On Wednesday, Miami-based El Nuevo Herald reported that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had been admitted to a military hospital on Tuesday, with possible signs of “kidney failure requiring dialysis,” according to one of two sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. The first source also characterized Chavez’s condition as “quite serious,” while the second claimed he was “in bad shape” when he left the presidential palace on his way to the military hospital. Venezuelan authorities have adopted a policy of strict secrecy concerning the condition of Chavez, and the president himself called the state television early Thursday to assure the country that he was fine. ”I am doing well,” Chavez claimed. “There are a group of people who continue to launch rumors.”

Chavez had returned to Venezuela a week ago last Thursday after what he described as his fourth and ostensibly last round of chemotherapy in Cuba. Chavez also claimed that recent medial tests show he is cancer free. The president has never revealed the type of cancer he has, but he did admit that that tumor he had removed back in June was the “size of a baseball,” and that he was in intensive care following six hours of surgery. The tumor had been discovered following an initial operation on June 10th for the removal of a pelvic abscess. Doctors began to suspect the Venezuelan leader had other problems, and subsequent tests ”confirmed the presence of an abscessed tumor with the presence of cancerous cells, which made necessary a second operation that allowed for the complete extraction of the tumor,” Chavez said at the time.

Oncologists contacted by El Nuevo Herald speculate, based on the data available, that Chavez may have colon cancer. But there are doubts regarding the accuracy of information being provided, due to the fact that Chavez is determined to project an image of someone who is in recovery. Venezuela’s Information Minister Andres Izarra attempted to reinforce that image late Wednesday when he challenged the Spanish-language sister publication of the Miami Herald’s description of Chavez’s condition. A Twitter message stated, “Who they have to admit are the reporters of Nuevo Herald, but into an asylum.”

Chavez himself echoed that statement. “I’m fine,” he said by telephone. “I’m here in my place of work and working,” adding that “I’m going to completely get out of this soon.” He then offered further reassurance to the Venezuelan people. “I would be the first…to communicate any difficulty in the process. None beyond the normal has come up,” Chavez declared.

Other reports paint a different picture. Fox Latino reported that doctors are considering transferring Chavez to the private Hospital Clinicas Caracas, where he could be better treated for renal problems described as aplastic anemia, a condition in which the body’s bone marrow fails to make enough new stem cells which develop into red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. It can be fatal. Furthermore, Roger Noriega, former U.S. ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), citing his own sources within Venezuela, is convinced that the president is indeed in serious condition and “not improving like his doctors had hoped.” Noriega addressed the other obvious concern. “This means we should start to think, and we should prepare for a world without Hugo Chávez,” he said.

The death toll from the Bashar Assad regime’s violent suppression of the Syrian uprising is now up to 800 and is likely to jump significantly during Friday’s protests. At least 10,000 have been detained, taking up so much space that soccer stadiums are being used as prisons. Now, the Interior Ministry has given a final warning to all who have protested: turn yourself in by May 15 or face serious consequences.

The regime claims that 1,083 protesters have given in to the threat. Those that admit to taking part in the demonstrations are given amnesty if they sign a pledge to never join activities that undermine the government. The regime is also warning that it will not tolerate any protests that it does not authorize in advance.

At the same time, Assad is trying to make it seem as if he is willing to change and respond to the demands of the Syrian population. Just recently he said he is giving orders to his security services not to fire upon protesters during the Friday protests, but he has yet to even admit that his forces have done so in the past. His regime claims that it is fighting Salafist terrorists and gangs and that these foes are the ones firing upon protesters, not government personnel. This declaration by the regime that it will not fire on civilians is a repetition of the lies it has been telling all along.

The regime has announced it will hire 10,000 university graduates every year, and it earlier lifted the state of emergency, a meaningless concession that changed nothing. It also says that a committee reviewing election laws will propose reforms within two weeks, including allowing political parties other than the ruling Baathists to participate. This is also a deceitful tactic, as the regime knows it can use fraud and intimidation to make the results whatever it wishes. It is also setting up a pro-regime Islamist party under the direction of a close friend of Assad as part of this some appeasement game.

At least 24 people have been killed in the past two days alone, including 13 in Hara where tanks shelled four homes. The military is carrying out sieges instead of direct assaults on troublesome areas of the country. The expulsion of journalists from these areas allows the regime to limit the flow of information, and the siege forces the population into submission without massacres that cause internal and international backlash. For example, the regime claims its military has withdrawn from Daraa, but residents consistently report that there is a humanitarian disaster in the city, with citizens unable to access food, water, electricity, medicine and communications.

The story is the same in Homs, Jassem, Banias and other cities. Tanks are now circling the town of Hama, the city that Assad’s father massacred in 1982 when the Muslim Brotherhood revolted. The regime is particularly concerned about the unrest in areas in and around Damascus. Its Allawite “shabeeha” militia has attacked civilians in the Midan area of the capital, and large raids have been carried out in the nearby town of Zabadani, with at least 80 arrested. Tanks also entered Madaya, 40 kilometers northwest of Damascus, and residents report their communications being cut off. In the Saqba suburb of Damascus, 286 people were arrested in house-by-house searches.

A potential agreement brokered by the Gulf Cooperation Council between Yemen’s embattled President Ali Abdullah Saleh and his opponents was rejected on Sunday pending substantial alterations to the pact. Now, with chances for a peaceful resolution to the crisis fading, fears are growing in Washington and Saudi Arabia that Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) will have even more freedom to carry out attacks against America and its allies. Perhaps most troubling of all, a quick end to the chaos may result in a government that is unwilling to cooperate with the United States in its battle against AQAP terrorists, who are based in Yemen’s northern provinces bordering Saudi Arabia.

The putative agreement negotiated by the Saudi-led GCC would have required Saleh to leave office in 30 days, transferring power to his Vice President in exchange for the legislature passing a measure that would have given the president and his family immunity from prosecution.

But the opposition — the Joint Meeting Parties or JMP — while agreeing in principle to the outline of the deal, has rejected some of the details. The agreement calls for protestors to cease their demonstrations immediately — something the opposition parties sensibly protest is beyond their power. There is a large and influential youth movement that dominates the Yemeni streets and they say they won’t leave until Saleh is out of power. “This is the most productive solution for the Joint Meeting Parties, not for us,” says Adel al-Surabi, a leader of Sanaa’s opposition youth movement.

But the level of distrust for Saleh’s motives is so high that it has resulted in other elements of the pact being rejected, including a stipulation that the parliament, dominated by Saleh’s party, would have the option of accepting or rejecting the president’s resignation. The bottom line is that no one can be sure that Saleh won’t find a way to finagle his way into somehow staying in power. Thus, the death knell for the GCC agreement.

