The Iranian regime announced yesterday that a new line of centrifuges have been activated and domestically-produced fuel rods are being used. The revelations in the state media were scarier: The underground Fordo nuclear site, clearly designed for nuclear weapons production, has become “fully operational,” potentially bringing Iran only a few short months from having bomb-grade uranium.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proudly announced that Iran had produced its own nuclear fuel rods and installed them into a medical research reactor in Tehran. Iran previously bragged that it made its own rods and the site has no weapons-related purpose. Judith Miller of the Manhattan Institute described the announcement as a “photo opportunity” and “publicity stunt.”

Ahmadinejad also claimed that Iran manufactured 3,000 new “fourth generation” centrifuges for its Natanz site that will have larger and faster output. They will begin making low-enriched uranium called yellowcake next year, the regime said. Experts have serious doubts about the validity of Iran’s boasts in this area.

The announcement on Iran’s state media is of much more concern. The underground enrichment site at Fordo near Qom, built to withstand air strikes, will become “fully operational” in the matter of days. When Israeli Defense Minister warned of Iran reaching an “immunity zone” when military action is no longer viable, he was referring to this site specifically and others built underground and deep in the mountains. The U.S. and Europe point out that the structure of the site makes it incompatible with a peaceful nuclear energy program as Iran claims, but very suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Iran says it is going to enrich uranium at the Fordo site to 20% for use in medical research. A nuclear weapon needs uranium enriched to about 90% but in the words of former Revolutionary Guardsman Reza Kahlili, that 20% threshold brings Iran “9/10 of the way to weaponization.”

David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security says that it only takes about 6 months to upgrade 20%-enriched uranium to bomb-grade level using 500-1,000 centrifuges. The Fordo site can hold 3,000 centrifuges. Iran has not said how many centrifuges are at the site but an International Atomic Energy Agency report published in November said that 412 were present.

Reza Kahlili reports that Iran just completed its first trigger for detonating a nuclear bomb, a major achievement that the IAEA knows that Iran has been working on. Last year, he was told by sources in Iran that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei ordered the construction of at least two nuclear warheads by next month.

If Kahlili’s sources had accurate information, then Iran is much closer to having a nuclear missile than the West believes. The director of Israel’s military-intelligence says Iran has enough uranium for four nuclear weapons but won’t have a nuclear missile for three years. Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute of Strategic Studies says that once Iran makes enough bomb-grade uranium, it’ll still take over a year for a bomb to be assembled.

Iran is becoming more aggressive as its nuclear program advances.

Appearing before The Orthodox Union Presidential Forum in a Boca Raton, FL synagogue on Monday, January 30, 2012, former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) stated that, “When President Ahmadinejad recently toured the capitals of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ecuador, it was not a form of cultural diplomacy; it was primarily to increase the tempo of preparations for the war against America.”  He then added, “It is long past time for us to respond, but instead our president declares imminent victory.”

While Ahmadinejad is the visible figurehead representing the Iranian regime, it is Hezbollah, Iran’s terrorist sub-contractor, which is creating cells throughout Latin America and, inside the U.S. as well.  Shortly after the Second Lebanon war between Israel and Hezbollah, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee held hearings on the Global Reach of Hezbollah’s cells. The Committee heard testimony regarding the capabilities of Hezbollah to attack the U.S. and other western targets. The protocol from the hearing clearly established Hezbollah’s “wide reaches” under the military leadership of Imad Mugniyah, who was assassinated in February 2008 in Damascus, Syria.

U.S. Representative Ed Royce, Chairman of the International Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee, had this to say during the hearings: “Hezbollah isn’t just a menace to Israel, Lebanon and the region. According to the State Department terrorism report, Hezbollah has ‘established cells in Europe, Africa, South America, North America, and Asia.’ “One witness,” Rep. Royce continued, “will tell us that Hezbollah’s organizational and logistic network exists in over 40 countries; this includes a significant presence in our own hemisphere, in the tri-border region of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. The network operates in West Africa, where Hezbollah has been active trading ‘blood diamonds,’ an issue the Africa Subcommittee explored when I chaired it.

Rep. Royce added, “Many Americans may be surprised to learn that Hezbollah’s global reach includes significant activities on U.S. soil.”  Royce characterized Hezbollah as posing a “grave threat” and, he repeated a statement made by a former Deputy Secretary of State in 2002 that, “Hezbollah may be the A-team of terrorists and maybe al-Qaeda is actually the B-team.” He added, “Hezbollah’s lethality is magnified by the support it receives from state sponsors of terrorism, primarily Iran.”

U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State on Terrorism Frank Urbanchik testified at the same hearings that the U.S. is particularly concerned over the close ties between Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iran’s terrorist tool – the Hezbollah.

Addressing retirees at The Villages in FL on January 29, 2012, Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich referred to President Obama saying, “He lives in a fantasy world where there are no enemies” and, he characterized the president’s perception of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as “just misguided people with whom he has not yet had coffee.”  Gingrich went on to say, “We watched him go see Hugo Chavez and we watched him smile and be friendly while Chavez deliberately, cynically and insultingly gave him an anti-American book and Obama didn’t have a clue he’d been insulted. You know, Ahmadinejad, the dictator of Iran, says that he wants to wipe out Israel and drive America out of the Middle East. Now, as a historian, I have a pretty good sense of what that means. It means he wants to wipe out Israel, and drive America out of the Middle East. But if I were a left-wing Harvard Law graduate surrounded by really clever left-wing academics, I would know that this is actually a sign that Ahmadinejad probably had a bad childhood…”

The Associated Press reported on Tuesday, January 31, 2012 that “Iran’s president lauded his country’s newly launched Spanish-language satellite TV channel, saying it would deal a blow to “dominance seekers” — remarks that were an apparent jab at the U.S. and the West.”

The launch is Tehran’s latest effort to reach out to Iran-friendly governments in Latin America and comes on the heels of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s four-nation tour of the region earlier in January, which included stops in Cuba and visits to Venezuela, Nicaragua and Ecuador.

The 33-year farce of Western appeasement of Iran may be reaching its denouement. For the last few months, the pace of events have quickened as the West sanctions and threatens, and Iran blusters about closing the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off oil to Europe, and unleashing its terrorist proxies. Just last week Iran’s “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei subtly suggested that Iran would step up its already considerable support of terrorist outfits targeting Israel and the U.S.: “From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this.” Indulging traditional Islamic anti-Semitic language, Khamenei said Israel was a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut,” and claimed that the U.S. would suffer defeat and damage its regional prestige if it decides to use military force to stop the country’s nuclear program.

