Jubilation In Iran

"We are on a path of moderation .  We have to enhance mutual trust between Iran and other countries. We have to build trust."
Iranian President-Elect Hassan Rowhani

Dissimulation is the name of the game. And the priceless element of time is the prize to be seized with the success of impressing upon the Islamic Republic of Iran's suspicious detractors that the moderate new president must be given a decent interval to begin to turn the Iranian ship of state toward a new chapter in its relations with the outside world.

And, to judge by the reaction from the international community, most eager and willing to accept that Iranians took it upon themselves by a clever manipulation of events, permitted them somehow by their stern Supreme Leader, to bring to authority a man they can trust, and whom the world at large can also trust, to do the right thing, anything is possible.

That the Iranians are past masters of deceptive rhetoric, of playing for time, of persuading their interlocutors that they are indeed seriously considering their obligations toward the world community in adhering to guidelines as set down by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Commission, seems to have escaped the notice of world leaders, hopefully looking on and anticipating a break-through in relations.

Iran's great friend within the international community, Russia, has advised the critical West that Iran is prepared to forego further 20% uranium enrichment. Drop the sanctions. Iran has spent, after all, billions upon billions in supporting the regime of Syria's Bashar al Assad in its war against its own people, and Iran simply cannot sustain further economically-damaging sanctions.

Of course Iran also holds the distinction of being the only country in the world that has threatened to demolish a neighbour.

And the acquisition of nuclear weapons, its determination to lead the Muslim world, its support of terrorism in training and arming Hezbollah and Hamas, are simply incidental to the good intentions of the Republic. Just as North Korea has made new overtures to the United States for negotiations that preclude sacrificing of its nuclear program, so too has its Middle East counterpart also corroborated that its nuclear program is beyond interference.

Which hasn't stopped President-elect Hassan Rowhani from piously claiming that greater "nuclear transparency" is required. And pledging to ensure that this is precisely what will occur, in coming to a greater, more open and more mutually satisfying agreement with the international community. He is pledging to launch a "new era" between his country and the international community to break the current impasse.

Trust him.

 Being Accountable

Protesters are engulfed in tear gas and sprayed by water canons at the entrance of the Divan Hotel in Istanbul, Turkey, Saturday, June 15, 2013 after being chased out of Gezi park. Protesters set up barricades and plumes of tear gas rose in Istanbul's streets into the early hours Sunday after Turkish riot police firing tear gas and water cannons cleared out the occupation of a park at the center of the strongest challenge to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's 10-year tenure.(AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda)

"We know very well the ones that sheltered in their hotels -- those who co-operated with terror. Will they not be held accountable? If we do not hold them accountable, then the nation will hold us accountable."
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Doctors and nurses who made the unfortunate decision to use their medical skills to compassionately treat injured protesters have been amply rewarded by their government. They were detailed by security forces. This has been made public through the account of the legal offices of the Istanbul Chamber of Doctors.

And it is not only doctors, but lawyers too have been held by authorities, for they have come out in their numbers in support of the protesters. How dare they!?

And, as far as Prime Minister Erdogan is concerned, the owners of luxury hotels who exercised the abysmal judgement of providing refuge to protesters anxious to evade justice at the hands of riot police raiding their protest sites with water cannons, tear gas and rubber bullets, are also and most obviously, linked to terrorism.

What else could conceivably explain their willingness to aid the terrorists posing as innocent Turkish protesters?

All the malcontents of Turkish society -- for no society however well adjusted and perfectly governed, is free of its social and political malcontents -- have come out to express their disaffection with the most effective government they have ever had the good fortune to be ruled by. According to the Istanbul Bar Association about 400 people were arrested on Sunday alone. Among them journalists.

One foreign photographer busy documenting the Saturday night clashes described how a white-helmeted police officer had torn off his gas mask, to ensure he would be completely engulfed in the cloud of tear gas, and while he was in a perilous state as a result, the officer forced him to clear his memory card of all photographs he had taken.

No doubt a matter of great elation to the police officer, at his clever circumstantial use of authority.

Riot police forewarned protesters that their rally was unlawful. If they did not immediately disperse, authorities would take action. Thousands of demonstrators in Ankara waved union flags, jumped and whistled, facing off about 50 metres from riot police. The demonstrations led by two major labour unions was comprised of middle-aged men who banged drums, and chanting women clasping hands, seated on the ground.