This is bad news for Saudi Arabia who greatly fears the unrest on its border. Last month, the Kingdom announced the arrest of more than 100 suspected terrorists, many of them from Yemen. The terrorists were plotting to blow up key oil installations and other sensitive targets. The arrests were made after an investigation that grew out of a shoot out on the Yemen border where two militants were killed. According to information released by the Saudis, several of the terror suspects were in email contact with AQAP, and were in the initial stages of plotting to attack economic and security targets.

The Saudis have a direct stake in finding a peaceful outcome in Yemen. But America’s interest in guiding Yemen out of this morass toward stability is no less urgent. For 15 years, President Saleh has successfully parlayed America’s desire to fight terrorism into aid for his regime and a hammer that he could use against the opposition. Many in Yemen wonder just how serious the al-Qaeda threat truly is, as Saleh has used terrorism as an excuse to undertake several crackdowns on those wanting democratic change. And while Saleh is considered a strong ally in the war on terror, a debate has raged in Washington for years about his real value, given his autocratic nature and his less than persistent efforts to attack the terrorists ensconced in the mountainous Northern provinces.

Nevertheless, Saleh has allowed our drones to attack al-Qaeda targets, given permission for special forces to train Yemeni counterterrorism units, and gone over to the offense in the battle against AQAP. All of this is now by the boards as Saleh has retrenched and withdrawn his army and the counterterror forces, concentrating them around the capitol of Sanaa. He has also forbidden drone strikes. This has given AQAP the opening it needed and the terrorists have now moved into towns and villages, filling the void left by the army and police.

Amir Abbas Fakhravar, 35, is a “graduate” of the infamous Evin prison in Tehran.  His friendly and youthful exterior hides a painful period of torture and isolation for five years – including 8 months in solitary confinement. When you ask Amir about his state of mind following his harrowing experience, he shrugs his shoulders saying “they broke my wrist, my knee, and few bones, but never broke my spirit.”

Fakhravar arrived in the U.S. four years ago and found no coherent voices speaking for the Iranian opposition movement.  “I thought that the Iranian opposition had an organization here, but nothing existed in 2006.” And when he gathered some of the opposition figures, he quickly learned that they had little information about the real situation in Iran.  Even more dismaying, according to Fakhravar, was the ignorance of U.S. policy makers regarding Iran.

With mentoring from Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration (1981-1987), and currently a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and critical help from Philadelphia’s Craig Snider, who has dedicated himself to fight for freedom and democracy for the Iranian people, Fakhravar established the Iranian Freedom Institute (IFI).

The Iranian Freedom Institute – a Washington DC based think tank, has set its goal to inform and educate American policy-makers, and the public in general, on the real state-of-affairs inside Iran.  Utilizing the latest technology, the IFI hopes to influence U.S. policy towards Iran, and simultaneously, educate the freedom-loving people of Iran who are living under a brutal dictatorship.

Affiliated with the IFI is the Confederation of Iranian Students (CIS) – created by Fakhravar and Arzhang Davoodi, a teacher, writer and the co- founder of Confederation of Iranian Students (who also spent six years in Islamic Republic jails and still has nine more years to serve).  Earlier in 1994 while he was in medical school (he subsequently graduated from law school), Fakhravar helped in establishing the Independent Student movement in Tehran.  Fakhravar and Davoodi proceeded to form the nucleus of an independent worldwide student organization.  In 2002 they organized a student conference and three-years later, they launched CIS, which today has a membership of 6200 students.

The Confederation of Iranian Students should not be confused with the Islamic Republic’s student organization cautions Fakhravar, which was created by the mullah regime, paid for by them, and run by them, according to Fakhravar.

One of the CIS’s goals is to bring down the Islamic Republic dictatorship according to Fakhravar.  “We have a three step plan,” he says.  1. Show the Iranian people and the world that the ruling Iranian regime is not democratic but rather a brutal dictatorship.  “We have already succeeded on that part of the plan,” Fakhravar added.

The second goal is to “cut the lifeline of the mullahs in power” by pushing for a worldwide embargo on Iranian oil.  The $83 billion Iran earns from its oil sales is the only revenue that enables the Islamic Republic of Iran to pay for the nuclear program and provide the Revolutionary guards (RG) – the regime’s praetorian guards- with high incomes, which in turn insures their loyalty to the regime.

According to Fakhravar “if the regime fails to pay the RG salaries – which are three times the average, the RG, who have long lost their revolutionary fervor and have gotten used to the ‘good life,’ are more than likely to abandon the regime.”

Oil revenue is also used by the Islamic Republic to fund Hezbollah and Hamas operations against Israel, to subvert the Sunni-Arab Gulf regimes and, to build cells in Latin America. “Our aim is to request that the governments of the U.S. and Canada impose sanctions on North American and European companies who buy oil from the Iranian regime,” Fakhravar stated.  He added, “We also plan to present such proposals to the G-8 and the G-20 to place sanctions on their respective companies.”

The third part of the plan, as Fakhravar sees it, is to build a free, democratic, and secular Iran.  “We need in addition to our existing website to set up Internet, satellite TV, and radio stations in order to educate the Iranian people inside of Iran, and the opposition parties outside of Iran. “

According to Fakhravar, the Iranian opposition groups “are confused and they don’t know what they want.”  He quickly added, “We wrote a manifesto or call it a constitution for a new Iran.”  Fakhravar recruited lawyers from the Green movement as well as a number of judges to draft a new constitution for Iran.

The Green Movement in Iran brought 4.5 million demonstrators into the streets of Tehran last June and Fakhravar is confident that the people of Iran, especially the younger generation, want a change. He reminds those he speaks with that, “The Iranian people have been repressed for over 30 years, and they want freedom.”  Many of the young people in Iran are turned off by Islam as a result of the corruption and abuses by the Islamic regime.  In Iranian schools, Shiite-Islam is presented as superior to all other religions and they are taught that killing Jews, who are presented as sub-humans, is permitted.  Fakhravar has no doubt that the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad regime would test a nuclear bomb on Israel.

Iran is, however, a nation of young people.  70% of Iranians are under the age of 35 and these young people respect Israel and love America.   In recent demonstrations the young protesters used posters with a modification of the regime’s slogans – instead of “Down with Israel,” they crossed out the word Israel and replaced it with Russia.

During last year’s demonstrations in Tehran following the sham elections which gave Ahmadinejad a second term as President of Iran, the Green Youth shouted “Obama, are you with them (the regime) or with us.”  Obama’s decision to continue to negotiate with the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad Islamic regime gave this evil regime legitimacy, according to Fakhravar.