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said there was a “strong likelihood” that Israel would attack Iran in April, May, or June of this year, a supposition reinforced by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. And Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in his remarks at the Herzilya Conference that Iran’s “military nuclear program is steadily nearing ripeness and is about to enter the ‘immunity zone.’ From that point on, the Iranian regime will be able to act to complete the program, with no effective disturbance and a time that is convenient for it.” The backdrop of this war of words is the West’s imposition of yet more sanctions, while the Iranian regime once again rope-a-dopes the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, and rumors of American troop concentrations in the region abound.

A constant in all this the diplomatic fencing is the threat of military action by Israel, along with the rumors surrounding such an event and speculations about the extent of Israel’s military capabilities. More important, however, is the unsavory way the Obama administration is using the threat of Israeli military action to influence Iranian behavior, at the same time it positions itself to avoid any responsibility for an attack. Thus Panetta publicly has been warning Israel against attacking, listing all the “unintended consequences” that would follow, at the same time the U.S. demands that Israel do nothing without alerting the United States in advance. However, despite these public warnings to Israel, it has long been clear that the administration’s diplomatic efforts have all been underwritten by the implicit threat that Israel will take unilateral military action. So it is that Israel is made the Dirty Harry of the Middle East, her actions decried by Western nations too cowardly to do what they know needs to be done, as in 1981, when Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak atomic reactor only to be condemned by the United States.

For make no mistake, Iran cannot be allowed to succeed in manufacturing nuclear weapons, or even achieving “nuclear latency,” the ability rapidly to produce them when needed. Such armaments in the hands of an Iranian regime besotted with apocalyptic Twelver Shi’ism and religiously sanctioned Jew-hatred would radically reconfigure the Middle East, sparking nuclear proliferation in the region and endangering not just Israel, but a large portion of the world’s oil supply. Yet on her own, Israel can at best delay Iran’s progress for at best three to five years. Apart from the logistical challenges of such a complex attack, nuclear production facilities in Iran have been dispersed into 17 known sites, many of which have been moved deep underground into fortified bunkers and tunnels.

The fallout of such an attack, moreover, could hit Israel hard. By Israeli estimations, Iran’s proxy Hezbollah has stockpiled in Lebanon 50,000 missiles, which can reach every corner of Israel. Following the fall of Mubarak and the ascendancy of the Muslim Brothers, the southern border with Egypt is no longer secure, thus providing an avenue for Hamas terrorist attacks. A beleaguered Bashar al Assad in Syria could distract attention from his slaughter of Syrians by attacking Israel in the Golan. Although the United States has said it would defend Israel in these circumstances, it is not certain how reliable that pledge is in an election year, with a U.S. president who already has shown by his actions a marked dislike for Israel. After all, this is a president who counts Turkey’s Recep Erdogan as one of his closest international buddies, despite Turkey’s naked support for the genocidal Hamas, but who publicly disparages Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. Certainly, Israel would find little sympathy and support in the U.N. or the E.U. after an attack on Iran.

Four Syrian-bound Iranian trucks carrying raw materials needed to make chemical weapons were recently seized by Turkish authorities as they tried to enter into Syria from southern Turkey. The contents in the trucks reportedly included cylindrical tanks, heat-resistant materials and 66 tons of sodium sulfate.

While the Iranian government denied that the trucks in question were carrying chemical weapon materials, it should be noted that in 2011 Turkish authorities had intercepted two previous arms shipment from Iran to Syria. One of those shipments was an Iranian plane carrying automatic rifles, rocket launchers and mortars.

However, the finding of chemical weapons material in the Iranian trucks — which comes as the embattled regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad edges closer to complete collapse — has renewed fresh concerns over the future security and control of Syria’s vast stockpile of chemical weapons.

Similar fears were raised during the collapse of the Libyan regime of Muammar Gadhafi. In that case, the United States and its NATO allies worked with Libyan rebel forces to monitor Libya’s known chemical-weapon facilities and prevent Gadhafi’s forces from seeking to use or divert chemical-warfare materials.

However, while Western efforts to secure Gadhafi’s chemical weapons and transfer their control over to Libya’s transitional governing authority have gone relatively well, that may not be the case with Syria if the Assad regime falls.

According to Leonard Spector of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, there is “a huge difference” between the Syrian and Libyan chemical-weapons programs, citing Syria’s program as considerably larger, more sophisticated and equipped with both production and delivery capabilities.

In fact, even though it has refused to become a member of the UN’s Chemical Weapons Convention and submit to international oversight, Syria is still widely believed to have one of the most extensive, if not the largest, chemical weapon arsenals in the world

Moreover, that arsenal, which began its development in the 1970s under then-President Hafez al-Assad as a threat against Israel, has continued to grow unabated under Bashar Assad.

To that end, the Syrian regime is reported to have at least five facilities dedicated to its chemical weapons program at al-Safira, Hama, Homs, and Latakia; two munitions storage sites at Khan Abu Shamat and Furqlus; and a chemical-weapons research laboratory near Damascus.

The Syrian chemical arsenal reportedly comprises hundreds of tons of sarin, mustard gas, and the deadlier VX nerve agent. Those blister and nerve agents have been fitted as chemical warheads on Syria’s long-range Scud-B and Scud-C ballistic missiles. In fact, the Syrian government recently armed its medium-range Scud missiles with 600 one-ton chemical warheads.

In addition to its ballistic missile component, the Syrian government reportedly also has tens of tons of sarin agent and mustard gas stockpiled in conventional artillery shells, rockets and bombs.

So now, besieged by mounting threats to his regime’s survival and armed with that lethal weaponry, questions arise as to whether Assad will use his chemical weapons against Syrian protesters and army defectors; against a possible armed international intervention; or divert them to terrorist groups in the region.

Launching chemical attacks against Syrian civilians would certainly engender little surprise, given Assad’s already bloody crackdown on Syrian protesters and the fact his father, Hafez al-Assad, reportedly used cyanide gas in his repression of the 1982 Syrian uprising in Hama.

Worried about aggravating Iran, the United States has announced that it is postponing missile-defense drills with Israel. Dubbed “Austere Challenge 12,” the exercises had been planned for months and were intended to send a clear message that the United States and Israel were prepared to protect themselves from Iran’s mushrooming missile threat. In fact, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last month pointed to the exercises as evidence of America’s “unshakable” commitment to Israel. Now that the exercises have been delayed, the mullahs are getting a very different message.