The deputy prime minster Bulent Arine, warned that if matters continued as they had over the past several weeks, the military might be called in. Troops could be mobilized, a state of emergency declared, if the police operations were unsuccessful in clearing out the protests. Local governors, he said, "can benefit from Turkey's military forces" under the law.

Prime Minister Erdogan, so disgusted with his Syrian neighbour's military crackdown on rebellion, appears to be taking his cue from the very source he has so vigorously disparaged.

But perish the thought that he could be considered an Islamist dictator.

His reaction to the peaceful activists shines an unwelcome spotlight on Turkey's version of democracy. Turkey's interior minister warned on Monday that anyone joining 'unlawful' demonstrations would "bear the legal consequences."

 No Misunderstanding the Issue

 It's unfortunate that Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was unable to understand, without public criticism, that his for-profit speaking engagements as a parliamentarian did not represent the actions of an credibly ethical and defensible choice. For that matter, no one elected to sit in the House of Commons as a lawmaker should, as a point of basic responsibility to the position they take up on being elected, occupy themselves with personal business of any kind.

Running for public office, particularly at that executive level of political responsibility, is a clear career choice. One that should logically obviate any decision to operate simultaneously in another career choice. To do so is compromising to a degree that conflicts with time and attention to the position that should represent one of primary importance, not to be diluted by any other activities demanding of time and attention.

Elected Members of Parliament, and appointed members of the Senate of Canada equally should be instructed unequivocally that all other business ventures should be in suspension while they are exercising their four-year election mandate. Their complete attention should be focused entirely on their obligations to the people of Canada and the welfare of the country. They are paid a salary generous enough to enable them to do just that.

And just that; a complete focus on that job alone should be the primary  and sole focus. Still, what Justin Trudeau engaged in, a multitude of speaking engagements, building on his celebrity as a son of a former prime minister, and as a current Member of Parliament, to charge public institutions and charities of every description for his time represents a double error in judgement.

He is, first of all, obligated to the public whom he is charged to represent as an elected Member of Parliament. He is well compensated to speak at various events as an MP, and with a measure of authority as an MP. To extract a very generous speaking fee from charitable enterprises hoping to raise funds to further their agendas is the clear act of someone without principle.

And more's the pity of it.

Ethically Challenged

"I consulted with the Clerk of the Senate, Paul Belisle, whether I was allowed to declare my new home as my primary residence, given that it was a new home and that I had previously resided in Ottawa.
"The Clerk of the Senate informed me that pursuant to Senate guidelines, I could designate my new home as my primary residence, as it was more than 100 kilometres from Parliament Hill."
Senator Mac Harb

The Senator and the Clerk of the Senate obviously both shared a skewed sense of propriety in what could or should be ethically charged to the taxpayer, if what Mr. Harb in his sworn statement which forms part of his legal suit against the Senate which he has filed with the Ontario Superior Court can in fact be proven.

Senator Harb is no newcomer to politics, having been involved in municipal politics previous to his having been appointed to the Senate in 2003. And he diligently did his homework, seeking assurances that he could switch his primary home designation from the home he had owned and lived in for decades in Ottawa, to a cottage he purchased in La Passe, over 100 kilometres from Parliament Hill.

The Clerk of the Senate to whom his statement refers has long left his term there. Senator Harb made a well considered decision to officially designate his La Passe cottage, purchased in 2003, as his primary residence, while owning and inhabiting the house he also owned for much longer. And in 2008 he made an additional property purchase, a condominium on Prince of Wales Drive.

It was that condominium he later claimed also as a secondary residence for expense purposes, even though he registered its address formally as one to which he would be accustomed to receiving official documents. "I will be staying there when I'm in Ottawa", he informed the Senate finance department.

In fact he 'stayed there' and also 'stayed' at his principle home which was also designed secondary, far more frequently than at the La Passe cottage, designated his 'principle residence', for the purpose of claiming housing expenses.

And he is outraged that the Senate finance committee, and an audit done by Deloitte have concluded that he billed for housing erroneously. How was he to know that it was assumed that someone appointed to the Senate should be presumed to be honest and above attempts to bilk the taxpayer?

The rules were insufficiently definitive.

If the Senate and the taxpayers of Canada think they can dredge $230,000 out of his bank accounts representing housing allowances and travel expenses that he billed without conscience, they're day-dreaming.

