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....

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."

Obama keeps reaching out to Iran in friendship, and now the ridicule he is receiving in response is open and unrestrained. "Iran ridicules Obama's 'cowboy' nuclear strategy," by Ali Akbar Dareini for AP, April 7 (thanks to all who sent this in):

TEHRAN, Iran -Iran's hard-line president on Wednesday ridiculed President Barack Obama's new nuclear strategy, which turns the U.S. focus away from the Cold War threats and instead aims to stop the spread of atomic weapons to rogue states or terrorists. [...]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad derided Obama on Wednesday, depicting him as an ineffective leader influenced by Israel to target Iran more aggressively.

"American materialist politicians, whenever they are beaten by logic, immediately resort to their weapons like cowboys," Ahmadinejad said in a speech before a crowd of several thousand in northwestern Iran.

"Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended," Ahmadinejad said in the speech, aired live on state TV.

Ahmadinejad said Obama "is under the pressure of capitalists and the Zionists" and vowed Iran would not be pushed around. "(American officials) bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you," he said, addressing Obama....

Israel Apartheid Week hadn’t yet run its course when Israel came in for a barrage of hostile characterizations also from the Obama administration. In the same brief time span there was also Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—“The Zionist regime is the most hated regime in the world…. with Allah’s help, this regime will be annihilated.” All this came hard on the heels of a wave of international outrage, and violent attacks by Palestinians, over Israel adding shrines in Hebron and Bethlehem to a list of national heritage sites.

If it seems like a lot of negative attention for one small, constantly pressured country, it is. Reacting to an announcement by the Israeli Interior Ministry on plans to build 1600 housing units—for Jews (if they had been for Arabs, no one would have protested)—in Jerusalem, Vice-President Joe Biden, who was in Israel for a visit, reportedly told Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, “This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”

Netanyahu apologized and, by Thursday last week when Biden’s visit ended, apparently thought the matter had been handled. But on Friday,  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu and gave him a 45-minute harangue in which she told him, as State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley put it, that “the United States considered the announcement a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship,” that “this action had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process and in America’s interests,” and that “she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security.”

Further harsh remarks came from Obama adviser David Axelrod, who called the announcement about the residential units for Jews an “affront” and an “insult” and said it “seemed calculated to undermine” indirect Israeli-Palestinian talks—this after Biden had accepted Netanyahu’s explanation that the announcement was bureaucratic happenstance. And Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren received “the same message of American disapproval and outrage” from Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg—it being clear by now that the anger was being “managed” from the top, that is, by President Obama himself.

The totally unwarranted nature of this anger was well summarized in a Wall Street Journal editorial, which noted that “this particular housing project… falls within Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries and can only be described as a ‘settlement’ in the maximalist terms defined by the Palestinians.” Indeed, when in November Netanyahu announced a ten-month construction freeze in the West Bank that did not include any part of Jerusalem, Clinton praised the move as “unprecedented.” As the Journal concluded: “this episode does fit Mr. Obama’s foreign policy pattern to date: Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it’s Israel’s turn.”

Still, whatever slights and betrayals those countries have suffered, Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman was more on the mark when he stated, “We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States.” The United States could, for instance, well blame other NATO countries for sending only tiny, token forces to Afghanistan; or Germany for its ongoing thriving commerce with Iran. Yet such a public dressing-down of these allies as Israel gets for apartments in Jerusalem would be, of course, inconceivable.

What motivated the administration’s outburst? Speculations have focused on attempts to intimidate Israel out of attacking Iran; or to force Netanyahu to choose between his right-wing coalition partners and going along with the administration’s notion of a “peace process”—or even pressuring his government into a collapse. Neither aim would be logical: making Israel feel isolated and abandoned by the U.S. would increase the chances of a move against Iran; and the right to build in Jerusalem is not a “right-wing” but, rather, a consensus position in Israel that has a unifying rather than fragmenting effect.

Since the anti-Israeli rancor stems from Obama himself, speculation could also focus on his personal motives: an ongoing identification with Palestinian positions; poor personal chemistry with Netanyahu and an inclination to blame him; or, on a less personal basis, animosity toward Netanyahu as an Israeli leader who is perceived as “hard-line” and obstructing peace no matter how many concessions he makes; adherence to a mistaken belief that Middle East-wide instability stems from Israeli-Palestinian tensions; all or some of the above mixed with frustration at the difficulty of the “peace process” that Obama adopted so resolutely as a goal at the start of his term; or he could be motivated by whatever it is that makes the Jewish state the target of so much special malice and denigration.