A U.S. European Command official assures us that “It is not unusual for such exercises to be postponed,” which is true. But timing is everything when dealing with aggressors. Washington’s intentions are good—to avert an accidental war—but the perception in Tehran is that Washington blinked. That means the mullahs won this round. And as with all aggressors, that emboldens them and encourages them to push harder, to take more risks and to make dangerous miscalculations that invite the very thing Washington is trying to avoid.

One recalls how the Carter administration reacted to Moammar Qaddafi’s unilateral claim over the Gulf of Sidra, a huge chunk of the Mediterranean Sea universally considered as international waters. Anyone who crossed Qaddafi’s so-called “line of death” in the Gulf of Sidra would face military attack. President Carter canceled annual freedom-of-navigation naval exercises in and around the Gulf of Sidra to avoid confrontation and to keep things calm in the region.

But the message Qaddafi heard was that America was weak, and so he pushed and miscalculated. U.S. intelligence soon unearthed evidence that Libyan agents were planning to hit Marine One with a heat-seeking missile; Libya was caught red-handed sending tons of military hardware to communist forces in Nicaragua; and Qaddafi’s army of terrorists was at work all around the globe.

Vowing to enforce the principle of freedom of the seas, President Reagan ordered the U.S. Sixth Fleet to resume its exercises. When the exercises began in the autumn of 1981, Qaddafi lived up to his word and sent several warplanes into international airspace to enforce his line of death. Authorized, in Reagan’s words, to pursue attacking Libyan warplanes “all the way into the hangar,” U.S. F-14s responded with deadly force and made it clear to Qaddafi that there would be no payoff for recklessly disregarding international norms—only costs. “We sent a message to Qaddafi,” Reagan said. “We weren’t going to allow him to declare squatter’s rights over a huge area of the Mediterranean in defiance of international law.”

The moral of the story is that in international relations, every action and non-action sends a message. The postponement of Austere Challenge 12 sends the wrong message. Just when the pressure was building on the mullahs—on the economic front, in the Strait of Hormuz, vis-à-vis European energy imports, at the IAEA—Washington put Austere Challenge 12 on hold and relieved the pressure.

It’s important to note that these U.S.-Israel exercises were wholly defensive. As The Washington Post reports, they were “designed to test multiple Israeli and U.S. air defense systems against incoming missiles and rockets.”

Think about that. These weren’t provocative naval maneuvers off Iran’s coast or massive air exercises feigning attacks across the skies of the Middle East. These were missile-defense exercises designed to test U.S.-Israeli forces in deflecting inbound missile threats.

Defense is the operative word here. To cut through all the relativistic confusion, consider this everyday example: Which one of the following would you call provocative—a cop strapping on a bullet-proof vest or a gunman loading his weapon?

Last year, it seemed like an Islamist super-bloc was forming in the Middle East. Secular regimes fell and others faced uprisings. Turkey grew closer to Iran and Syria. The Iranian regime produced an End Times documentary depicting the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood as the fulfillment of prophecy. Now, pro-Western governments remain unstable but the Islamists are turning their daggers on each other.

The division in the Islamist ranks is most clearly seen in Syria. The Iranian regime has deployed the Revolutionary Guards to help the Bashar Assad regime crush the uprising. Hezbollah and the Shiite-led Iraqi government are sticking by Assad’s side. On the other side are genuine secular democratic forces but also the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Qatar and Turkey. Turkey is demanding that Assad resign and is hosting the Free Syria Army, the rebel forces who are violently trying to overthrow him. The Emir of Qatar has just endorsed sending Arab military forces to Syria to stop the regime’s crackdown.

The Libyan government sent an Islamist militia leader to advise the Free Syria Army. There are reports that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has even dispatched fighters to Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood is a direct participant in the uprising. Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, who is the Muslim Brotherhood’s top theologian and is based in Qatar, branded the Assad regime as “heretical.” Qaradawi even declared that it was permissible for a U.N.-led intervention to take place and says that Assad’s soldiers are religiously obligated to defect to the Free Syria Army. “If you want the welfare of your people and intend to go to paradise after death, please join the Free Army,” he preached.

This puts Hamas in an awkward position. The terrorist group belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is fighting Assad, but Hamas has long enjoyed the generous support of Assad and Iran. Hamas’ political bureau is based in Damascus. Hamas suppressed anti-Assad protests in the Gaza Strip but that was not enough to satisfy Iran, which demanded that pro-Assad rallies be staged.

In recent months, Hamas began moving staff out of Damascus and to Egypt, Gaza, Sudan, Jordan and Qatar, presumably in preparation to break relations with Assad. Iran threatened to end all support for Hamas if it left Syria, so Khaled Mashaal, the chief of the Damascus office, stayed along with a reduced staff. After a long silence, he endorsed Assad in late December, saying he had “supported the Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian people in every possible away.” Mashaal tried to tow a middle line by stating that he still supports democracy and “the rights of the peoples,” insinuating dissatisfaction with the regime’s oppression.

Hamas also reportedly fears Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Journalist Aaron Klein was told by “one of the most senior Hamas officials” that he privately hopes that Israel stops Iran from getting nuclear weapons, even if it means the use of military force. The leadership of Hamas is reportedly even debating not retaliating if Iran is attacked by Israel. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, however, remains in Iran’s back pocket.

There are indications that the Iranian-Syrian relationship is being tested. In September, Ahmadinejad surprisingly and hypocritically called on the Assad regime to end its crackdown, saying a “military solution is never the right solution.” He pressured the Syrian regime to undergo reforms in order to alleviate the crisis. At the same time, the Iranian regime reached out to a Syrian opposition group called the National Coordination Committee that is dead-set against foreign intervention. The group rejected Iran’s overtures. It appears as if Iran was pressuring Assad to cut a deal with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. In late October, Ahmadinejad tried to convince the Muslim Brotherhood to support Assad in exchange for having its representatives appointed to four high-level positions. Iran was turned down.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad visited his dear friend, Hugo Chavez, this week as his regime undertook another series of provocations. The Islamist and radical Marxist embraced, joined together by their ideologies’ common hostility to America. As Iran announces that it is enriching uranium at an underground facility designed for nuclear weapons production, it knows that Islamists aren’t its only allies.

Iran has been acting exceptionally aggressive lately, probably with the objective of causing oil prices to spike to counter the impact of international sanctions. President Obama approved sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank, resulting in a 20% drop in the value of the rial against the dollar. It appears that the European Union, which buys 17% of Iran’s oil exports, will agree to an oil embargo on January 23 when its foreign ministers gather in Brussels. Japan is also preparing for an embargo. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, enemies of Iran, are being asked to help by increasing their exports.