Asked about where he sees Iran in five years, Fakhravar replied, “We will have a free, democratic and secular Iran.  It will be a friend of Israel and an ally of the U.S. ”

TEHRAN, Iran -- A local official says 11 bronze statues have been stolen from public parks in Tehran over the past month, and that religious motives appear to be behind the thefts....

The official IRNA news agency quotes Tehran city council official Morteza Talaei as saying Wednesday that the theft appears to be "an organized act" by a group that feels the statues violate "their religious and cultural beliefs."...

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.

NOUAKCHOTT - Mauritania's ruling Coalition of Parties of the Majority (CPM) has accused the opposition of whipping up ethnic tension after violent clashes between Moor and non-Moorish students.

CPM president Mohamed Mahmoud Ould Mohamed on Sunday night told journalists that he condemned "a desperate attempt by some opposition parties who falsely interpret government declarations, to revive matters of ethnic allegiance."...

On April 15, Moorish students clashed at Nouakchott university with Negro-Mauritanian students who were protesting over what they described as the "complete Arabisation of the administration" in Mauritania, a mainly desert nation where the Moors historically ruled over black African southerners.

A student who asked not to be named said that several people were injured by hurled stones.

Police stormed the campus and made about 30 arrests from the rival sides, a security source said. They used their batons and tear gas to break up the clashes.

The violence followed a series of demonstrations and counter-demonstrations about the language of the administration.

French-speaking students and opposition members, mainly Negro-Mauritanians, object to what they see as their exclusion from jobs, while Arabic speakers protest at the place given to French in the educational system and in the administration.

The polemic erupted after Mauritania on March 1 celebrated the day of the Arabic language, when Prime Minister Moulaye Ould Mohemd Laghdaf stated that the civilisation of the country was "Arabo-Islamic."

Two weeks later, Minister of Superior Education Ahmed Ould Bahya tried to calm the situation down by declaring that "no option for a complete Arabisation" has been undertaken by the government....

An update on this story. "Yemen: Islamic lawmaker decries child marriage ban as part of 'Western agenda'," by Alexandra Sandels for the Los Angeles Times, April 18:

The recent death of 13-year old Yemeni child bride Elham Assi, who reportedly bled to death last week after being tied down and forced to have sex with her 23-year-old husband, has sparked outrage among rights activists in Yemen.

They are now stepping up their lobbying efforts to push for the implementation of a child marriage ban.

But that may prove a daunting challenge since fierce opposition against a ban on child brides still runs high among some religious leaders and conservatives.

Sheik Mohammed Hamzi, an official of the Islamist Yemeni opposition party Islaah and the imam of the Al-Rahman mosque in the Yemeni capital of Sana, is one of those who staunchly opposes a legal ban on child marriage.

Although he emphasizes that a woman should not get married before she is physically and mentally ready and that she herself needs to accept the marriage, he believes a law that prohibits child marriage constitutes a rights violation.

"I am against the child marriage law because it restrains the freedom of others. When a certain age [for marriage] is set, it violates the rights of others. For example, imagine a young man of 13 or 14 years of age who wants to have sex. ... This is a violation of his rights," Sheik Hamzi told The Times in an interview at his Sana home last week. [...]

From this point on in the article, he's "Hazmi."

But Hazmi dismisses claims by rights groups that there is a problem with child marriages in his country. He said the child-bride cases that have been reported in the media were merely isolated incidents.

"Just ask my mother and sisters how many times they've found a little girl getting married at the marriages they've attended," he said. "Not many."

The country's Ministry of Social Affairs, on the contrary, says child marriages are common in Yemen. According to a 2009 report by the ministry, a quarter of all females in Yemen marry before the age of 15.

To Hazmi, however, women's- and children's-rights activists are putting a few isolated cases of child marriage in the spotlight to rally support for the law.

"There is no problem here with child marriage," he said. "These cases of young girls getting married are exceptions. These organizations that are promoting for this law couldn't find any examples except for those of Nujoud and Elham."

Hazmi said the groups that are campaigning for the law were harmful to the country, trying to promote a "Western agenda" in Yemen.

"It's all a Western agenda they are following," he said. "They get paid from the West to make us to believe in Western culture. This is very bad because our culture is different here."

The best that could happen, in his opinion, is that the government shuts them down.

"No one wants to marry these women's-rights activists anyway," he said. "They're just depressed that they are not married and jealous."

Would he allow his own young daughters to be married?

"No," he says and looks at the two as they're scurrying around in the room. "At this age, I don't want them married."

The reporter would do well to check back in a year, and again in five.

Kyrgyzstan just added another chapter in its history of revolutions. The government of Kurmanbek Bakiyev, which has hosted a critical U.S. air base since 2001, has been overthrown by pro-Russian forces opposed to that presence. Russia has a legacy of manipulating internal strife among its neighbors, and this latest event is no exception.

Vladimir Putin has adamantly denied any Russian involvement in the overthrow of Bakiyev, but at least one of the new rulers of Kyrgyzstan says something different. Omurbek Tekebayev, who is in charge of writing the new constitution, has openly stated that “Russia played its role in ousting Bakiyev.” He says this as if it is common knowledge, obvious to any observer.

“You’ve seen the level of Russia’s joy when they saw Bakiyev gone. So now there is a high probability that the duration of the U.S. air base’s presence in Kyrgyzstan will be shortened,” he said on April 9.

The new government has pledged to honor the agreement, but their opposition to the base makes it probable that they will at least try to revise it. Their motivation in pursuing the base’s closure is not rooted in nationalism, as nothing is being said about the Russian base that also exists in the country. The motivation is not to rid Kyrgyzstan of foreign dominance, but to alter the current relationship with the United States.

There is no evidence yet that Russia played an on-the-ground, operational role in the uprising but there can be no doubt that Russia’s government, at the very least, actively fomented the unrest. In the weeks leading up to the revolution, the Kyrgyz government asked Russia to stop their state-run media’s offensive against Bakiyev, whose coverage saturates Kyrgyzstan’s own airwaves.

Shortly before the ousting of the government, Erica Marat of the Jamestown Foundation wrote that “potentially Russian TV channels and newspapers have a far greater propensity to mobilize Kyrgyz crowds against Bakiyev’s authoritarian regime compared with Western media broadcasting in Kyrgyzstan.” The Bakiyev regime knew that the reporting on their corruption threatened them, so they tried to prevent such news coverage from reaching the country, both from Russian and Western media sources.

