The Times of London reports: Saudis OK Israeli use of airspace to bomb Iran

A huge development and sign of widening recognition that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. (story by way of Jerusalem Post)

Scandal, celebrity deaths crowd Iran out of news

Hard to believe idiocy of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford winging off to South America to hang with his mistress for a few days, leaving the constituents of his state in the dark as to his whereabouts -- was this the politica equivalent of self-immolation? -- and wall to wall coverage this afternoon of sudden death of singer Michael Jackson at 50 (same day as Farah Fawcett). Meanwhile, in Iran, word that has filtered out in recent days was of brutal crackdown getting worse. Looks like the revolt could be going way of China in '89 instead of eastern Europe. Even if true, however, Iran is no longer the country is was only weeks ago.

Obama gets this one right

It's not often I agree with Obama, but when it comes to Iran, I do. Fastest way for mullahs in Iran to brutally suppress this revolt is if US is seen as taking sides and fomenting upheaval.

Catalyst for change in Iran? It's not Obama

... any more than George H.W. Bush was catalyst for the collapse of communism in Europe. No, much of the credit for both goes to their predecessors -- Reagan and George W. Bush -- though media meme of Obama taking office as basis for upheaval in Iran will surely take hold instead.

Just as Reagan was the pivotal figure in bringing down Iron Curtain, even though it did not occur until after Reagan left office, the younger Bush was pivotal in bringing down Iran Curtain, if that is what we are witnessing. And to carry analogy further, Obama is reacting with much the same caution as George H.W. Bush after the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Faces of hope in Iran

"Iran on Fire"

So reports foreign correspondent Michael J. Totten, whose incisive blog I discovered tonight ...

A stolen election in Iran?

Came across this amazing footage at Andrew Sullivan's blog tonight, where I found the most comprehensive coverage so far of the disputed presidential election in Iran. Chillingly reminiscent of China 20 years ago.

Hillary Clinton ducks from event that Palin will attend

... as reported by the Associated Press --

"WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has canceled an appearance at a New York rally next week after organizers blindsided her by inviting Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, aides to the senator said Tuesday.

"Several American Jewish groups plan a major rally outside the United Nations on Sept. 22 to protest against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"Organizers said Tuesday that both Clinton, who nearly won the Democratic nomination for president, and Palin, Republican candidate John McCain's running mate, are expected to attend.

"That would have set up a closely scrutinized and potentially explosive pairing in the midst of a presidential campaign, one in which the New York senator is campaigning for Democratic nominee Barack Obama while Palin actively courts disappointed Clinton supporters.

"Clinton aides were furious. They first learned of the plan to have both Clinton and Palin appear when informed by reporters.

" 'Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event,' said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. 'Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending.' "... (emphasis added)

Plus, Palin intimidates the hell out of Clinton ...

Jacoby keeps it real on Iran

Great column by the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby on Dec. 9 under the headline, "No reason to relax on Iran" -

Jacoby writes, "Now that the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear intentions has had a few days to cool off, how does it look? A few reflections:

"1. Iran's nuclear program is alive and well. Yes, I know - the very first of the NIE's 'key judgments,' the one that launched a thousand headlines, is that 'Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program' in the fall of 2003. But what that first sentence giveth, a footnote to that sentence taketh away: 'By 'nuclear weapons program,' explains footnote 1, 'we mean Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment."

"But that's a distinction without a difference, since the accumulation of enriched uranium is by far the most important component in developing nuclear weapons," Jacoby writes (emphasis added. "Iran's 'civil' uranium enrichment - those 3,000 centrifuges spinning at Natanz - continues unabated, in defiance of Security Council resolutions ordering that it stops. Whether the nuclear-fuel program is labeled 'civilian' or 'military' is irrelevant. The more uranium the mullahs enrich, the closer they are to getting the bomb."

Did Iran suspend its nuclear weapons program because of the invasion of Iraq?

According to the NIE released Monday, Iran suspended its illicit nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.

About six months after the US-led invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. And only two months before Libya decided to abandon its pursuit of nuclear arms.

Did the war with Iraq prompt Iran to suspend its nuclear weapons program? Maybe, maybe not. The timing begs the question, but what's odd about the media coverage over the last few days - and I've read a half-dozen stories on the NIE in the New York Times, the Boston Globe and on the CNN website - I have yet to see a single reference to even the possibility of a connection.

But what if the NIE had reported that Iran initiated a covert nuclear weapons program six months after the invasion of Iraq - think we'd hear about a connection then? We'd be hearing of little else.

Rudolph the Red Knows Rain, Dear

Russian czar wannabe Vlad "The Impaler" Putin commenting on new US sanctions against Iran, as reported in today's Wall Street Journal - "I think running around like a lunatic - with a razor and waving a red banner - isn't the best way to solve this kind of problem," said Putin, perhaps alluding to his own experience with this sort of thing while running the KGB.

Hey, that's hitting below the belt

A story in today's Washington Post about Britain's Defense Ministry barring military personnel from selling personal stories to the media, in the wake of Iran's release of 15 British sailors and marines held captive by the Islamic Republic, contained this tidbit --

"Arthur Batchelor, 20, youngest of the captives, told the Daily Mirror that he 'cried like a baby' and that his captors tormented him repeatedly by saying he looked like the British comedy character Mr. Bean."

Those unspeakable bastards.

Has anyone contacted Amnesty International about this? Comparing just about any Brit in uniform to Benny Hill is fair game, as long accepted under the Geneva Conventions. But Mr. Bean -- oh the humanity!

"Cried like a baby"? Does the phrase "stiff upper lip" resonate in the least anymore, Mr. Batchelor?

Another pop culture character comes to mind -- Dr. Zachary Smith, the craven coward in TV's "Lost in Space."

Fourteen days instead of 14 months

... the lengths of time for Iran to release British military "detainees" compared to American hostages held in Tehran from November 1979 to January 1981, the earlier crisis initiating modern jihad. The thuggish theocrats in Tehran are surely patting themselves on the backs for appearing so reasonable and compassionate.

Let's see, that's a phony hostage crisis and a phony war provoked against Israel, both within the last year, both transparent attempts to distract the West's attention from Iran's frantic and deceitful efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. What next -- a "War of the Worlds"-type broadcast claiming a Martian invasion?

That's odd, usually he's so smarmy

John Edwards, responding to a question from Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday as to whether as president he would accept a nuclear-armed Iran:

"I -- there's no answer to that question at this time. I think that it's a -- it's a -- it's a very bad thing for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I think we have -- we have many steps in front of us that have not been used. We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not, not been done. The things that I just talked about, I think, are the right approach in dealing with Iran. And then we'll, we'll see what the result is ... I think -- I think the -- we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president."

But as James Tarantino pointed out in an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, less than two weeks before appearing on "Meet the Press," Edwards spoke by satellite to Israel's annual Herzliya Conference and stated the following: "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons ... To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate -- all options must remain on the table."

Of course, to the McGovernite wing now controlling the Democratic Party, all options is translated thus: negotiate, negotiate more if this doesn't succeed, call for yet more negotiations (preferably multilateral at this point), and as a last resort -- negotiate really, really hard with a lot of emphasis in what you say, like you mean it and all. That'll show 'em!