Iran started 2012 off loudly. It threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if an oil embargo is enacted, carrying out a 10-day war game to prove its ability to make good on its threats. Iran announced that it produced and successfully tested its first domestically-produced nuclear fuel rod and then tested a new medium-range surface-to-air missile.

It carried out another round of challenges to the West this week. Ahmadinejad visited Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ecuador to demonstrate Iran’s reach into Latin America through radical Marxist allies. Iran is looking to mine uranium from Venezuela and is reportedly constructing a medium-range missile base there. On Sunday, the U.S. expelled the Venezuelan consul general in Miami after undercover journalists recorded her entertaining a potential cyber terrorism plot against the U.S. The Iranian ambassador in Mexico was taped doing the same.

“Despite those arrogant people who do not wish us to be together, we will unite forever,” Ahmadinejad said as he stood next to Chavez. The two men repeatedly cracked jokes during their time together. Ahmadinejad said if they are building a nuclear bomb, then “the fuel of that bomb is love.”

Chavez pointed to a hill and said it “will open up and a big atomic bomb will come out.” He joked that Iran is helping a plant in Venezuela make an “atomic bicycle” and mockingly said Ahmadinejad is in “the axis of evil of Latin America.” Chavez defended Iran’s nuclear program and referred to their mutual enemies as “devils,” as he has in the past.

Ahmadinejad’s trip to Latin America coincides with several other actions meant to spit in the face of the West. Iran charged an American from Arizona named Amir Mirzaie Hekmati as a spy, which carries the penalty of death. He has 20 days to appeal the charge. Iran announced that its annual exercises simulating a battle over the Strait of Hormuz will happen in February. They are tellingly called “The Great Prophet.”

After decades of deranged and hateful commentary, Helen Thomas may have finally crossed a line that will cost her her job… (what IS her “job” anyway?)

RABBI DAVID NESENOFF, RabbiLive.com “…any comments on Isreal?”

THOMAS: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine…

NESENOFF: So where should they go, what should they do?

THOMAS: Go home

NESENOFF: Where is home

THOMAS: Poland, Germany…

Of course, as everyone but Thomas and Ahmadinejad knows, there were about 6 million Jews that were not given the opportunity to leave Poland and Germany in the first place…

Everyone has treated this arrogant and doddering hag with kid gloves for far too long.  This morning on Fox and Friends, the bubble-headed hosts treated Thomas’s anti-Semetic diatribe with a  ”How can she talk like this with a camera on?” blather.

Well, here is how Helen talks with the camera on when she’s had time to prepare:

Is anyone going to argue that Helen Thomas’s comments were less offensive than Jimmy the Greek’s infamous blather about black managers?

This old fool lasted about a day after these comments.  It’s time to tell Helen Thomas to go home– Oz isn’t the same without her.

TEHRAN, Iran -- The Iranian president on Tuesday demanded a strong U.N. Security Council resolution against Israel over its deadly raid on an aid flotilla bound for the blockaded Gaza Strip.

In a speech broadcast live on state TV, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on the Security Council to adopt a resolution that would "cut off" Israel's hands, thus preventing it from committing more "crimes."

At least nine people were killed when Israeli navy commandos raided the Gaza-bound flotilla Monday.

The U.N. Security Council called Tuesday for an "impartial" investigation of Israel's raid after an emergency meeting and marathon negotiations that lasted nearly 12 hours. It was weaker than what was initially demanded by the Palestinians, Arabs and Turkey.

"I ask the Security Council to keep the crimes of the Zionists on its agenda and to cut off their hands from committing crimes with a strong resolution," Ahmadinejad said during a provincial visit to town of Ilam, some 430 miles (700 kilometers) southwest of Tehran....

Ahmadinejad, who is known for his anti-Israel rhetoric, called Israeli commandos who rappelled onto the Gaza-bound flotilla "wild dogs" and criticizes Washington for its "weak and tendentious" stance in support of Israel.

He warned Israel against further raids on Gaza, saying that a "storm of anger from the nations of the region will uproot you."

One of the things I always marvel at is the lack of knowledge about current events that many journalists have, and how often reporters often don’t read about the things they are talking about. Case in point: The Washington Post’s Express Night Out’s summary of my May 13 post, “Stop Using the Nazi Card.”

In my post, I went after everyone that compared their political opponents to Nazis, except for cases like Ahmadinejad or people calling for genocide. There needs to be a much, much higher standard in the Western democracies as to when comparisons like this can be made. In effect, I was supporting comedian Lewis Black’s commentary on The Daily Show about Glenn Beck’s use of the Nazi card, although I complained that the left-wing wasn’t hammered enough for doing the same during the Bush years.

I was honored that Express Night Out thought my post was good enough to be covered in their May 14 issue here. Just one, tiny problem: They summarize my blog in this way:

“NewsRealBlog.com did not appreciate Lewis Black’s rant about talk show host Glenn Beck on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” on Wednesday night.”

Luckily, some people complained about this characterization of my post and then informed me about it. I am flattered that people rushed to correct them on my behalf without me having to ask anyone, or even knowing about it.

Now, on May 17, according to one NRB reader (hat tip to “Ipepac”), a correction has been posted on page 3 of the print edition of Express Night Out:

“An item in Friday’s Blog Log incorrectly characterized Newsrealblog.com’s reaction to a skit by comedian Lewis Black about the use of swastikas during an episode of Glenn Beck’s Fox News program. The author of the blog post agreed with Black’s comments about Beck’s show.”

We all mess up. I’ve done it. I don’t hold any grudge against Clinton Yates who wrote the original summary. I’m just using his forgivable error to make a larger point about a pattern among journalists I’m noticing.

It reminds me of when I was 19, and a reporter from a major but local newspaper came to do a profile on me. I talked about Syrian and Iranian support for the insurgency in Iraq.

She repeatedly asked, “Iran and which country?” After the interview, she called me the next day to ask which countries were involved again. By then, Syrian and Iranian support was widely discussed. She also asked me what an “insurgency” was, clearly never hearing the term before. And get this—she appeared to be Indian, one of the countries most familiar with insurgencies.

When the article came out, it was mostly fine, except there was one part where I was misquoted. I said the war in Iraq had sparked “the fire of democracy” in the region, and she wrote “the fire of terrorism.” Of course, it is possible I just misspoke but based on the other errors, I doubt it.