Roza Otunbayeva, the opposition leader, received a friendly phone call from Putin as soon as she took power. He promised to recognize her government and build a “special relationship” between the two countries. It is easy to see why Putin would take such delight in her victory. One of her main criticisms of Bakiyev was his contentious relationship with Russia, saying that the country “must not act the way it’s acting toward Russia, which is our strategic partner and ally.”

The conflict with Russia came to a head last year when Kyrgyzstan reversed its position and agreed to renew the U.S. lease on the Manas air base. In 2005, the pro-Russian government of Uzbekistan kicked the U.S. out of the base it had in its territory, making the Kyrgyzstan site even more vital. The Obama Administration’s offer to pay Kyrgyzstan $60 million per year for the base, a three-fold increase, was too good of a deal for Bakiyev to miss.

If Russia was more involved than just undermining Bakiyev with its media, it would not be unprecedented or surprising. As I wrote last week, Russia tried to engineer a coup in Georgia in May 2009 to overthrow the Saakashvili government, and may be preparing the ground for more aggressive action in the wake of the Moscow bombings. A similar scenario where Russia supports forces in Kyrgyzstan or anywhere else nearby in order to effect policy changes is not far-fetched, but is to be expected.

The events in Kyrgyzstan have major implications for the war in Afghanistan and the American position in central Asia as a whole. Approximately 50,000 coalition soldiers passed through the base in March alone. If the base is closed, it will be hard to find an adequate replacement.

The new government can’t be described at this juncture as being inherently anti-American just yet, even though its coming to power will adversely affect the strategic position of the U.S. They may be genuine reformers, as they’ve promised to write a new constitution and to hold legitimate elections. Or, they could be frauds like Bakiyev turned out to be.

“The people that are allegedly running Kyrgyzstan…these are all people we’ve had contact with for many years. This is not some anti-American coup, that we know for sure. And this is not some sponsored-by-the-Russians coup, there’s just no evidence of that,” said Michael McFaul, a top advisor to the Obama Administration on Russian affairs.

McFaul fails to see the importance of the Russian media in the uprising, but it is true that the opposition was riding on genuine outrage over the human rights abuses, corruption, rolling back of freedom, and declining economy under Bakiyev. Ironically, he is assessed to have governed similarly to Putin, seeking to eliminate dissenters. Political opponents have been jailed and opposition media sources have been shut down. Such anger is what caused Bakiyev to come to power in 2005, and it is what caused him to lose power in 2010. The Kyrgyz opposition to the U.S. is at least partially rooted in these same sentiments.

“America closed its eyes to this,” said Azimbek Beknazarov, the new Vice Prime Minister, when he spoke about how the country’s democracy had been “destroyed” following the 2005 Tulip Revolution. “That’s why the majority of people now think that America only needs its military base and nothing else interests it.”

Jackson Diegl of The Washington Post writes that Roza Otunbayeva, the new leader, “comes as close as anyone in Kyrgyzstan does to being a liberal democrat.” Her career originates in the Soviet Union, but she took part in the 2005 revolution. As she became opposed to Bikayev, she solicited U.S. support, calling on America to “protect democracy and build democracy” by funding alternative media in her country. She promised to hold elections and to have a positive relationship with the U.S. The question is whether this is a façade, or an ironic twist of fate that Russia’s interests coincide with that of a genuine reformer.

And it didn’t amount to a hill of beans.

I’m left wondering if it wasn’t all for nothing, if we were all gamed or “pwned” by the political and media elites.  Ratings, you know.

We are no longer a representative Republic.  The deeply cynical side of me thinks that Obamacare was a done deal from the moment The One was inaugurated.  All the wailing and gnashing of teeth over its passage by so-called “moderate” and “blue dog” democrats was manufactured for a viewing audience addicted to drama.  It would have been anticlimactic without some sort of valiant struggle that ended with a clear victor.

I’m glad that a few Republicans have emerged to be stalwart and articulate defenders of the Constitution, free markets, and individual responsibility, but I wonder WHERE IN THE HELL WERE YOU GUYS OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS?  Why did it take the passing of this great Republic for you to man up?

Too little, too late, I’m afraid.  Too little, too late.

So, what now?  What do we do now?

Millions of us have voiced our opposition to the transformation of this nation from representative Republic into some form of statism or socialism.  We called, emailed, FB’d, tweeted, marched, voted.  Didn’t seem to matter much.  I guess we can continue to do these things and hope for the best.  We’ll elect some like-minded peope to office, probably, but so what?  Can any of this be walked back?  Obama opened Pandora’s Box of socialist entitlements and slavering Democrat incumbents have taken a long, adoring look inside.  They like what they see.

There are millions and millions of Obama voters just south of the Rio Grande, tense as sprinters at the starting line.  Reminds me of Wayne Hoobler, a simple-minded ex-con in the Kurt Vonnegut novel “Breakfast of Champions,” and his dreams of one day reaching Fairyland.  There was no Fairyland for Wayne, and there will be no Fairyland for the millions of illegals that will stream across the border once democrats set to work on an amnesty bill.  And why not?  A bunch of them won’t be re-elected in November, anyway.  They know that.  So why not grant amnesty to all those Obama voters?  What do they have to lose?

Chris Rowan lives and works in a district in deep South Texas that has never elected a Republican to Congress.

Mikhail Gorbachev is a living negation of the axiom that history is written by the winners. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, whose existence he tried desperately to salvage, Gorbachev has improbably recast himself as a heroic democrat who, however imperfectly, brought down the edifice of communist repression and now champions democracy for his native Russia. Gorby’s revisionism can be wincingly embarrassing, but it does not necessarily tarnish his pro-democratic campaign – especially since his is one of the rare prominent Russian voices making the case for political reform.

Gorbachev’s op-ed in the Times today is a case in point, provided you can get past the self-serving historical exegesis. For instance, he depicts himself and foreign minister Andrei Gromyko as anti-ideologues and principled reformers, conveniently skirting past the fact that both were, until the bitter end, hidebound communists who simply hoped to return the Soviet Union to its foundational, Leninist roots but who failed to foresee the cascading consequences of their modest reforms.

Never mind that for the moment. What Gorbachev lacks in honesty about his own historical role he compensates for in an importantly candid critique of Vladimir Putin and the current Russian government. In essence, he argues that Putin’s Russia is starting to look very much like the Soviet Union of old. That is not an original view, exactly, but its airing, even in an American newspaper, has become an auspicious occasion as Putin’s government has silenced or marginalized what there was of a free Russian press.

Our country has not moved closer to that goal in the past few years, even though for a decade we have benefited from high prices for our main exports, oil and gas. The global crisis has hit Russia harder than many other countries, and we have no one but ourselves to blame.