Whatever stands behind this crisis, which Ambassador Oren has called “the worst with the U.S. in 35 years,” Netanyahu appears to be reacting at this point by holding his ground, having stated on Monday that “Construction in Jerusalem will continue in any part of the city as it has during the last 42 years…. In [that period], there was no [Israeli] government that limited construction in any Jerusalem area or neighborhood. Establishing Jewish neighborhoods did not hurt Jerusalem’s Arab residents and was not at their expense.”

Although Biden, in his speech in Tel Aviv on Thursday, spoke of “an ironclad commitment to Israel’s security,” for this administration that does not include refraining from further vilifying Israel at a time of obsessive worldwide opprobrium and existential danger. As Washington pushes Israel to the brink of losing its autonomy as a state, Netanyahu knows there is a limit, a point at which Israel will have to stand up for itself and look out for itself.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday warned Israel that initiating a new war in the Middle East would not save it from downfall. Speaking in the southern Iranian Province of Hormozagan, Ahmadinejad said that Israel was a Western prodigy that had now "reached the end of its road."

"See what has become of Israel. They [the West] gathered the most criminal people in the world and stationed them in our region with lies and fabricated scenarios. They waged wars, committed massive aggression... and made millions of people homeless," he told a crowd of supporters in the provincial capital, Bandar-Abbas.

"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," said Ahmadinejad.

"But whether they want it or not, with god's grace, this regime will be annihilated and Palestinians and other regional nations will be rid of its bad omen," he added, according to PressTV.

The Iranian leader noted that he did not believe that "even a new military conflict" could save the Israeli regime. "They think in their underdeveloped minds that if they launch another war against Lebanon or Syria it might help them survive a little longer. I am telling them that you are in a situation now that more aggressions or wars will not save you."

Ahmadinejad also advised the US and its allies to pull their troops out of the Middle East and stop "making mischief." "What are you doing in our region? Why are you deploying military forces here," he asked.

"If you think military deployment will help you seize the oil in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf, I must tell you that the young generation of the Middle East will cut your hands off from the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf," he added.

Spreading mischief, cutting hands: See Qur'an 5:32-33.

Iran's Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei met Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal Saturday and told him that the liberation of Palestine will only be achieved through further resistance.

"Palestine will be liberated through the Palestinian people's tough resistance and unity among jihad groups. Those who support Zionism will be shamefully ushered off the stage of history and departing with a tarnished image," Khamenei said during the meeting, which was also attended by Ahmad Jibril, secretary-general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Islamic Jihad Secretary-General Ramadan Shallah.

The three terror leaders arrived in Iran in order to participate in a conference supporting the Palestinians. On Thursday, they met in Damascus with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who said that Israel "was doomed" and urged them to remain alert to the possibility of an Israeli strike....

JERUSALEM -- The presidents of Iran and Syria on Thursday ridiculed U.S. policy in the region and pledged to create a Middle East "without Zionists," combining a slap at recent U.S. overtures and a threat to Israel with an endorsement of one of the region's defining alliances.

The Obama administration is trying to build an international coalition behind economic sanctions aimed at curbing Iran's uranium-enrichment program, which the United States and others fear is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. The United States also recently announced that it will send an ambassador to Damascus after a five-year absence, part of an effort to weaken Syria's relations with Iran and discourage the country's support for militant groups antagonistic to Israel.

But the message delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a joint news conference was sharp and spoke to a shared sense that Iran is gaining influence in the region despite U.S. efforts. Until the outcome of the broader struggle over Iran's nuclear program becomes clear, analysts here say, it is unlikely Syria will change direction -- or that progress can be made toward an Israel-Syria peace agreement.

The United States wants "to dominate the region, but they feel Iran and Syria are preventing that," Ahmadinejad said. "We tell them that instead of interfering in the region's affairs, to pack their things and leave."

Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier, spoke of Israel's eventual "demise and annihilation" and said the countries of the region could create a future "without Zionists and without colonialists."...

"Ahmadinejad Lauds Iran's Mightiness in Post-Revolution Era," from the Fars News Agency, February 6 (thanks to Mo):

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appreciated the Iranian nation for its resistance and vigilance against the enemies during the three decades after the victory of the Islamic Revolution. "The Iranian nation is now standing against the US more firmly, more powerfully, more revolutionarily and more vigilantly than 31 years ago and they will stand so (in future)," Ahmadinejad said, addressing a gathering of people here in Tehran on Saturday.