He'll fight them every step of the way.

A New Low for the International Committee of the Red Cross?

June 18, 2013 8:18 am

Author:

Paul LeslieCarl J. Burckhardt geneva convention Gerhart M. Riegner International Committee of the Red Cross Magen David Adom Max Huber Prisoners of War Red Crescent Red Cross and Palestinians World Jewish Congress World War II Jewish Prisoners of War

International Red Cross symbol. Photo: wiki commons.

A new low for the International Committee of the Red Cross? When it indirectly sponsors activities honoring terrorist murderers.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is known for its work as an “independent, neutral organization” which organizes protection and assistance for non-combatants who are actually, or risk becoming, victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence. It has not, however, been uninfluenced by considerations of realpolitik and it is this, together with the significant amount of institutional anti-Israelism of the ICRC, which explain why it is only since June 2006 that Magen David Adom, Israels ambulance service has enjoyed official recognition by this organisation as the national aid society of the state of Israel under the Geneva Conventions and been a member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (It is not allowed to use its own emblem in the territories Israel captured in 1967, but only the Red Crystal, officially recognized in addition to the Red Cross and Red Crescent by the Additional Protocol III of 2005.)

It should be recalled that, during world war II, public calls for all the inmates of Nazi concentration camps to be treated with equal humanity were opposed. In the course of a meeting held on the 14th October 1942, a proposal that the Red Cross organize a public appeal that all the belligerent states guarantee the full and unqualified protection of all the categories of civilians affected by the war, including, implicitly, the Jews – and that this appeal be published and disseminated in its name – was unanimously repudiated by the members of the wartime ICRC (the composition of which was virtually identical to that of the post-war ICRC which was responsible for the preparation and promulgation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions).

Following the opinion of Max Huber (1874-1960) – president of the ICRC from 1928 to 1944, who had served as judge at the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague from 1922 to 1939, presiding over its proceedings from 1925 to 1927 – the International Red Cross decided to concentrate its efforts upon the protection of the rights of prisoners of war. Although not present at the ICRC session of the 14th October 1942, he had indicated that he would have cast his vote with the majority (see, in particular, pages 190-166, Une Mission Impossible? – Le Cicr, Les Déportations et Les Camps de Concentration Nazis, by Jean-Claude Favez (Payot Lausanne – Nadir – 1989). The post-World War I “minority treaties” could have been invoked in the cases of pro-Nazi Hungary and Rumania, as well as Articles 23 and 46 of the 1907 Fourth Hague Convention – to which many European states, including Germany, were signatories – but were not.

Though dealing mainly, but not exclusively, with combatants and the laws of war governing their treatment, this convention states:

Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden
… (b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
… (g) To destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war.
Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.

Instead the three volume Red Cross Report 1939-1947 wrongly claims (Volume 1, Section VI, the part of the “Special Categories of Civilians” – pages 641-657 dealing with the Jewish victims: “Under National Socialism, the Jews had become in truth outcasts, condemned by rigid racial legislation to suffer tyranny, persecution and systematic extermination. No kind of protection shielded them; being neither PW nor civilian internees, they formed a separate category, without the benefit of any Convention. The supervision which the ICRC was empowered to exercise in favour of prisoners and internees did not apply to them. …” and, a little later on: “The Committee could not dissociate themselves from these victims, on whose behalf it received the most insistent appeals, but for whom the means of action seemed especially limited, since in the absence of any basis in law (my italics), its activities depended to a very great extent upon the good will of the belligerent States.” (How, in particular, could former Hague court judge Huber endorse this falsehood? This secular saint of international law acquired a not insignificant stake in factories which employed slave labor during the Second World War, as recent research has shown – see “A Survey of Nazi and Pro-Nazi Groups in Switzerland: 1930-1945” by Alan Morris Schom, Ph.D, written for the Wiesenthal Centre.)