Russia will progress with confidence only if it follows a democratic path. Recently, there have been a number of setbacks in this regard.

For instance, all major decisions are now taken by the executive branch, with the Parliament rubber-stamping formal approval. The independence of the courts has been thrown into question. We do not have a party system that would enable a real majority to win while also taking the minority opinion into account and allowing an active opposition. There is a growing feeling that the government is afraid of civil society and would like to control everything.

We’ve been there, done that. Do we want to go back? I don’t think anyone does, including our leaders.

I strongly suspect that Gorbachev is wrong about that last part. Based on everything we’ve seen from Putin, he very much does want to “go back” to Soviet times. Not in every respect – it’s hard to imagine even the famously ascetic Putin yearns for the grinding poverty of those days. But certainly Putin seems nostalgic for Soviet times in so far as they were free of the nuisances of democratic opposition, free speech, and independent political institutions.

Still, give Gorby credit. He is not my idea of a democrat and it’s a bit dismaying to see some Western historians romanticize him as a great statesman rather than the committed communist he was. But given the paucity of voices willing to challenge the regime openly, Gorby must be commended. For once in his political career he has done something right – and intentionally at that.

Writing below, Matthew Vadum generously accepts embattled Rep. Eric Massa’s claim that he was forced to retire from Congress due to his opposition to ObamaCare. While this is indeed Massa’s current self-serving explanation, I for one don’t find it credible, not least because it has shifted several times now: He had initially claimed that he was resigning for health reasons related to his cancer treatment.

There’s also no mystery about what Massa is being accused of. By his own admission, Massa “groped” at least three men who worked for him; there are also allegations that he had inappropriate physical contact with an intern. I think it’s safe to say Massa’s insistence that there was “nothing sexual” in his advances will not put that matter to rest. Massa’s sexual preferences are a private matter, but sexual harassment is a legal issue, and if that is what occurred here then Massa’s posturing as a victim of a White House-orchestrated conspiracy is so much diversionary drivel.

Rahm Emmanuel’s ruthlessness is the stuff of Washington legend, and it may just be that Massa’s lurid tale about politics not ending at the shower’s edge is actually true. But given how Massa’s storylines keep changing as more revelations about his own alleged impropriety emerge, some skepticism is very much in order.

A story about the shadiness of the Mubarak regime would be far more meaningful -- not to mention fair -- if it took up the issue of religious minorities (Copts, Baha'i, and others), and/or the persistence of female genital mutilation and other women's rights issues in Egyptian society. But, alas, all we get is a story devoid of depth and context on a group the author has clearly not investigated with any degree of diligence.

"Egypt's Crackdown: When a U.S. Ally Does the Repressing," by Abigail Hauslohner for Time, February 24:

The U.S. government has never been shy to criticize Iran over its dismal human-rights record, particularly since Tehran launched a crackdown on opposition voices following last summer's election. But the U.S. stance remains considerably more subdued when Egypt, Washington's biggest Arab ally in the region, exercises similar bad behavior. And the months ahead will test just how subdued it intends to be.

For Egypt, which receives an annual $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid, the equivalent of Iran's election drama hasn't unfolded yet. Parliamentary elections are still several months away, and presidential elections aren't slated until next year. But there are signs of an imminent crackdown on opposition groups. U.S. silence on the issue suggests that Cairo may be able to avoid the international spotlight in a way that Tehran did not.

On Feb. 8, for example, Egyptian security forces arrested 16 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's most popular opposition group. Those arrested included three senior members, including the deputy leader, Mahmoud Ezzat. More than 30 others had been arrested in the two weeks prior to that. "They were arrested having done nothing except calling for reform and freedom and for adopting a moderate approach which Egypt needs the most at this time," read a statement posted on the Muslim Brotherhood website on Feb. 9.

There's an exquisite demonstration of how the term "moderate" is thrown about, with the hopes that people will project their own understanding of the term onto it without further inquiry.

This isn't anything new for the Brotherhood. The group has been banned since 1954, but its popularity -- derived mainly through Islamic charity work, calls for political reform and appeals to Muslim religiosity -- makes it especially threatening to the authoritarian regime of President Hosni Mubarak. Even so, the Brotherhood has been tolerated to varying degrees over the years, the state having found a way to keep its members in check through a system of arbitrary arrests and detentions that rights groups say are illegal under international law. "It's a repeated situation," says Taha Ali, a political analyst at the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, a Cairo NGO. "But this time, we're going to see the parliamentary election in the upcoming period, so it's a historical moment for the regime and the Brotherhood."...

Congressman Ron Paul is a Trojan Horse in conservative America. Deluded by his unjustly-appropriated mantras, “Constitutional Conservative and Washington Outsider,” citizens seeking alternatives to politicians who have betrayed principles of fiscal and social conservatism, have dragged the Paulist edifice into their stronghold and reconsidered its potential. Rep. Paul’s triumph in the CPAC Straw Poll is evidence he has profited from the dire economic situation, occupation of the White House by Marxists, and the failure of the GOP to offer credible candidates articulating a coherent system of policies beyond rhetoric.

Conservatives must study the geo-political philosophy hidden within Ron Paul’s message. Those dismissing his Foreign Policy as inconsequential, compared to tax reform, will still suffer the consequences of his foreign policy, were he ever to become President.

Ron Paul’s political perspective is based upon the belief that America is controlled by a small group of bellicose imperialists, Neo-Cons. Through financial manipulation and military aggression, they substitute their agenda for the common good of the United States in order to establish national Orwellian servitude and world dominance.

In his article, “We Have Been Neo-Conned,” Ron Paul asked:

“Who’s really in charge? Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going…imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives – a name they gave themselves – diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.”

Ron Paul compiled a list of common opinions held by Neo-Cons. This list bears a striking resemblance to the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion. There is no intent here to assert that Paul agrees with this anti-Semitic fabrication. The comparison serves to illustrate that those who believe in global manipulation by a shadow government, attribute identical philosophy and methodology to those they believe are plotting geo-political omnipotence.

Ron Paul – Neo Cons

“They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.”

Protocols of Zion

“We appear on the scene as alleged saviors of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces – Socialists, Anarchists, Communists – to whom we always give support…By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way.”

Ron Paul

“They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.”

Protocols

“Out of the temporary evil we are now compelled to commit will emerge the good of an unshakable rule, which will restore the regular course of the machinery of the national life…the result justifies the means. Let us, however, in our plans, direct our attention not so much to what is good and moral as to what is necessary and useful.”

Ron Paul

“They express no opposition to the welfare state.”

Protocols

“Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings.”

Ron Paul

“They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.”

