kingdom has exported radical strands of Islam around the Muslim world.Turki said that "in all areas, Islam must play a central yet development role" and insisted that "closer monitoring" now ensured that funds raised in the kingdom "were not misused".

Internally, Saudi Arabia faced problems because of the youthfulness of its population, radicalism and different sectarian identities, Turki said.

Senior officials at the ministry of interior in Riyadh said that Iran was using ideology to "penetrate" the Arabian peninsula "in the same way al-Qaida did".

Turki also reiterated a long-standing Saudi call for a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, which would include both Iran and Israel and would be enforced by the United Nations security council.

The prince said sanctions against Iran were working. He welcomed the consensus in Washington that military strikes against Tehran would be counterproductive.

Analysts said that Turki's words about developing nuclear arms may have been intended to focus western attention on Saudi concerns about their regional rival rather than to indicate any kind of definite decision by Riyadh because the practical and diplomatic obstacles of doing so would be immense.

William Hague, Britain's foreign secretary said that Iran has recently conducted covert tests of ballistic missiles as well as at least three secret tests of medium-range ballistic missiles since October.

Iran and the west remain in dispute over its nuclear programme. The US and its allies insist Tehran aims to develop atomic weapons, a charge that Iran rejects.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
nuclear

You have to wonder: Russian and Iranian Ignorance

Surely we all have populations that need serious medical assistance.  Perhaps they need to sit quietly in the corner for a few hours and de-stress.  Perhaps they need to consult a medical professional for help with prescription medication to aide their well-being.

Whether it is the 'birthers' or the '9/11 Loose Change' nuts, we have enough. 

Those people tend to be the average person - run of the mill, daily type.

Whereas in Iran - it reaches to the highest reaches of government where insanity has found a home, and in Russia where insanity is required to work in the media, and the ability to pervert the truth so your citizens are completely daft all the time is crucial.


Iran's intelligence: Bin Laden had died of illness long before the U.S. operation




By Eugene Gribanov
10-05-2011, 06:02


Iran's Minister of Information, Heidar Moslehi said that he had documentary evidence that the leader of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden died of illness long before the American special forces operations to eliminate it in Pakistan.

"Why is the U.S. military and U.S. security forces have refused to show bin Laden's body and dumped it into the sea, if in fact they arrested and killed him?" We have precise information that bin Laden had died some time ago ... and we have documents confirming this fact, "- Iranian media quoted words of the head of the Ministry, which serves as the Islamic Republic Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

As noted by RIA Novosti news agency, earlier information about the death of the terrorist number one not once appeared in various media.

In particular, in 2006 the French newspaper Est Republicain citing a secret intelligence report of France said that the leader of al-Qaida had died of typhoid in Pakistan. Later refuted this information, several foreign governments. In 2007, shortly before her death, Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said that bin Laden is killed.

[there is more but it is all drivel anyway]

The Russian newspapers publish this rubbish so as to enlighten their readers with horribly stupid lies that require a restructuring of reality.  In Iran, it tends to be more common - they all tend to be living in a delusional world.


Keep in mind that bin Laden's daughter told the world press they came in and shot her father.

That the world saw the compound burning after - they had come in and shot her father dead.

That his wife was shot while protecting him, after they came in and shot him dead.

That his other wife was also protecting him and publicly stated they came in and shot him dead and tied them up and left and would have taken them all had it not been for the crashed helicopter, on fire in the compound after it crashed, when they came to shoot bin Laden dead.

Al Qaida admitted they killed him dead.

Pakistan confirmed they came in and killed him dead.

But Iran knows he died years earlier, even though his ghost was watching a video of Obama on TV and we see the screen image in the photo  and the video.

That previous video messages have all been confirmed to be him, including the most recent one - commenting on events which occurred days before he was killed dead by the Seal team after their chopper was destroyed and the compound caught fire.