Even in the matter of Jewish prisoners of war, kept in regular POW camps, the ICRC was not always completely prepared to do its duty. The wartime head of the World Jewish Congress, Gerhart M. Riegner, brought to vice president Carl J. Burckhardt’s attention the increasing number of cases being reported of Jewish combatants being separated from non-Jewish combatants in certain POW camps. Despite the welfare of prisoners of war being claimed to be the Red Cross’s prime responsibility, Burckhardt wrote to him on the 5th April 1945 stating that this segregation was not necessarily by itself a violation of the relevant conventions – as testified by the wartime head of the World Jewish Congress – and suggesting that they wait and see (as recorded in Riegner’s book Ne jamais désespérer. Soixante années au service du people juif et des droits de l’homme (Paris, 1998), pages 210-211 – views which were vigorously rejected in Riegner’s letter of the 27th April 1945).
As briefly reported on algemeiner.com on the 12th May, a tree planting ceremony took place on the 8th May this year (presented as follows by the official Palestinian Authority daily paper – headline: “150 trees named for prisoners are planted in Jenin”):

“The International Red Cross and the Palestinian Red Crescent, in cooperation with the Zububa Rural Council west of Jenin, yesterday planted 150 fruit trees that carry the names of the veteran prisoners jailed in the occupation prisons.”

Many of these “veteran prisoners” are serving time after being condemned by properly constituted courts of law for committing one or more murder, for the most serious of crimes – including, for example, Issa Abd Rabbo, who shot and murdered two university students hiking near Jerusalem (recently honored by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas). Following this ceremony, which paid tribute to serious criminals and which was named “My Honor is My Freedom”, and the participation of Giorgio Ferrario, regional representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the ICRC was vigorously criticized. In a statement of clarification the following claims are made:

“The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a neutral, independent and impartial organization. Over the last 150 years, we have been striving to uphold these fundamental principles which continue to guide our humanitarian work around the world. Please note that ICRC was not present during the planting of the trees ceremony reported by your website. Over the decades, the ICRC has provided support, including financially, both to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society and to Magen David Adom for their humanitarian programs. It remains the prerogative of the National Society to define its own priorities and activities and to allocate funds accordingly.”

(See  here, here, and here for the full version of ICRC’s statement as received by Weekly Press Pakistan that published PMW’s report, conveyed to PMW by Tazpit News Agency.)
It goes without saying- though it is all too rarely said – that the organisation of such a ceremony (named “My Honor is My Freedom”) is incompatible with obligations to which the Palestinian Authority has committed itself. These include promises to (a) protect all residents of, and all other persons present in, these areas, (b) actively prevent incitement to violence, including violence against the other side or persons under the authority of the other side and (c) apprehend, investigate and prosecute perpetrators and all other persons directly or indirectly involved in acts of terrorism, violence and incitement (article 3 of Annex I, the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Protocol Concerning Redeployment and Security Arrangements, Article II (Security Policy for the Prevention of Terrorism and Violence). Moreover, by participating in a ceremony honoring serious criminals, the regional representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (and it seems to me a distinction without a difference to say that he was not representing the ICRC) hardly seems to have acted in accordance with the mission statement of the former organisation:

“The IFRC vision: To inspire, encourage, facilitate and promote at all times all forms of humanitarian activities by National Societies, with a view to preventing and alleviating human suffering, and thereby contributing to the maintenance and promotion of human dignity and peace in the world.”

Giorgio Ferrario should be removed from his post and both the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the International Committee of the Red Cross should dissociate themselves from his activities. They should for once (why not?) apologize to the Israelis.
In my opinion, it would be very useful if the Wiesenthal Center, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and, last but not least, the Zionist Organisation of America involve themselves in a campaign to get these organisations to “clean up their act”.

As protests rock Turkey, Israel watches with ambivalence

By Ben SalesJune 18, 2013 11:35am -- JTA

Protester standing on top of a barricade during a demonstration near Taksim Square in Istanbul, Turkey, June 11, 2013. (Lam Yik Fei/Getty)

TEL AVIV (JTA) – As the budding protest movement in Turkey against Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan struggles to gain a foothold, Israel is watching the developments with some measure of ambivalence.

On the one hand, Erdogan has led Turkey away from a close alliance with Israel, using his perch to castigate Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians and curtailing once-cozy military ties with the Israel Defense Forces. A popular uprising that leaves Erdogan politically wounded could be welcome news for Israel.

On the other hand, Turkey has been one of the few redoubts of stability in an increasingly volatile Middle East and among the few governments able to broker relationships between Israel and its Arab adversaries. Turkey and Israel also have been engaged in reconciliation talks over the past three months.