Protocols

“We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbors of that country which dares to oppose us: but if these neighbors should also venture to stand collectively together against us, then we must offer resistance by a universal war. We must compel the governments of the to take action in the direction favored by our widely conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation.”

Ron Paul

“They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.”

Protocols

“The political has nothing in common with the moral. The ruler who is governed by the moral is not a skilled politician, and is therefore unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse both to cunning and to make-believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy. Such qualities must be the attributes of the kingdoms of the goyim, but we must in no wise be guided by them.”

Ron Paul

“They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.”

Protocols

“We shall create an intensified centralization of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws.”

Ron Paul

“They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.”

Protocol

“It must be understood that the might of a mob is blind, senseless and un-reasoning force ever at the mercy of a suggestion from any side. The blind cannot lead the blind without bringing them into the abyss; consequently, members of the mob, upstarts from the people even though they should be as a genius for wisdom, yet having no understanding of the political, cannot come forward as leaders of the mob without bringing the whole nation to ruin. “

Ron Paul

“Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.”

Protocol

“Our State, marching along the path of peaceful conquest, has the right to replace the horrors of war by less noticeable and more satisfactory sentences of death, necessary to maintain the terror which tends to produce blind submission. Therefore it is not so much by the means themselves as by the doctrine of severity that we shall triumph and bring all governments into subjection to our super-government. It is enough for them to know that we are too merciless for all disobedience to cease. We count upon attracting all nations to the task of erecting the new fundamental structure, the project for which has been drawn up by us. This is why, before everything, it is indispensable for us to arm ourselves and to store up in ourselves that absolutely reckless audacity and irresistible might of the spirit which in the person of our active workers will break down all hindrances on our way.”

Ron Paul

“They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.”

Protocols

“When it becomes necessary for us to strengthen the strict measures of secret defense we shall arrange a simulation of disorders or some manifestation of discontents finding expression through the co-operation of good speakers. Round these speakers will assemble all who are sympathetic to his utterances. This will give us the pretext for domiciliary prerequisitions and surveillance.”

On Wednesday, January 6, 2010, following the Coptic Christmas Eve celebrations in the Southern Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi, masked gunmen opened fire on the exiting worshipers, killing seven Copts and injuring scores of others.  The gunmen, most likely a radical jihadist offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood intended to assassinate the Coptic Bishop Kirollos. Attacks in Egypt on the Christian-Coptic minority by incited Muslim mobs have become a frequent occurrence in recent years.

An unnamed eye witness to the shootings told the Coptic News Bulletin at the Nag Hammadi hospital that the situation was critical for the injured because of shortages of blood for transfusions. He quipped that, “The Muslims promised us a wonderful Christmas, and I think the message has now been received…”

Bishop Kirollos accused the security services of negligence in dealing with the events which led to the massacre and added: “Not one single security man intervened to prevent casualties.” He criticized the absence of adequate State Security forces guarding the church, which is customary during such events and especially in light of the unrest which took place in the area in November 2009.

Bishop Kirollos had recently received a death threat for criticizing the Egyptian authorities and speaking out in defense of the Christian victims of the November 2009 attack, in the areas of Farshout, Abu Shusha, Aerky, and Alshokeify, all part of the Nag Hammadi parish.

In a letter sent to Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak by Dr. Monir Dawoud, President of the American Coptic Association he wrote:

“The failure to protect the lives and properties of the Christians, to implement Presidential decrees and to uphold the law not only defeats the leadership’s efforts to improve the human rights situation of the Copts, but also embarrasses Egypt in a time when more States than ever are making leaps forward towards protecting human rights. As the tide of democratization ushers in our region, Egypt is called upon – through your Excellency – to take all necessary practical measures: constitutional, legal, political and social to respect the rights of all its citizens.”

The letter to President Mubarak enumerated all the recent attacks on Copts:

“We are writing to you to express our deep concern over the latest attacks on Coptic churches in Sinnouris of Fayoum preceded by that of Shebin El-Kom, Menoufia where the churches had been set on fire leading to complete destruction. This has been going on for a very long time and the security forces and government have been closing their eyes. To mention some of these attacks we may go back to a few of them. The attacks on the defenseless Christian citizens in the churches of Alexandria, on April 14, 2006, resulted in the death of one man and later another, besides seriously injuring several dozens of the worshippers inside their churches.

Dr. Dawoud added:

“These attacks were preceded by other attacks couple of months ago at the same city.  These followed attacks on the Christians of Al-Udeisat village in Luxor, which took place on January 18, 2006.  The attacks left behind two dead, scores injured, many lives shattered and properties destroyed. To anybody’s astonishment, the violence – according to Egyptian press – was instigated by some members of the National Democratic Party, local government and security officials.”

While hosing Mubarak in the White House last August, President Obama described the Egyptian president as a “force of stability,” deliberately ignoring an abysmal human rights record and turning a blind eye to the persecution of the Christians in Egypt. And while the Obama administration has given the Egyptian regime unqualified support, the Egyptian government has practiced a two-faced policy towards the U.S.

To assuage the growing influence and power of Islamists in Egypt, and to counter the political ambitions of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Mubarak regime has implemented a more Islamic educational system, and the “Vatican of Sunni-Islam”- Al Azhar Islamic University in Cairo has been allowed to become even more radical in its rulings.

The Egyptian government including its Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit incited anti-western (Christian) demonstrations in the Muslim world when he circulated a report on the Danish cartoons labeling them as anti-Islamic. This same government outwardly condemned the Hezbollah in the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese War while portraying the group as a heroic band who defeated Israel.  Mubarak also called for an unconditional cease-fire in direct opposition to the U.S. policy.

The Mubarak regime has encouraged the violent campaign against Coptic Christians as a diversion from its oppressive domestic policies, which have stifled democratic opposition groups, human rights and religious freedom.  By maintaining the status-quo with Egypt, the Obama administration is endorsing the continued suppression and discrimination policies against the Copts.

Coptic-Christians are denied social, economic, and educational opportunities.  Although Copts comprise over 10% of the Egyptian population, Christians are under-represented in government positions, are discriminated against in courts, and denied due process as well as basic civil rights.

The Obama administration has given Mubarak a free pass.  Egypt’s aid package of $2.2 Billion in U.S. taxpayers’ money is secure, all in the name of preventing Egypt from becoming another radical Muslim state.  But, Mubarak’s police state and lack of accessibility to power by legitimate means, makes the future of the regime uncertain.  To appease the Islamists who threaten his regime, Mubarak has made the Coptic-Christians the scapegoat for the frustrations of the Muslim masses.