There are a lot of aspiring journalists out there and many are having difficulty finding jobs. Newspapers can afford to be pickier about who they hire.

Both Turkey and Brazil have grown much closer to Iran in recent years and have voiced their opposition to further sanctions. So it is not surprising that they have now come to the Islamic Republic’s rescue, handing it a lifeline on its nuclear program just as the Obama administration, after a year of failed diplomacy, had begun to contemplate the possibility of new sanctions.

Acting more as Iran’s advocates than neutral brokers, Turkey and Brazil worked out a deal whereby Iran would ship low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for higher grade nuclear material. But the deal does little to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment activities, which are now approaching the 20 percent threshold that is considered the prelude to an operational nuclear weapon. A senior Israeli official has rightly called the deal “an Iranian trick,” as it will not end Iran’s own enrichment efforts and comes just as Secretary Clinton says the U.S., Russia and China have agreed on a draft resolution to impose sanctions.

The nuclear deal is just the latest sign of Turkey and Brazil’s newfound closeness with Iran. President Lula da Silva of Brazil reacted to the Ahmadinejad’s highly suspect “victory” in last year’s presidential elections by saying, “What right do I have, or any president, to question the election results in Iran. It would be overly arrogant for Brazil, 12,000 kilometers away, to pass judgment on Iran’s elections. Nor would I want them to judge ours.” A few months later, Ahmadinejad said that the ties between Iran and Brazil have “no limits.”

This deal comes just as Secretary of State Clinton announced that the U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China have finally agreed on the potential sanctions to be placed on Iran. The punishments include an arms embargo, freezing the assets of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, intercepting suspected WMD-related shipments, and other restrictions on dealing with the regime. This deal threatens to reset those negotiations.

China is reacting positively to the deal in the hopes of using it to justify the delay of further action. Iran provides China with 11.4 percent of its crude oil imports, and their overall trade has doubled since 2005. The Iranian refusal to budge made it difficult for China to stand by the Islamic Republic’s side in the United Nations, but this latest maneuver will give them the excuse to call for more diplomacy. Avoiding sanctions is clearly the goal of the Brazilian President, who boasted, “Diplomacy emerged victorious today.”

The Brazilian President is technically right. Diplomacy was indeed victorious—but it was a victory for Iran, and not for the U.S. or anyone threatened by Iranian nuclear weapons capabilities. Whereas Russia and China were in a tricky spot due to Iran’s blatant refusal to work with the international community, the role has been reversed and now the U.S. is the one in a tricky spot.

“But if he accepts it, many of the urgent issues he has said will have to be resolved with Iran in coming months—mostly over suspected weapons work—will be put on hold for a year or more.”

The New York Times perfectly frames America’s new position. “Mr. Obama now faces a vexing choice. If he walks away from this deal, it will look like he is rejecting an agreement similar to one he was willing to sign eight months ago,” the newspaper wrote.

Giving Iran another year will allow the regime to better prepare for the day when sanctions may finally be placed upon them. One of the regime’s key vulnerabilities is that it has to import petroleum-based products, including 30 percent of its gasoline. Iran is moving fast to expand ten of its current refineries and build seven more, allowing them to produce twice as much gasoline in 2012. The Iranians have struck a $6.5 billion deal with a Chinese company to help make this happen.

If Iran ships out a large part of its uranium to Turkey, it will not significantly delay its pursuit of the ability to create a nuclear arsenal. It is true that Iran will lose some of their uranium stock, which they are already short on. However, while international pressure is alleviated, Iran can work on other aspects of the weapons program such as the ability to mount a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile. In the meantime, Iran can work to replenish its uranium stockpile from places like Zimbabwe, Venezuela, North Korea, possibly Burma, and through expanding production from its own uranium mine near Bandar Abbas, which they are still refusing to give the IAEA access to.

It is also important to remember that the deal does not stop Iran from enriching the uranium it keeps to 20 percent. David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security says that it would only take about six months to enrich the uranium from 20 percent to the bomb-grade level of 90 percent using 500 to 1,000 centrifuges. Iran currently has about 9,000 centrifuges, but only about 60 percent are said to be operating due to technical difficulties, probably courtesy of Western intelligence agencies.

This means that if this deal is enacted, Iran will still be enriching uranium to a level that will allow them to quickly create the fuel necessary for a nuclear bomb. The Iranians are openly expanding the number of their nuclear facilities, and likely have undeclared enrichment sites and stockpiles of uranium. The Syrians’ own nuclear program, which should be seen as an extension of Iran’s, and the planned opening of the Bushehr nuclear reactor in August further highlight the foolishness of relying upon this agreement to stop a nuclear-armed Iran from becoming a reality.

The Iranians’ best weapon in fighting the West has been the illusion that they can be dealt with diplomatically. Brazilian and Turkey have made this farce a reality. If the United Nations uses this latest deal as an excuse for inaction, the U.S. must immediately create a coalition that will place sanctions on Iran outside of the toothless organization’s framework.

It’s bad enough that mainstream conservatives like Gov. Sarah Palin and Erick Erickson have endorsed Ron Paul’s son Rand in Kentucky’s Senate race.  But now that two more major conservative leaders—Dr. James Dobson and Sen. Jim DeMint—have done the same, the Right should be very troubled by the mainstreaming of the Paul family’s near-total abandonment of America’s national defense.

In particular, both Pauls might as well be de facto press secretaries for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  The national defense page on Rand’s website only mentions Iran once, calling it “a serious threat” in this ad, but not saying what he’d do about it.  Campaigning for his father in 2008, however, Rand said that “our national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon,” (hat tip: Lisa Graas) and defended their pursuit of nukes, blaming America for tension between the two nations:

He [Ron] thinks the buildup for war with Iran’s already begun, and all the discussion of saying they’re responsible for a lot of these weapons—there haven’t been any congressional hearings, there’s been no [inaudible] knowledge other than people claiming these are Iranian weapons.

Unfortunately, the “people claiming” Iran is giving weapons to America’s enemies happen to be the Pentagon.  Given what we know both about Iran’s generosity with conventional weapons and their desire for nuclear ones, no politician can responsibly ignore the very real possibility that Iran would share whatever nuclear weapons it develops with jihadist groups.  That Rand downplays the threat is, at best, a sign of deadly naiveté.

The other point is, that Iran feels threatened because we got troops in Iraq, and we have troops in Afghanistan, and we don’t wanna say the guy isn’t a, I think, loose cannon, their president, but we don’t want to—we have to understand their perspective that they feel threatened.