With other states in the region enmeshed in civil war, messy political transitions or other forms of political turmoil, adding Turkey to the list of volatile states would mean even more uncertainty for Israel.

“We say this is great, he berated us, but we don’t know who will come after him,” Efrat Aviv, an expert on Turkish politics at Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, said of Erdogan. “We know his strengths and weaknesses. We know how to deal with him. It would be hard if someone new came in who we didn’t know.”

Protests in Istanbul’s Taksim Square, which began on May 28, initially opposed a city construction

Turkish riot police clashing with protesters near Taksin Square in Isranbul, Turkey, June 11, 2013. (Eser Karadag/Creative Commons)

plan slated to replace a park. But since then the protests have spread throughout the country and morphed into a broader condemnation of Erdogan, who has led Turkey for 10 years and plans to run for president next year.

Erdogan, the head of the conservative Muslim AKP party, has ordered authorities to crack down on the protesters. This week, police arrested hundreds of journalists, medics who were treating protesters and even local shop owners who have aided the demonstrations.

Though these protests may weaken Erdogan within Turkey, they’re unlikely to affect Israeli-Turkish negotiations because Erdogan is unlikely to lose his grip on power, according to Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to Turkey.

“They can’t get rid of him,” Liel said. “I don’t think there will be any implications. He’s the same person at the head of the same party.”

But Aviv says a loss of domestic power could prompt Erdogan to improve foreign relations and “make him get closer to Israel.”

A mass protest in Taksim Square in Istanbul, June 15, 2013. (Creative Commons)

Turkey and Israel had a strong alliance a decade ago, but their ties began to deteriorate not long after Erdogan came to power. The nadir came in 2010, when Israeli naval commandos stopped a pro-Palestinian flotilla intent on breaking Israel’s maritime blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. A violent confrontation aboard one of the boats, the Mavi Marmara, left nine Turkish nationals dead, incensing Erdogan.

Turkey recalled its ambassador from Israel and subsequently downgraded diplomatic ties with Jerusalem.

During his visit to Israel in March, President Obama orchestrated a phone call in which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally apologized to Erdogan for the Mavi Marmara incident, sparking reconciliation talks between Israel and Turkey that are ongoing.

One regional leader who may benefit from the turmoil in Turkey is embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to Liel.

Erdogan’s government has been aiding Syrian rebels and has taken in hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, so a blow to Erdogan could be good news for the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis – and bad news for Israel.

Gallia Lindenstrauss, a research fellow at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies, says that while the protests may weaken Erdogan’s government, they demonstrate that Turkey is a still a democracy — a good thing in a region filled mostly with autocracies.

“They show in the long term that civil society is expanding and flowering,” she said. “There have been a lot of bad things happening, but in the long term they show that Turkey is democratic.”

Read more: http://www.jta.org/2013/06/18/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/as-protests-rock-turkey-israel-watches-with-ambivalence#ixzz2WbeMpqkO

And the Winner is... Iran's Nuclear Program

by Harold Rhode
June 18, 2013 at 5:00 am

Khamene'i has again proven what a great master strategist he is. He has succeeded in pacifying the West and his own people, thus buying the time his scientists need to complete his nuclear project.

The Iranians are the best strategists in the Middle East, better than those in the West, and the reason the Iranians constantly succeed in out-maneuvering the West.

In the West, we constantly look for ways not to engage in military conflict; the Iranians are more than willing to offer us those ways. We will almost assuredly give the new president Hasan Rouhani time to "consolidate" his position, thereby granting Iran even more time to develop its nuclear weapons capability. That is the meaning of this Iranian presidential "election."

Of the 686 men who wanted to run for president, the Guardian Council, totally under Khamene'i's control, chose eight candidates. All of them clearly supported Khamane'i's continued rule, which so many of the Iranian people, including senior clerics, loathe. So the choice for Iranian voters was not between candidates with widely differing views. Nevertheless, within that narrow framework, there were differences. Whoever the people actually voted for (we have no way of knowing how free and fair the election was), this result was one of the best of all possible outcomes -- for the Iranian regime.

Since Rouhani spoke "moderately" during the campaign and had a previous reputation for being "moderate," having him win almost guaranteed that the Iranian people -- who came out into the streets after the previous elections were stolen from them -- would not this time protest the election results. Rouhani's "election," therefore, pacifies the reformers who clearly will not demonstrate against him, thereby sparing the Iranian regime having to suppress, arrest, and murder people, actions which had horrified the international community.