Referring to the fall of the former Pahlavi dynasty in 1978, he said the Iranian nation revolted 31 years ago not just to overthrow the cruel monarch but to stand against the arrogant powers and that Iranians have continued the same path of resistance all throughout these years.

Ahmadinejad further praised the Iranian nation for the power and vigilance it has displayed since the onset of the Islamic Revolution, and said that the people have succeeded in defusing all enemy plots in these years.

The Iranian Revolution (Also known as the Islamic Revolution, Liberty Revolution or 1979 Freedom Revolution or Enghel?be Esl?mi) refers to events involving the overthrow of Iran's monarchy (Pahlavi dynasty) under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and its replacement with an Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution. It has been called an event that "made Islam a political force ... from Morocco to Malaysia."...

If you happen to shop for your children’s school supplies at the neighborhood Target store, you can’t blame them if they have no idea what or where Israel is. That’s because Israel has effectively been wiped off this cute little globe.

That’s right. Israel is no-where to be found. In its place is the word ‘Palestine.’

The Israel free globe has been on sale at 1744 Target stores in 49 states for the last few weeks. It wasn’t until last Sunday that Target finally responded to numerous complaints and finally yanked the revisionist world globe.

Target’s customer relations spokesperson Amy Reilly originally stated that the error was due to the fact that there wasn’t enough space on the item for the word ‘Isreal.’ Which begs the question: How could ‘Palestine’ be entered into a space that was too small for the word ‘Isreal.’

This question will go unanswered. As will many other questions regarding anything to do with the anti-Israeli policy that has been in the norm since Obama took office.

Devrian Global Industries imported “tens of thousands” of these globes from China. When informed of Israel’s  banishment, chief merchandising officer Larry Fine  apologized.

“Obviously, it was a mistake. We obviously offended some people. Now we’re pulling them off the shelves.”

Not to worry. I’m sure Devrian Global Industries will be able to resell all the Israel-free globes. In Iran, for instance, where Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed to wipe Israel off the map.

Intensely focused on his socialist legislative rampage at home, President Obama doesn’t seem too interested in foreign policy at all.

Perhaps that’s why he’s asleep at the wheel regarding Iran. He hasn’t offered much encouragement to those pro-Western elements in Iran who would like to overthrow the evil, murdering theocratic regime. He hasn’t done anything about Iran’s effort to acquire nuclear arms. He hasn’t offered encouragement to Israel whom Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed to wipe off the map. He hasn’t pressed Iran to stop supporting terrorist organizations and outlaw regimes.

Basically, President Obama’s done nothing about Iran. It’s not that he’s pro-Iranian: He simply doesn’t care. There are no votes for him in Iran — unless the vote-manufacturing enterprise known as ACORN chooses to open branches there. (How about it, Wade Rathke?) To Obama, radically transforming America is far more important than protecting America from threats abroad.

Glenn Beck expressed his concern about President Obama’s Iran policy –if one can even call it that– on his TV show. He noted that Ahmadinejad “announced Iran will deliver a ‘telling blow’ to global powers on February 11 (the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution)” and this week succeeded in launching a rocket into outer space.

But technically, if Iran can send a missile up into space and have it explode, it could shut down our electronics; that would do more damage to us than any conventional bomb ever could. Imagine the chaos if an EMP [electromagnetic pulse] bomb took all of our computers, phones, TVs, lights and flipped them off? America would be out of business.

Ahmadinejad gave a speech at the UN in September in which he said, “Hasten the return of Imam al-Mahdi.” According to Beck he was referring to the 12th Imam. Added Beck

The “12ers” believe that the Mahdi, or 12th Imam, will soon return. This is end times, stuff. They are different than most Muslims because they believe that the return needs to be hastened. It’s not a good idea to hasten the return of the Chosen One, because to do that, the world has to be in chaos, carnage and even genocide — so the Messiah comes and brings peace. “12ers” are so dangerous that at one point the Ayatollah Khomeini banned them. So when President Ahmadinejad says he wants to vaporize Israel, he’s not just trying to trick people; it’s not a power bluff. He thinks he’s fulfilling prophesy by doing that. He thinks he’s the John the Baptist for the coming of the Messiah.