Sure, that must be the answer—it can’t possibly have anything to do with Ahmadinejad’s stated desire to destroy Israel, his jihadist sympathies, or a good old-fashioned desire for power. Nope, they’re obviously terrified of the country that couldn’t even stand up for Iran’s disenfranchised voters, and the president who downplayed the Iranian threat on the campaign trail, who has bent over so far backwards to appease them that he released the “Irbil Five,” Iranian commanders responsible for hundreds of American deaths (presumably using those weapons that didn’t really come from Iran), and who didn’t object to Iran’s seat on the UN Women’s Rights Commission.

Rand is, of course, following in the footsteps of his crackpot father.  In 2007, Ron claimed that the U.S. government was going to manufacture a phony crisis that would give them an excuse to invade Iran. As Ace (of Spades HQ) observed, Ron had no problem suggesting “that the US will phony up a fake attack by Iran on our troops (probably killing Americans, as we may have done on 9/11) in order to have a pretext to bomb the mullahs,” ensuring that “if Iran actually does fire on American warships, his supporters will know it’s actually all a contrivance by the US government,” yet it’s completely beyond the pale to notice Paul’s flirtations with the 9/11 Truth movement?

In January 2008, Ron reacted to a confrontation between US and Iranian ships in the Strait of Hormuz by taking Iran’s side: “It reminds me of what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin. We went to war there, then, later on, found out there was a lot of false information.” At the time, Gov. Mitt Romney responded by noting that “Congressman Paul should not be reading as many of Ahmadinejad’s press releases.”

In his own words, Ron “wouldn’t do that much about” Iran getting nukes, and to rationalize that position, he has disgracefully told several lies on Iran’s behalf.  Allahpundit’s October 2009 deconstruction of Tehron Paul’s spin demands to be read in full, but here are a couple of the worst examples:

3. An excellent point: He notes that U.S. intel apparently knew about the secret Qom site even before the infamous 2007 NIE declaring that Iran had halted its weapons program was released. Not so excellent: The conclusion he draws from this, apparently, is that the Qom site is nothing to worry about rather than the much more likely conclusion that evidence of Iranian weaponization was withheld from the NIE in a politicized bid to deny Bush any reason to take military action against Iran. Oh, also? No mention here that classified portions of that very same NIE declared that Iran had an estimated 10 to 15 secret nuclear sites. How come, Doctor?

4. “What does the law say?” wonders our hero, declaring Iran innocent of any international violations. In fact, IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei acknowledged just this morning that Iran had broken the law. (In Paul’s semi-defense, this clip was recorded three days ago.)

5. He asserts that the IAEA has never found Iran’s nuclear program to be at fault, which (a) overlooks point 4 above and (b) ignores the fact that the IAEA has been credibly accused by western intel agencies — and not just America’s — of suppressing evidence that incriminates Iran in order to avoid military conflict. In fact, ElBaradei himself is an Iranian stooge of such longstanding that we’ve been writing about it since practically day one of Hot Air. The fact that even he’s been forced to get tough-ish is all the proof you need that Tehran’s in flagrant violation of its international commitments.

Prominent Republicans might have been drawn to Rand Paul’s candidacy out of a misguided infatuation with Washington “outsiders,” but by embracing them, they are also embracing something very different. Rand and his father represent nothing less than a rejection of the Right’s commitment to engaging and assessing the world as it really is, rather than as we would like it to be, and an embrace of the Left’s belief in appeasement and anti-Americanism.  If we abandon one of the last differences that remain between Right and Left—our moral fortitude & intellectual seriousness when it comes to protecting America from her enemies—we will have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are unworthy to resume the reins of leadership.  Once again, the words of an actual “true conservative” are worth repeating:

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.”

- Ronald Reagan

_____

Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College.  He also writes for the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was back in New York Monday, continuing his effort to intimidate and shame Barack Obama into dropping his policy of retaining first-strike capability against rogue states such as Iran. For 35 minutes at the UN, Ahmadinejad did his best impression of an anti-nuke crusader, working to eradicate these weapons for humanity's sake. Behind his peacenik façade (which is sure to take in many on the Left), however, lurks a reality that couldn't be more contrasting. [...]

This was the same Ahmadinejad, after all, who just weeks ago warned Israel not to attack the jihadists in Gaza who still shoot rockets into Israel and plot the destruction of the Jewish State: "An attack on Gaza would not make you mightier," he said, addressing the "Zionist entity," "and would not restore your damaged prestige. And you should know that an attack on Gaza will end your inauspicious and filthy life."

What could end Israel's "inauspicious and filthy life" except...a nuclear attack? [...]

Ahmadinejad mocked Obama's impotence, telling him in an April 7 address that, faced with Iran's nuclear program, American leaders who were "bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you."

And indeed, the thuggish Iranian president is probably right about that. Barack Obama's wrongheaded and weak policy of "engagement" has put a swagger in Ahmadinejad's step. Besides funding Hamas and Hizballah and egging on their genocidal intentions toward Israel, Iran is training the Taliban in Afghanistan in the most effective use of roadside bombs, and continuing to meddle in Iraq.

For all this we have one man to thank above all: Barack Obama. After a year of Obama's dogged wooing of the Iranian mullahs, his scandalous refusal to support the anti-regime protestors in Iran, and his abject failure to do anything effective to counter the Iranian nuclear program, which even his own Secretary of State now acknowledges is working toward developing nuclear weapons, the only thing the president has to show for his policy is an increasingly confident, belligerent and assertive Iran....

Read it all. And find out why Obama is acting this way in The Post-American Presidency.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was back in New York Monday, continuing his effort to intimidate and shame Barack Obama into dropping his policy of retaining first-strike capability against rogue states such as Iran. For 35 minutes at the UN, Ahmadinejad did his best impression of an anti-nuke crusader, working to eradicate these weapons for humanity’s sake. Behind his peacenik façade (which is sure to take in many on the Left), however, lurks a reality that couldn’t be more contrasting.

“The possession of nuclear bombs isn’t a source of pride,” Ahmadinejad intoned piously, sounding like a spokesman for Greenpeace. “It is disgusting and rather shameful. And even more shameful is the threat to use or to use such weapons, which isn’t even comparable to any crime committed throughout the history.”

And of course top on the Iranian President’s list of “disgusting” and “shameful” countries was Israel: “While the Zionist regime has stockpiled hundreds of nuclear warheads…it enjoys the unconditional support of the United States government and its allies and receives, as well, the necessary assistance to develop its nuclear weapons program.”