Moreover, the West could lull itself into believing that since Rouhani is a "moderate," maybe he is someone we can "deal with." The election result, therefore is huge win for Khamene'i and his clique, and a defeat for the West, Israel, and the Iranian people.

* * *

What can we learn from past experience about dealing with the results of this "election"?
During the early stages of the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, we negotiated with the then Iranian President Abolhassan Bani Sadr, even though anyone who understood the Iranian revolution would have realized that Bani Sadr, despite his title as President, had no power. The real and only power was Ayatollah Khomeini, called the rahbar (guide or leader). Probably the best translation of that word into any Western language is the German word Führer, the term the Germans used to describe Adolf Hitler.

Khomeini, Iran's Führer, hated us. But we in the U.S. ignored him and concentrated our negotiating efforts on Iran's President Bani Sadr. After all, having had a president by then for almost 200 years, we knew what powers a president had. We consequently ascribed those same powers to Iran's president. We negotiated with him -- but he was powerless to make decisions. Only Khomeini could decide. So while we wasted time, we handed Iran a huge victory. During that period, the U.S constantly make concessions to the Iranian regime. In Middle Eastern terms, these enabled Iran to shame the U.S., and consequently gain huge numbers of supporters -- both Shi'ites and Sunnis -- throughout the Muslim world.

That situation is almost the exactly the one we face today. Just as with Khomeini, Khamene'i is today the only decision-maker in Iran. The Iranian president is nothing more than a figurehead who carries out of the will of the rahbar, or suffers the consequences of not carrying it out.[1]

By pinning our hopes on President Rouhani, and parsing his every word, we will find ways countless to give him time to "consolidate his power," as if he really has power, while we will be less demanding of Iran as it races to cross the nuclear threshold.

Most likely, we get the same results as we did when we negotiated with Bani Sadr. We will therefore almost assuredly give Iran the time it needs to cross the nuclear threshold. Just as with Bani Sadr, we will ignore the fact that he is basically powerless and that it is only Khamene'i who rules the country.
Making Rouhani the president was a brilliant strategic move for Khamene'i -- not just to pacify the West, by also to pacify the Iranian people, who want nothing more than Iran to be accepted as a normal country and regain the international standing it had before the Islamic revolution.

Rouhani's more religiously "moderate" rhetoric led the Iranian people to believe he would be able to negotiate Iran out of the catastrophic economic reality they face. So the "reformers" pin their hopes on him, instead of going out into the streets and demonstrating against him and the regime, as they did after Iran's previous presidential "election."

So Khamene'i has again proven what a great master strategist he is. He has succeeded in pacifying the West and his own people, thus buying the time his scientists need to complete his nuclear project. This is, in short, a "win" for Khamene'i and a "lose" for the West, Israel, and the Iranian people who have shown many times how much they want to be rid of the regime's tyranny.

---

[1] Bani Sadr eventually escaped Iran partially because he realized he was powerless. Subsequent Iranian presidents have realized that they either bow to the will of the rahbar or suffer the consequences. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's outgoing President, tried to do things his own way, but was humiliated by Iran's governmental system, controlled by Khamene'i. Ahmadinejad was hauled before the Iranian parliament, then publicly questioned and humiliated. It remains to be seen how the newly "elected" Iranian President Rouhani will handle similar situations.

Prominent British Charity "Linked to Hamas"

by Samuel Westrop
June 17, 2013 at 4:00 am

The British charity, Human Appeal International, seems more than happy to use democratic means, such as the courts, to silence its critics.

Britain's leading Jewish newspaper, The Jewish Chronicle, issued an apology recently to Human Appeal International, a British charity with a number of worldwide affiliated branches, all particularly active in the Palestinian territories.

The apology was issued after Human Appeal objected to an article published in The Jewish Chronicle in February 2012. The newspaper claimed Human Appeal was "linked to Hamas" and was on the "US State Department's list of charities connected to terrorism."

The mistake was mentioning the US State department. Human Appeal has never been officially designated as a supporter of terrorism, although a number of US government institutions have referred to Human Appeal as a supporter of terror.