Reality must be ignored in favor of delusion.  There is a word for this - INSANITY.














russia and iran

The Middle East on Fire

The drum of democracy and freedom, or something more perilous.  I believe that we as Americans must support freedom, even if it is not beneficial to our interests - because freedom, if achieved, would result in a closer relationship of equals.  The desire for freedom is not enough, rather it is the plight of the masses who rise up and seize the chance, place their mark upon history, and end tyranny by the few.  Who wouldn't support it.  If I was the leader of Jordan or Bahrain, or Yemen ... I would be making large transfers of wealth to safe havens, just in case. 


Yet, isn't it amazing how it all happens so .... happenstance like, as if by accident the people rise up, without planning.  I my have a negative view of mankind, and that is we are led - at least that is what some astute students have suggested - so if we, Americans are led, we should be equally fair to others - that the Jordanians, Yemenis .... may also be led, and hopefully not by forces of hate and death.

Except it seems they are being led by someone or something.

Syria hangs in the balance.  It could topple either direction.  For many in the West, this is great news.  They see this as denouement of the past five months of rebellion and revolution in the Middle East.  Except it isn't.

Egypt is not more democratic.  It is less.

The 'rebels' opposing Khadadfi are not 'more democratic' than the dictator.  They are, as he pointed out, aided by al qaida, and with very little disagreement about this from the rebels.  The majority of suicide bombers did not come from Sauid Arabia or Gaza ... but from the general region of the 'rebels'.    So why are they now rising up and what connection to Tunisia and Egypt.  More than likely coincidence.  It spread and al qaida was happy to help. 

Syria is different - who benefits?  Not Israel, not Turkey, not Iraq - for what follows will be far less stable and reserved. 

How about Bahrain?

Abu Dubai?

Saudi Arabia?

Yemen?

Sudan?

Morocco?


Take the above, and in a majority of them, what is the consistent word/label/group/cause/issue?  And that will provide some insight into the larger issue of who is behind the unrest.  Sometimes you start something you can't control and it meanders off course a bit.  You accepted that into the operational plan before you began.  Syria is an ally of several possible countries who are also possible instigators.  So why undermine a state that is already a friend and supports your cause? 

Simple.  Easy Peasy - I want all 100 cookies.  I ask for 80, they offer me 75.  I want 100.  I remember long ago when they were rude to me once when I was no one and they were someone and I harbor that animus, I feed it, even if it predated my grandparents ... so many reasons and any one of them enough.






Protests Pop Up Across Middle East


By BRIAN MURPHY, Associated Press
Feb 15, 2011


DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Thousands of protesters took over a main square in Bahrain's capital Tuesday — carting in tents and raising banners — in a bold attempt to copy Egypt's uprising and force high-level changes in one of Washington's key allies in the Gulf.

The move by demonstrators capped two days of clashes across the tiny island kingdom that left at least two people dead, parliament in limbo by an opposition boycott and the king making a rare address on national television to offer condolences for the bloodshed.

Security forces — apparently under orders to hold back — watched from the sidelines as protesters chanted slogans mocking the nation's ruling sheiks and called for sweeping political reforms and an end to monarchy's grip on key decisions and government posts.

The unrest in Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, adds another layer to Washington's worries in the region. In Yemen, police and government supporters battled nearly 3,000 marchers calling for the ouster of President Ali Abdullah Saleh in a fifth straight day of violence.

Yemen is seen as a critical partner in the U.S. fight against a network inspired by al-Qaida. The Pentagon plans to boost its training of Yemen's counterterrorism forces to expand the push against the al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula faction, which has been linked to attacks including the attempted airliner bombing in December 2009 and the failed mail bomb plot involving cargo planes last summer.

Saleh has been holding talks with Yemen's powerful tribes, which can either tip the balance against him or give him enough strength to possibly ride out the crisis.

The political mutinies in the Arab world show the wide reach of the calls for change spurred by the toppling of old-guard regimes in Tunisia and Egypt.

In Jordan, hundreds of Bedouin tribesmen blocked roads to demand the government return lands they once owned. Saudi activists are seeking to form a political party in a rare challenge to the near-absolute power of the pro-Western monarchy.

Yemen's grinding poverty and tribal complexities also stand in contrast to the relative wealth and Western-style malls and coffee shops in Bahrain's capital of Manama.