Referring to Obama’s reservation of first-strike capability, Ahmadinejad said that signers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty should consider “any threat to use nuclear weapons or attack against peaceful nuclear facilities as a breach of international peace and security,” and punish the offenders accordingly.

Delegates from the U.S., Britain and France walked out of the UN General Assembly during Ahmadinejad’s speech. Perhaps they didn’t relish having to sit through the absurd charade of a ruthless despot, the president of a country that gives aid to the jihad terror groups Hamas and Hizballah and yearns to wipe Israel off the map, being allowed to enter the United States and accuse it of being a terrorist state — all the while defending his nuclear program.

This was the same Ahmadinejad, after all, who just weeks ago warned Israel not to attack the jihadists in Gaza who still shoot rockets into Israel and plot the destruction of the Jewish State: “An attack on Gaza would not make you mightier,” he said, addressing the “Zionist entity,” “and would not restore your damaged prestige. And you should know that an attack on Gaza will end your inauspicious and filthy life.”

What could end Israel’s “inauspicious and filthy life” except…a nuclear attack?

These are favorite themes of Ahmadinejad’s public utterances. In mid-March, he declared: “Today, it is clear that Israel is the most hated regime in the world… It is not useful for its masters [the West] anymore. They are in doubt now. They wonder whether to continue spending money on this regime or not. But whether they want it or not, with Allah’s grace, this regime will be annihilated and Palestinians and other regional nations will be rid of its bad omen.”

How will Israel be “annihilated,” except by…a nuclear strike?

Iranian Major General Hassan Firouzabadi declared in early April: “If America presents Iran with a serious threat and undertakes any measure against Iran, none of the American soldiers who are currently in the region would go back to America alive.”

Not one? Not even one? How could the Iranians possibly accomplish that, except with…nuclear weapons?

Ahmadinejad mocked Obama’s impotence, telling him in an April 7 address that, faced with Iran’s nuclear program, American leaders who were “bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn’t do a damn thing, let alone you.”

And indeed, the thuggish Iranian president is probably right about that. Barack Obama’s wrongheaded and weak policy of “engagement” has put a swagger in Ahmadinejad’s step. Besides funding Hamas and Hizballah and egging on their genocidal intentions toward Israel, Iran is training the Taliban in Afghanistan in the most effective use of roadside bombs, and continuing to meddle in Iraq.

For all this we have one man to thank above all: Barack Obama. After a year of Obama’s dogged wooing of the Iranian mullahs, his scandalous refusal to support the anti-regime protestors in Iran, and his abject failure to do anything effective to counter the Iranian nuclear program, which even his own Secretary of State now acknowledges is working toward developing nuclear weapons, the only thing the president has to show for his policy is an increasingly confident, belligerent and assertive Iran.

It was good that the Americans left the General Assembly hall while Ahmadinejad was speaking Monday. Now they should back this up by changing course, and showing more spine in the face of Iran’s bullying. But there is no sign that that is going to happen.

Patron of world terrorism, financier of Hamas and Hizballah, accuses the U.S. of being a patron of world terrorism. "Ahmadinejad likely to stir sanctions debate with address at U.N. nuke summit," by Bridget Johnson for The Hill, May 2 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will stir the already stormy debate over sanctions on Iran's nuclear program when he pops in at the United Nations on Monday to address its nuclear nonproliferation conference.

Ahmadinejad's sudden intention to attend caught many by surprise, and comes on the heels of the Islamic Republic's vow last month to formally complain to the U.N. that President Barack Obama was threatening Iran.

What a ludicrous idea. I wonder if he himself believes it.

Before leaving Tehran on Sunday, Ahmadinejad gave a glimpse into the tone he would likely be taking into the U.N. "We have documents that prove [Washington] is the root of world terrorism," Ahmadinejad said in a speech Saturday, according to Iran's Press TV. "It has been aiding and abetting extremist groups over the past years."

Iranian media outlets reported Ahmadinejad saying that he was coming to the U.S. with the goal of global nuclear disarmament, criticizing the International Atomic Energy Agency for not reaching this goal and lamenting that nuclear weapons have posed "the single greatest threat" to the world for more than 60 years.

"I don't know what he's showing up for," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday on "Meet the Press."

"If Iran is coming to say we're willing to abide by the Non-Proliferation Treaty that would be very welcome news," Clinton said. "I have a feeling that's not what they're coming to do. I think they're coming to try to divert attention and confuse the issue."

What was your first clue?

Lawmakers had swiftly sounded off about the visit, admonishing Clinton to not allow Ahmadinejad in the country.

"This is preposterous, and allowing it to happen will make a mockery of the effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states and terrorist groups," a group of 14 Republican senators led by John Cornyn (Texas) wrote to Clinton on Friday. "There is simply no compelling reason for Ahmadinejad to be allowed to enter the United States."

In the lower chamber, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) led a similar yet bipartisan letter.

"Make no mistake: Ahmadinejad's attendance will make a mockery of a conference meant to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons," the lawmakers wrote. "...The U.S. must not allow this dangerous tyrant to use our freedoms and our obligations as a host country for the UN to force himself upon our country to spread his message of hate and violence."...

Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.) sent a letter to Obama on April 19 with 366 House signatures calling on the president to "fulfill your June 2008 pledge that you would do 'everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon'" and urging Obama to use whatever presidential powers at his means to impose "punishing measures" on Tehran.

The letter, to which Obama has not yet issued a response, according to Jackson's office late Friday, also asks the president to "rapidly" implement the sanctions legislation -- passed in December by the House and the following month by the Senate -- when it comes out of conference....

The desperate economic situation in Iran is causing workers to lose their jobs or go months without pay, pushing them into the opposition camp. On International Labor Day on May 1, Iranians demanding freedom and better treatment of workers while the regime’s cronies live rich and comfortable took to the streets. With the exception of the Los Angeles Times, the Iranians also had to fight an inattentive Western media unwilling to help them by providing coverage.

Recent protests, including the ones on May 1, have failed to reach the levels seen after Ahmadinejad’s election “victory” was declared. The Iranian regime is taking aggressive measures to prevent the opposition from organizing and protestors from linking together into one mass. The Internet was dramatically slowed down, as has been done during previous times of unrest in an attempt to limit the amount of video, pictures and news leaving the country.

I received an enormous amount of reports in the week leading up to May 1 about factory workers being laid off and being mistreated. It is clear that the industrial base of Iran is crumbling, with unemployment quickly rising and factories constantly going out of business. Only brute force and a lack of outside support are preventing nationwide strikes from taking place.