The ”12ers” believe “we — the U.S. — are the antichrist,” he said. The “12ers” believe world must bathe in blood to hasten the return of the promised one. “And when the Mahdi comes, he will set up a global government in Babylon with one religion and they will kill non-believers,” Beck said.

These are the dangerous fanatics President Obama doesn’t give a damn about.

Well, maybe not Armageddon. But certainly this represents an uptick in the saber-rattling from the Thug-In-Chief.

"'Iran will deliver telling blow to global powers on Feb. 11,'" from PressTV, February 1 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the nation will deliver a harsh blow to the "global arrogance" on this year's anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.

"The Islamic Revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race, which was trapped in the dead ends of materialism," Ahmadinejad said during a cabinet meeting on Sunday.

"If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles," he added.

Ahmadinejad said that in the three decades of its history, the Islamic Revolution had inspired some great developments in the world....

Yeah, like...Hamas!

If only we had a politician in America who was this honest and forthright. "During visit, Berlusconi draws parallel between Ahmadinejad and Hitler," by Nir Hasson for Haaretz, February 2 (thanks to Pamela):

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi drew a connecting line yesterday between his visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, the Iranian nuclear program, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and calls for Israel's destruction.

"We must watch out," the visiting premier said. "We've already had one such madman in history."

Berlusconi also said his great dream is for Israel to join the European Union.

Speaking at a welcoming ceremony hosted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shortly after his arrival in Israel, the Italian leader said he would like to his visit produce "a shared commitment to work together for the future."

"I hope that all of us together can look forward to a future of prosperity, and mostly of peace for your people, whose existence is still doubted by someone whom we all wish to oppose," he added.

And by some who should be opposed more energetically than they are.

In response to the Italian leader's statement, Netanyahu said that "Rome and Jerusalem laid the foundations of Western civilization. Thus it is important for Italy and Israel to stand beside each other, determined to defend our future and our cultures."...

President Barack Obama's national security adviser cited on Friday a heightened risk that Iran will respond to growing pressure over its nuclear program by stroking violence against Israel.

The adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, said history shows that when regimes are feeling pressure they can lash out through surrogates.

He said that in Iran's case that would mean facilitating attacks on Israel through Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran helps arm Hezbollah and Hamas....

Also in September, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed to keep supporting the Palestinian militant group Hamas until the "collapse of Israel."

The Iranian news agency Khabar quoted Ahmadinejad as telling Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh that Iran views the support of the Palestinian people as part of its religious and national duty and that Iran will stand behind the Palestinian nation "until the big victory feast which is the collapse of the Zionist regime."

"Stop the Trial of Geert Wilders: A Dutch court is forced to compare Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' and the Quran," by Leon De Winter in the Wall Street Journal, January 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):

[...] More importantly, Mr. Wilders's prosecution may in the end inadvertently create a crisis between the Netherlands and the Islamic world. On trial is not so much Geert Wilders, but the Holy Book of Islam. On Jan. 20, the first day of the case, Mr. Wilders's defense team presented the court with a list of expert witnesses. It is indicative of his strategy. The expert witnesses, a group of internationally renowned academics on the one hand and, on the other, radical Islamists (among them Mohammed Bouyeri, the killer of Theo van Gogh, and the influential Iranian Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, an outspoken anti-Semite and religious mentor of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinedjad), are requested to testify about the Quran's message and Mr. Wilders's comparison of the Quran to "Mein Kampf." As Mr. Wilders stated on the first and, so far only, session in court, if his statements about the Quran and "Mein Kampf" are correct, he cannot be convicted for telling the truth. So Mr. Wilders's defense team will concentrate on the extreme and violent paragraphs in the Quran, and compare them to paragraphs in "Mein Kampf."

The prosecution did not object to calling the witnesses for the purpose of shedding light on the Quran and "Mein Kampf" and only objected to the high number of witnesses named (17). The court will thus most likely allow most witnesses on the list to testify. Without doubt, there are many anti-Jewish remarks in the Quran. According to some researchers, there may be more of these in the Quran than in "Mein Kampf." So it is quite conceivable that the court will judge that Geert Wilders was within his right to compare the Quran to "Mein Kampf." Anything is possible in this absurd trial....

"Late cleric's son warns of more Iran turmoil: report," from Reuters, January 2:

BERLIN (Reuters) - Iran's rulers must compromise with opposition figures to avoid a worsening of the political turmoil, the son of the late dissident cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri said in comments released on Saturday.