But many in Bahrain still boiled down their discontent to a cry for economic justice as well — saying the Sunni rulers control the privileges and opportunities and the Shiite majority struggles with what's left over and are effectively blackballed from important state jobs.

"I demand what every Bahraini should have: a job and a house," said student Iftikhar Ali, 27, who joined the crowds in the seaside Pearl Square. "I believe in change."

[In no way is he asking too much - a house and a job ... and Ali is ... from where?]


Protesters quickly renamed it "Nation's Square" and erected banners such as "Peaceful" that were prominent in Cairo's Tahrir Square. Many waved Bahraini flags and chanted: "No Sunnis, no Shiites. We are all Bahrainis."  [I could chant peace, love, and free love - doesn't mean I believe in any or all of those - I can chant, especially if it gets me what I want.]

Others set up tents and distributed tea and kabobs for those planning to spend the night under one of the city's landmarks: a nearly 300-foot (90-meter) monument cradling a giant white pearl-shaped ball that symbolizes the country's heritage as a pearl diving center.

Someone used stones to spell out the message in Arabic: "The real criminals are the royal family."

There is no direct call to bring down the king, whose family has ruled Bahrain for more than two centuries. But he is suddenly under unprecedented pressure to make serious changes in how the country is run.

The key demands — listed on a poster erected in the square — included the release of all political prisoners, more jobs and housing, an elected Cabinet and the replacement of the longtime prime minister, Sheik Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa.

Even the security forces they have battled represent something more than just state-backed muscle.

Bahrain's leaders have for years granted citizenship to Sunnis from across the region to expand their base of loyalists and try to gain demographic ground against Shiites, about 70 percent of the population of some 500,000. Many of the Sunnis — Jordanians, Syrians and others — receive police jobs or other security-related posts.

In a clear sign of concern over the widening crisis, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa went on nationwide TV to offer condolences for the deaths, pledge an investigation into the killings and promising to push ahead with promised reforms, which include loosening state controls on the media and Internet.

"We extend our condolences to the parents of the dear sons who died yesterday and today. We pray that they are inspired by the Almighty's patience, solace and tranquility," said the king, who had previously called for an emergency Arab summit to discuss the growing unrest.

Bahrain is one of the most politically volatile nations in the Middle East's wealthiest corner despite having one of the few elected parliaments and some of the most robust civil society groups.

The nation's Shiites have long complained of discrimination. A crackdown on perceived dissent last year touched off weeks of riots and clashes in Shiite villages, and an ongoing trial in Bahrain accuses 25 Shiites of plotting against the leadership. The detainees allege they have been tortured behind bars.

Bahrain is also an economic weakling compared with the staggering energy riches of Gulf neighbors such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which can afford far more generous social benefits. Bahrain's oil reserves are small and its role as the region's international financial hub have been greatly eclipsed by Dubai.

In Geneva, a statement by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called on Bahrain to "curb the excesses" of security forces.

"Too many peaceful protesters have recently been killed across the Middle East and North Africa," Pillay said.

The deaths also brought sharp denunciations from the largest Shiite political bloc, Al Wefaq, which suspended its participation in parliament, and could threaten the nation's gradual pro-democracy reforms that have given Shiites a greater political voice. The group has 18 seats in the 40-member chamber.

The second day of turmoil began after police tried to disperse up to 10,000 mourners gathering at a hospital parking lot to begin a funeral procession for Ali Abdulhadi Mushaima, 21, who died in Monday's marches.

Officials at Bahrain's Salmaniya Medical Complex said a 31-year-old man, Fadhel Salman Matrook, became the second fatality when he died of injuries from birdshot fired during the melee in the hospital's parking lot. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to speak to journalists.

A statement from Bahrain's interior minister, Lt. Gen. Rashid bin Abdulla Al Khalifa, expressed "sincere condolences and deep sympathy" to Mushaima's family. He expanded on the king's pledge: stressing that the deaths will be investigated and charges would be filed if authorities determined excessive force was used against the protesters.

But that's unlikely to appease the protesters. In the past week, Bahrain's rulers have tried to defuse calls for reform by promising nearly $2,700 for each family and pledging to loosen state controls on the media.


















iran