Ahead of the protests, opposition leaders Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi released a videotape calling on workers and teachers to unite with the opposition, arguing that those fighting for democracy and workers fighting for fair treatment share the same struggle. The regime is frightened that the Green Movement could encompass these causes, and so they went after the largest teachers’ union by sending its director and spokesperson to Evin Prison, the notorious holding location of political prisoners where torture is routine. Schools are often used by students to stage protests, and if teachers unite with them, the entire education system could shut down.

Ten labor organizations united to make 15 demands of the regime as International Labor Day drew near. The demands included wage increases, stopping Ahmadinejad’s plan to decrease government subsidies, the right to form independent organizations, and an end to capital punishment and child labor. The unions were joined by the Council of International Workers’ Day that had eight of their own demands, which included the release of political prisoners.

Both groups announced their solidarity with teachers and other workers and “all freedom-seeking social movements.” The workers, teachers, and political activists are trying to create a common front. Should they effectively organize, it could paralyze the regime.

On May Day, a crowd estimated to be about 4,000 strong gathered on Azadi Street in Tehran and began moving towards the Labor Ministry, which was protected by about 600 security forces and helicopters keeping watch. The protests would have been larger if the regime had not forced buses full of workers headed to Tehran to turn around.

According to the reports I received, at least 30 protestors were arrested. They were treated well by the shopowners who gave them with beverages, sandwiches and ice cream until they were attacked for doing so. One owner of an ice cream shop said that stores were being required to hang posters of Ayatollah Khamenei inside, and he had to close his shop for ten days for refusing to do it. Taxi drivers on Azadi Street went on strike and did not take any passengers and teachers protested near Khamenei’s office. One person in Tehran said “There were groups of young men in military clothes at the corner of every alley standing next to black vans” that were used to drive those arrested to prison.

There were also hundreds of protestors at the local Labor Ministry building in Tabriz in northwestern Iran and at least 20 were arrested. About 8,000 workers protested at a stadium in Qazvin in the northwest, with workers claiming that they had not been paid for seven months and some said they hadn’t gotten the bonuses due them since 2008. In Shiraz in the southern part of the country, about 3,000 workers protested near the governor’s office. The stories of the workers remained the same, with telecommunication employees saying they hadn’t been paid in over a year.

Clashes between demonstrators and security forces were reported in Tehran and Isfahan. At around 5 PM in Isfahan, workers and students are reported to have surrounded and attempted to seize a command center used by security forces that had to open fire in order to stop them. Three of the regime’s thugs are said to have been disarmed and sixteen protestors were hospitalized.

Hundreds of students protested at Tehran University as well. At Ferdowsi University in Mashhad, intense security was reported. Some students went on a hunger strike and some classes were cancelled because students refused to attend.

The opposition is gearing up for major protests on the June 12 anniversary of when Ahmadinejad was declared the election victor. There is no doubt that the regime is aware that the opposition plans big events for that day and will use all of its resources to contain and extinguish any demonstration. The events on this year’s Labor Day show that the workers, teachers, and pro-democracy activists are forging stronger links.

President Obama and all the leaders of the West need to give them momentum ahead of June 12 by pledging our support to them. Obama and other officials need to call on labor unions and humanitarian organizations to support the people of Iran by providing them with resources and setting up a fund so that workers can feed their families if they go on strike. The West should call on members of the government to resist calls to oppress their Iranian brothers and sisters.

Sanctions on every Revolutionary Guards entity need to be implemented, as requested by Mousavi’s spokesman. And Congress needs to pass a bill proposed by Senators McCain and Lieberman that will require the President to publish a list of Iranians engaged in human rights abuses so their names will be known to everyone and their assets frozen. The Iranian people are looking forward to taking on the regime on June 12, and we should be on their side.

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday warned the Zionist regime of Israel against any new attack on the Gaza Strip, cautioning that such a move would put an end to the life of the illegitimate regime.

Addressing a congregation of Iranian people in the country's northwestern city of Orumiyeh today, Ahmadinejad pointed to the recent media speculations about a possible Israeli attack on Gaza, and stated, "I want to warn the Zionists ...that you are making a mistake as you made mistakes in the past."

"Because an attack on Gaza would not make you (Zionists) mightier and would not restore your damaged prestige," Ahmadinejad added.

"And you (Zionists) should know that an attack on Gaza will end your inauspicious and filthy life," the Iranian president warned.

He also deplored supporters of the Zionist regime, and pointed out, "If you support the Zionist regime in its new crimes against the people of Gaza, Palestine, Lebanon or Syria, you should know that the nations of the region will blacklist your name."...

"What I want to say to the Zionists and their supporters is enough with the crimes. Do not make your load (of sin) even heavier than this," he said.

The president said "the myth of Israel's invincibility is over" and Israel is merely seeking to maintain its image as a dreadful power to preserve its existence.

"They had created the illusion in everyone's mind that they (the Zionists) is invincible. But that myth was shattered after the regime suffered two defeats, once in Southern Lebanon and later on in Gaza," Ahmadinejad said.

"Now, they are trying to compensate (those defeats), as they know that they will reach the end if they lose the awe attributed to them and if regional nations no longer fear them."

More bloody threats from Iran, more dithering and empty gestures from Obama: "Iran will not beg to avoid sanctions: Ahmadinejad," by Hashem Kalantari for Reuters, April 8:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's president said on Thursday he would not plead with opponents of Tehran's nuclear program in order to avoid sanctions as Russia and the United States said new measures might be necessary.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who Wednesday called President Barack Obama a nuclear-armed "cowboy", said Iran would "try to make an opportunity out of sanctions" rather than change its stance to avoid them.

"We do not welcome the idea of threat or sanctions, but we would never implore those who threaten us with sanctions to reverse their sanctions against us," he was quoted as saying by the official news agency IRNA.

Ahmadinejad was speaking as Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty in Prague. The two were "working together at the United Nations Security Council to pass strong sanctions on Iran," Obama said.

Medvedev said he was unhappy with Iran's stance over its nuclear program which the West believes is aimed at developing atomic weapons.

"Tehran is not reacting to a range of suggested constructive compromise agreements. We can't close our eyes to this. That is why I do not exclude that Security Council will have to examine this question again," Medvedev told reporters. [...]

"If America presents Iran with a serious threat and undertakes any measure against Iran, none of the American soldiers who are currently in the region would go back to America alive," Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency. [...]

"If America wants to have the region's oil and its markets then the region's markets would be taken away from America and the Muslims' control over oil would increase," he said, according to state broadcaster IRIB.