In an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, Said Montazeri said he hoped Iran's rulers would come to their senses and called on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to resign.

"Things can't go on for long like this," Montazeri was quoted as saying in an interview conducted by mobile phone from his home in Qom. It was unclear when the interview took place.

"I think the future structure of our society is not so important. It could be an Islamic Republic, a secular republic, or as far as I am concerned, even a monarchy. The main thing is that people can live in freedom and in prosperity," he said. Anti-government protests have flared repeatedly since a disputed presidential election last June, throwing Iran into its most serious internal crisis in the Islamic Republic's 30-year history....

"Denmark: Muslim leaders criticized for meeting Ahmadinejad," from AFP, December 23 (thanks to Maxwell):

Several politicians in Denmark have criticized local Muslim clerics for meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the sidelines of the climate conference in Copenhagen.

"They should have at least distanced themselves from a regime that imprisons its citizens and punishes students for being homosexuals," said Martin Henriksen, a spokesperson for the Danish People's Party. (AFP)

Yeah, they should've.

An update on this story. "Mom of US hiker in Iran pleads to supreme leader," by Patrick Condon for AP, December 18:

MINNEAPOLIS -- The mother of one of three American hikers jailed in Iran appealed to the Islamic Republic's supreme leader on Friday to release her daughter and her friends for the holidays, according to a new video.

It's been almost five months since the three were taken captive in Iran for allegedly straying across the country's border and almost two months since their families have had any word on their condition.

"Sarah, Shane and Josh are good people," Nora Shourd of Oakland, Calif., said in the video posted on a Web site dedicated to freeing the three. "They meant no harm to the Islamic Republic of Iran and respect your ancient and noble civilization. If they entered Iran, it was an innocent mistake."

The families have previously pleaded for their release to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but Friday's video was the first public outreach to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is Iran's highest-ranking political and religious authority.

"We're saying it's the holidays, please be compassionate and send them home," Shourd told The Associated Press on Thursday....

“We overthrew a dictatorship only to go from bad to worse,” said Mansour Farhang, a prominent figure in the early Islamic Republic of Iran who now serves as a professor at Bennington College.

Farhang was speaking at a Columbia University conference held on December 12^th entitled, “Iran After the Election”. Green shirts and scarves, symbols of the Iranian opposition, permeated the audience of some 250 people that filled the sterile Altshul auditorium. Attendees included Iranian expatriates, prominent experts of the field, students, and members of the general public.

The conference served to highlight the leftist politicization of Middle Eastern studies. With a few notable exceptions, the panels’ academics drew moral parallels between the Islamic Republic’s policies and those of the Bush and Obama administrations and encouraged an acquiescent American foreign policy in the face of Iran’s nuclear program.

Columbia professors Richard Bulliet and Hamid Dabashi made it clear from the onset that there would be no attempt at academic objectivity. They opened the conference by criticizing Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger, as “incredibly irresponsible” for having had the audacity to publicly chastise Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he came to Columbia two years ago.

Dabashi oversaw the conference’s first panel entitled, “The Aftermath of the Election.”  It included Asef Bayat of Leiden University, Ervand Abrahamian of Baruch College, and Shalha Talebi of Arizona State University. Bayat and Abrahamian, to their credit, chose to focus on the Iranian elections and not on foreign policy.

Bayat recalled how the expectations of many of the 1979 revolutionaries were dashed as they watched the government they had fought for go through a “spring of freedom” only to become an authoritarian theocracy. He argued that the “Post-Islamist” Green opposition movement seeks to “rescue [Shi’a Muslim] faith from the pollution of the Islamic state.”

Arabrahamian, whom Dabashi introduced as “perhaps the most distinguished scholar in our field,” compared the intimidation tactics of the current Iranian government to those of the worst dictatorial regimes in history, saying, “the [Iranian] horror stories here dwarf those of the Stalinist and Maoist periods.”

Talebi addressed her remarks to disjointed societal and political issues in Iran. She criticized Abrahamian and Bayat for “only talking about [the crimes of] Stalin and Mao and forgetting about our country, and the Western countries.” She then asked rhetorically, “What about Hitler? What about Nixon?…What about Palestine?”

When a member of the audience voiced his frustration over Talebi’s refusal to stay on subject, Dabashi attacked him.

“I’m the moderator,” Dabashi said.

“Then moderate,” the audience member replied.

Dabashi then went on a long tirade, ending with, “I won’t be the last oriental boy to be told [what to do] by a white guy!”