The attacks against Copts and Christian churches as demonstrated by the Christmas Eve attack in Nag Hammadi must not be allowed to continue.  American must use its aid dollars as leverage in applying pressure on the Mubarak regime so that Copts gain equality and protection under the law.

Recently Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, who is an academic historian and a political moderate, was invited to speak at the University of California at Irvine.  I know Michael well and have heard him speak many times.  He is one of Israel’s most effective advocates, particularly on university campuses.  He speaks about peace, about the two-state solution and he brings a historical perspective to his analysis.  Because he is so effective, anti-Israel zealots try to prevent him from speaking and his audience from hearing his views.

That’s exactly what happened at the University of California at Irvine when Oren began to speak.  This tactic of censorship will be tried at other universities as well, if it is permitted to succeed.

Let there be no doubt about it, these radical anti-Israel zealots are trying to censor Michael Oren.  After repeatedly disrupting his speech and making it impossible for him to continue, eleven of them were arrested and now face possible disciplinary action from the University of California, a public institution.

They and their supporters now claim that the eleven disruptors whose right of free speech is being violated.  They are threatening legal action to defend their right to prevent a speaker from expressing his views and an audience from hearing those views.  This is a topsy-turvy view of the First Amendment.

It is true that an individual heckler may have the right to shout in opposition to a speaker, so long as his shouted words are brief and non-recurrent.  But any fair viewing of the videotape, available on YouTube, proves beyond any doubt that this was a concerted effort to silence Michael Oren and to prevent his audience from hearing his point of view.  The university was correctly embarrassed at this attempt at censorship.

I too speak on college campuses, trying to make the moderate, two-state solution case on behalf of Israel.  My speeches have been greeted with shouts of disapproval and efforts to silence me.  When I spoke last year at the University of Massachusetts, a similar effort was made to prevent me from expressing my view.  I refused to remain silent and I simply shouted over the ruckus.  Eventually the University had to end the event.  When I spoke at the University of California at Irvine several years earlier, there was also some heckling, but there was no coordinated effort to stop me from speaking.  Similar groups have succeeded in preventing other pro-Israel speakers, including Israel’s former Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, and its current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, from speaking.

These attempts to prevent college audiences from hearing pro-Israel speakers must be taken very seriously by universities.  As Michael Oren explained in the beginning of his talk, universities are places where full and complete freedom of speech must be given a high priority.  Freedom of speech does permit the right of audience members to express views different from a speaker, so long as they obey reasonable rules and do not prevent the speaker from expressing his or her views.  Reasonable rules include permitting the holding of signs, so long as they do not block anyone’s view, the handing out of leaflets, an opportunity to ask questions at the end of the talk and sporadic and non-recurrent booing or shouting of brief comments

I have defended students who have been subjected to discipline for shouting a single word, for holding a sign or for making an obscene gesture.  But I would not defend a so-called right of a group of students to act in a coordinated manner in an effort to prevent a speaker from expressing views that the audience is entitled to hear.

There are several rights at stake in any such case.  First is the right of the speaker, who has been invited by the university to present his point of view.  Second is the right of the audience to hear his point of view.  Third is the right of audience members who disagree with his point of view to express opposition.  These rights need not be in conflict, so long as there is no effort to prevent the speaker from conveying his point of view to the audience.

From what I saw on the videotape, it seemed clear that there was a coordinated effort of censorship, and not merely an exercise of free speech by audience members who disagreed with what Oren was saying.  If such a coordinated effort at censorship is established by the evidence, then discipline is warranted.

Jonathan Schanzer and Mark Dubowitz of The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies argue in the New York Post that sanctions targeting Iran’s energy sector will cause the regime some very substantial pain. Material and political support for the opposition is necessary as well, but the impact of tough sanctions could cause the regime to further loose its footing and force them to decide whether to fund their own survival or their nuclear program.

The mere threat of sanctions is already causing the regime to suffer. From the article:

Last week, for example, the Italian energy company ENI announced it will soon cease business operations in Iran. Norway’s Statoil suspended all new investments, and even Russia’s Gazprom withdrew from a handful of projects.

The German industrial and engineering firm Siemens also announced it wouldn’t enter into any new contracts with Iran — after a presence there of more than a century. Siemens’ business in Iran was worth roughly $700 million in 2009. The threat of gasoline sanctions also recently persuaded BP, Reliance Industries and Glencore — all with deep, longstanding ties to Iran — to terminate direct gasoline sales.

Schanzer and Dubowitz write that many banks and insurance companies involved in Iran’s gasoline imports are backing out of dealing with the country, and many more are sure to follow if sanctions are implemented.

Iran’s reliance upon gasoline imports is the regime’s second biggest Achilles’ heel, only behind the discontent of the country’s population. The Chinese are trying to come to Iran’s rescue though, and make some dough while they are at it. The Chinese Sinopec firm has signed a $6.5 billion deal with the National Iranian Oil Company to build and develop refineries, reducing their dependency upon such imports. Luckily, this will take years to accomplish.

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com and a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine.

Visitors to the website of the main challenger in last June’s disputed presidential election were greeted by an image of the Iranian flag and an AK-47 assault rifle. “Stop being agents for those who are safely in the US and are using you,” they were told.

Another prominent opposition site was sabotaged, the internet was slowed down and threats were made to close Google’s Gmail system and set up Iran’s own national email service, a move that would allow government surveillance of the net.

A group calling itself the Iran Cyber Army has claimed responsibility for hacking into both opposition sites. This is the outfit that brought down Twitter for several hours last December when huge antigovernment protests were shaking the regime.

via Iran takes fight to opposition online – Times Online.

“It is the ideological adversaries of the Left who float on the wave of a future that is free.”

– Radical Son

This quote was submitted by Nichole Hungerford. She had this to say about it:

“The poignancy of this quote lies in the fact that throughout the course of human events, only some have been on the side of liberty.  Leftist elements in America have, for too long, obfuscated their enmity toward human freedom by decades of lies and revisionist history.  If there is any hope that this hard-won gift will not disappear into the night, it is up to the independently thinking people of this world to expose the truth — that the desire to control human behavior is as old as humanity itself and the only radical movement that has been or ever will be in opposition to it is the so-called ‘conservative’ campaign.”

—-

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then click here to submit. Please include:

• “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
• A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
• Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
• Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)

Iran – or more accurately the Iranian government – this week celebrated the 31^st anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution. In preparation for the tightly orchestrated event, the government unleashed the full might of its security forces – including riot police, the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij, the civilian militia corps – to suppress the opposition protestors who have poured onto Iran’s streets since last summer’s fraudulent election.