The following panel was supposed to address Iran’s “International Challenges”, but soon descended into an attack on America’s Middle Eastern policy under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Panel moderator Gary Sick, a former advisor to President Jimmy Carter, offered a contemporary version of the same docile Carter-era policies that provided a major catalyst for the fall of the pro-American Shah and the rise of the Islamic Republic.

Professor Farideh Farhi of the University of Hawaii suggested that all that America has done in the region has been detrimental to the Iranian people and that the US should “take a few months off [from its involvement in the Middle East] and see what happens.”

Former CIA Agent Judith Yaphe attempted to appease her peers by criticizing the Bush Administration even more forcefully than her co-panelists had. It is indicative that Sick, as the panel’s moderator, felt obligated to tell Yaphe that serving as a CIA agent is “not something to be ashamed of.”

The final panel, entitled “Appraising the Life of the Republic”, was the most engaging and informative of the day, though it still had its share of unsubstantiated claims.

Panel members included Farhang, the Islamic Republic’s first ambassador to the United States, who resigned because of Ayatollah Khomeini’s intransigence during the hostage crisis.

Bulliet of Columbia, another member of the panel, drew parallels between the Islamic and American Revolutions and argued that in its Khomeini-era manifestation the Islamic Republic may have been truly democratic.

“In all fairness, one has to recognize the first three decades of any regime leaving a totalitarian system are fraught with all sorts of problems,” Bulliet said, subsequently comparing Thomas Jefferson’s attempts to try his Vice President, Aaron Burr, as a traitor to the leaders of the Islamic Republic and their Revolutionary Courts conspiring to execute thousands of Iranian dissidents.

Even Farhang could not stomach Bulliet’s statement that Khomeini’s Iran was not totalitarian, responding that “Khomeini was an absolutist,” a “tyrant,” and “more of a Communist than a Shi’a [Muslim].”

Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet of the University of Pennsylvania offered a thoughtful, dispassionate speech, addressing the historic roots of the Islamic Republic and the opposition movement.

Houchang Chehabi of Boston University gave a thought-provoking, humorous assessment of the place of ethnic and religious minorities in the Islamic Republic. Talking directly to his largely Iranian audience, he mocked the notion that Iranians are innately tolerant people because, “Cyrus [the Great] freed the Jews 2,500 years ago.”

Chehabi spoke bluntly about the persecution of Iran’s Baha’i minority, giving examples of crimes, including murders, which have never gone to trial because the victims were Baha’i. He then addressed the biases of “leftist academics” who are “apologists” for the Islamic regime. He chastised these academics’ hypocrisy in ignoring “the deep contacts that [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad has with fascists in Europe,” and said that “perhaps prejudice [runs] as deep among the leftists as among the Islamists.” Chehabi’s remark about “leftist academics” was perhaps the most pertinent of the conference, because it challenged many of his co-panelists’ overriding assumption that the policies they espouse are in the best interest of the Iranian people.

Dabashi’s outburst and many of the panelists’ condescension towards America’s role in the region are indicative of the increasing politicization of the field of Middle Eastern studies. This trend threatens to undermine open discourse in university classrooms and to confound government policymakers who would seek out academics for objective information on a complex region.

Brendan Goldman is a senior at New York University majoring in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, and an intern at the Middle East Forum. This essay was sponsored by Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Comic relief -- except that he is serious. "Ahmadinejad Reportedly Claims U.S. is Blocking Return of Mankind's Savior," from FoxNews, December 7 (thanks to James):

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims the United States is attempting to thwart the return of mankind's savior, according to reports from Al Arabiya, a television news station based in Dubai.

Ahmadinejad reportedly claims he has documented evidence that the U.S. is blocking the return of Mahdi, the Imam believed by Muslims to be the savior.

"We have documented proof that they believe that a descendant of the prophet of Islam will raise in these parts and he will dry the roots of all injustice in the world," Ahmadinejad said during a speech on Monday, according to Al Arabiya.

"They have devised all these plans to prevent the coming of the Hidden Imam because they know that the Iranian nation is the one that will prepare the grounds for his coming and will be the supporters of his rule," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying....

The decade-long attempt to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons may have entered the final round on Sunday when Iran announced to the world it intended to build ten new uranium enrichment sites.

“This is really a statement of defiance,” a former senior Israeli atomic official told The Wall Street Journal, “telling the world we are going to go ahead with our nuclear program.”

The Iranian government’s statement came only two days after the world’s major powers condemned Iran’s nuclear program, which, despite Iranian denials, is believed to be producing nuclear weapons. China and Russia joined the United States, France, Britain and Germany to support an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution ordering Iran to stop construction on the uranium enrichment plant near Qom, a secret facility whose existence President Obama revealed last September.

Due to the international criticism, Iranians are now threatening to pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and reduce cooperation with the IAEA, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog. North Korea is the only other country ever to have pulled out of the treaty.

According to news reports, the Iranian decision to thumb their nose at the U.N. and world opinion and construct new nuclear fuel refinement facilities was made Sunday evening at a cabinet meeting chaired by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad. The Iranians will start work on five of the new sites within two months and at an unspecified future time on the remaining five.

It is believed the reason for the extra facilities is to allow Iran to build more nuclear bombs. One military analyst says U.N. weapons inspectors and the U.S. Department of Defense are of the opinion Iran currently has enough enriched fuel for one nuclear weapon. Iran would like to have several more in order to present itself as a “credible threat.”

The Iranian announcement signals a defeat for President Obama’s ‘soft’ approach towards the Islamic Republic’s leadership. In an interview with Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite television network last January, Obama said Iran’s leaders would find the extended hand of diplomacy if they “unclenched” their fists.

“As I said in my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,” Obama said.

But as early as March there were already signs that Iran was in no mood to unclench and drop the rock it was holding in the form of its nuclear weapons program. That month, President Obama released a video, wishing the Iranians a happy New Year, which, in Iran, falls on the first day of spring. In return for his friendly overture, the American president received from the Iranian government nothing but a demand for apologies for America’s past transgressions, real or imagined, against Iran.

Sunday’s statement simply proves what most have suspected all along: One cannot talk to the Iranian leaders and that they are simply stringing out negotiations to complete their nuclear arms program. And the fact the Iranians still celebrate the 1979 American embassy seizure every November, a flagrant and criminal breach of international law, shows they do not want to talk to the United States in particular and are still willing to flout international norms.

Essentially, Iran’s leaders are religious fanatics who believe they have been chosen by God to establish a Shiite hegemony over the majority Sunni Islamic world and then, hopefully, over the whole planet. Of the world’s one billion Muslims, about 220 million are minority Shiites, of whom the largest number, about 62 million, live in Iran. Pakistan contains the next largest community of Shiites at 33 million, while India is third with 30 million and Iraq fourth with 18 million.

Iran’s mullah regime sees possessing nuclear weapons as instrumental to its plans for world domination. Nuclear arms would also add significant muscle to Iran’s security in a part of the world where any sign of weakness or vulnerability could be dangerous. Iranians have not forgotten how Iraq took advantage of Iran’s revolutionary turmoil to launch a devastating eight-year war against it in 1980. And like Russia with its former Eastern European satellites, Iran would also use nuclear weapons to intimidate weaker neighbors.

The Asia Times columnist, Spengler (a literary pseudonym), gives another reason why Iran is not afraid to seek confrontation over its nuclear weapons program. Iranian demographics have sunk to West German levels of about 1.6 children per woman, which would make waging a war in 20 years impossible. Iran currently has enough young men to embark on a military adventure, whether internally for nuclear weapons acquisition or externally against the Sunni world, while in twenty years it won’t.

Iran’s heavily-subsidized economy is also imploding. Like Argentina with its 1982 Falkland Islands’ invasion and Germany in 1939, economically it is now or never for Iran to make a grab for the ring. In a year’s time it may be too late, especially if oil prices drop dramatically again. Besides, again like Argentina, a military adventure would probably cause those Iranian people actively opposed to the regime to put aside their economic and political grievances and rally around the country’s leadership in nationalistic pride.

But if Iran wants a fight, it will most likely get one. The Islamic regime’s Holocaust-denying leadership has openly stated it wants to erase Israel from the map. Facing such a naked threat to their country’s existence, one military publication states the Israelis are now openly discussing using a missile attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. While Israel’s Jericho missiles can carry nuclear warheads, they also can be equipped with a conventional warhead. An attack by Israeli warplanes is also a possibility.

The Israelis already have American backing for such a strike if negotiations fail, as they appear to have. American Vice-President Joe Biden said in an ABC interview last July America would not prevent an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. And since the only other option would be a nuclear-armed Iran, the Israelis will now likely ensure this last round ends in a knockout.