Armed with live ammunition, knives and teargas, the security forces set upon anyone identified as opposition protestors. When not resorting to violent repression, the government tried to thwart the opposition by disrupting internet, telephone and text messaging service inside the country. For propaganda purposes, the government also staged its own mass rally in Tehran’s Freedom Square, an occasion capped by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s defiant declaration that Iran is now a “nuclear state,” capable of producing its own weapons-grade uranium.  

To discuss this week’s events and the state of the Iranian opposition movement, Front Page turned to exiled Iranian dissident Amir Abbas Fakhravar. Jailed for five years in Iran’s notoriously brutal Evin Prison after participating in anti-government student riots in 1999, Fakhravar now heads the Confederation of Iranian Students, an organization committed to non-violent regime change in Iran.

FP: The government clearly tried very hard this week to deter opposition protestors from making themselves heard. Instead, it has put on a mass rally, complete with Iranian flags pro-government pro-Khameini signs, to create the illusion of national unity. What can you tell us about these “pro-government” demonstrations?

Fakhravar: The government knew that there was a plan from the protest movement to hold demonstrations in Tehran on the anniversary of the Islamic revolution, so they spent money to bring in about 200,000 Basij from cities all across Iran on the night before the anniversary celebration. The Basij – these are the masses of men and women you see attending the pro-government protests – were paid $250 each to show up at the demonstrations, which is a lot of money in Iran, when you consider the bad state of the economy. They spent all night covering Freedom Square with the Basij. The government also spent a lot of money on propaganda. They printed posters of Ayatollah Khameini; they even gave the Basij frozen chicken after the demonstration was over.

But that didn’t stop the opposition protestors from showing up. If the government can get 200,000 people out of the 70 million in Iran, that means nothing. Across Iran, I believe there were some 2 million people who showed up to protest the government. And the protestors will come back stronger and stronger. The reason is this: The Basij fight for their salary; the people fight for their freedom. That’s why, on Tuesday, when Ahmadinejad gave his big speech, you could hear chants of “Death to the Dictator!” coming from a distance.

FP: Reports in the foreign press have portrayed this week’s events as a defeat for the reform movement and a victory for the government. In their accounts, the protestors were overwhelmed by the security forces and outnumbered by the pro-government demonstrators. What do you think explains the slant of this coverage?

Fakhravar: First, I want to correct you. This is not a reform movement. This is an opposition movement, a revolution against the government. The people want regime change. That is why in front of the Basij and the Revolutionary Guard you heard chants of “Death to the Dictator” and “Death to Khameini.” That is also why the most popular chant was “Referendum.” By this the protestors mean a referendum on the Iranian government. The last time Iran had a referendum was when the Islamic republic came to power in 1979. Referendum means they want regime change. The people are saying to Khameini, “We don’t want an Islamic republic anymore!”

As for the coverage, it may be explained by the fact that the government invited 300 reporters from foreign countries to cover the pro-government demonstration. Yet, they didn’t let them go anywhere. They were only allowed to watch the main demonstration at Freedom Square in Tehran – nowhere else. They never saw the side streets where the opposition protests were taking place.

It should also be noted that the strength of the pro-government rallies is overstated. You can tell the opposition protestors from the government demonstrators because only the protestors carry handmade signs. The Basij carry the posters of Kahmeini or other placards that are printed and distributed by the government. Because all the print shops in Iran are under government control, and are carefully monitored, it’s not easy for protestors to print signs. All the people holding up the printed signs are paid by the government to hold them up. (We have a joke that if you see an ugly woman at an Iranian demonstration, she is with the Basij.) When the demonstrations are over, they just drop the signs and walk over them.

FP: The government seems to fear the protestors’ use of new media like Facebook and Twitter to organize their movement. Hence the regime’s attempts to restrict internet and text messaging and its announcement this week that it will permanently ban Google mail in favor of a “national email service for Iranians.” What do you make of this clampdown on new media, and how big of a threat is it to the opposition movement’s ability to mobilize against the government?

Fakhravar: The government’s primary goal was to shut down YouTube, but they were not successful. The intelligence services called in protestors to tell them that they were being watched and that they should not participate in the anniversary day protests. But we still get hundreds of videos from Iran. That means the government has failed to shut down the new media.

There are some 30 million Iranians who have access to the internet and the new media. Just a few months ago, it was 17 or 20 million. This is a sign that, right now, people are hungry for information from the internet. One of the most useful things that the U.S. could do to help the opposition movement would be to support new media and alternative media, whether it’s the internet or satellite services.

FP: How would you describe the Obama administration’s position? Has it done anything to aid the opposition movement?

Fakhravar: The Obama administration’s approach seems to be to keep an eye on the protestors to see if they keep coming out on the streets even amidst the government repression. That’s wrong. It’s also wrong for the administration to continue to pursue diplomatic negotiations with the Iranian government. The government has no legitimacy inside Iran; it has no legal standing with the Iranian people. The people are saying, “This is not our president,” but Obama is saying, “I want to talk to him.” I don’t understand why the Obama administration would want to give legitimacy to a regime that has no legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian people.

FP: Perhaps the most notable incident from this week’s pro-government rally in Tehran was Ahmadinejad’s boast that Iran was now a full-fledged nuclear power. What has been the reaction to his remarks inside Iran and why do you think he chose to make the announcement?

Fakhravar: There were several reasons he said that. First, he wanted to distract attention from the counter-protests and the opposition movement. It is also the government’s way of telling some of the stupider people in Iran, “If we spend a lot your money, eventually we will get what we want!”

For most Iranians, though, Ahmadinejad’s speech was a cruel joke. The funniest part was when he bragged that the regime successfully sent some animals – roaches, worms, mice and turtles – into space. This actually happened last week and the government had a lot of propaganda about it. Ahmadinejad was trying to show that Iran was very successful and that the world covets our technological knowledge. But most Iranians cynically said, okay, we sent animals into space – Thank God we’re not hungry or anything.  

FP: What’s the best thing that the United States and the international community can do to support the Iranian protest movement?

Fakhravar: It’s very simple: Stop buying oil from the mullahs. If you cut off their oil funds with sanctions, they won’t have money to pay the Revolutionary Guard, or to buy friends in Latin America Russia and China, or to sponsor Hezbollah, or to continue the nuclear program. That would solve the problem.

FP: What’s next for the Iranian opposition movement?

Fakhravar: The next step in a protest is March 16, which is the last Wednesday in the Persian calendar. I am optimistic. I’ve lived in Iran all my life and I’ve never seen this much courage from the Iranian people. This is their last chance for freedom and they don’t want to give it up.

FP: Amir, thank you very much for joining us.

Fakhravar: Thank you for the interview.