A lengthy dispute led the Jewish Chronicle to "apologise unreservedly to Human Appeal International and to those individuals who are involved in its operation." Further, the Jewish newspaper "paid sums in damages … as an indication of our regret."
So what sort of organization has this Jewish newspaper just given money to?

A leaked 1996 CIA report claimed Human Appeal International's branches were among a number of Islamic charities used as conduits for funds to terrorist organizations. The FBI, in 2003, claimed there was a "close relationship between Human Appeal International and Hamas".

In August 2002, an Islamic youth group featured an advertisement for a Hamas fundraising scheme, called the "101 Days Campaign". The youth group claimed profits from the sale of intifada videotapes would go to the campaign through Human Appeal International.

In 2005, a website belonging to the Palestinian terror group Hamas reported that funds were transferred from Human Appeal's affiliated organization in the UAE to IQRA and Rifdah, two Hamas front organizations based in the West Bank.

In 2004, documents obtained from the Internal Revenue Service by Senator Charles Grassley revealed that the IRS considered Human Appeal to be one of a number of charities "which finance terrorism and perpetuate violence."

Further, leaked State Department cables also reveal that staff from the Human Appeal UAE branch were funding terror groups, and that, "In 2003, there were indications that HAI was sending financial support to organizations associated with Hamas and that members of its field offices in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya had connections to al-Qaeda associates."

In 2008, the Israeli Government proscribed a number of Human Appeal's affiliated international branches as "bodies that are active abroad and which are responsible for raising very large sums for Hamas activities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip."

Despite the considerable number of accusations, however, there is not enough evidence to prove Human Appeal International is actually financing Hamas. It is clear, however, from the Human Appeal's own published activities, that the charity is supportive of Hamas in other ways.
In July 2011, Human Appeal International was one of a number of charities honoured at a Hamas ceremony in Gaza.

Human Appeal's logo is sixth from right.

Also in July 2011, Human Appeal hosted, along with the Palestinian Forum of Britain, an event with a number of radical hate preachers and Hamas supporters.

The Palestinian Forum of Britain is one of the UK's leading pro-Hamas organization, whose spokesman is Zaher Al-Birawi, a man closely connected to the Hamas leadership.

In Gaza: Zaher Al-Birawi (fourth from the left) with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh to his right.

One speaker at Human Appeal's 2011 event was Raed Saleh, a prominent supporter of Hamas, known for his anti-Semitic and anti-homosexual views. Saleh has claimed that 4000 Jews skipped work at the World Trade Centre on 9/11, those who killed the "Martyr, Sheikh Osama Bin Laden" had "sold their consciences to Satan", and that the honour killing of girls is acceptable.
One of Saleh's poems includes the lines:

You Jews are criminal bombers of mosques,
Slaughterers of pregnant women and babies.
Robbers and germs in all times,
The Creator sentenced you to be loser monkeys,
Victory belongs to Muslims, from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Saleh is best known for his frequent invocation of the 'blood libel' -- an ancient anti-Semitic claim that Jews kill children to use their blood to make matzah at Passover. Even a British court concluded that Saleh's comments were hateful of Jews.

Saleh was joined at the Human Appeal event by Ahmad Noufal (also spelled 'Nawfal'), a prominent figure in the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood who was "directly involved in sponsoring and organizing Hamas terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians." In 2005, Noufal endorsed the French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy on Saudi television:

Roger Garaudy said: "If we take the number of gas chambers and the maximal daily capacity of an oven, and multiply them by the period you Zionists, claim the Holocaust lasted – even if we multiply the number of ovens by the maximal [capacity], the figure is grossly exaggerated. The number of those burned [sic] was 600,000. You added another zero, and turned it into six million."

In December 2011, Human Appeal hosted an event which featured the hate preacher Haitham al-Haddad as a guest speaker. Al-Haddad regards Jews as "enemies of god, and the descendants of apes and pigs", and disregards any form of peace until "Allah's law [will] govern the whole earth, and for no other law to remain." Haddad deems homosexuality a crime and supports the subjugation of women, telling them: "you must obey [your husband]."

Haddad claims that the West only opposes Hamas because "there is a high level of enmity and hatred against Hamas as a Muslim group".

The hate preacher Zahir Mahmood also spoke alongside Haddad. Mahmood has stated that, "Hamas are not terrorists, they're freedom fighters".

Human Appeal International is an extreme Islamist organization that promotes pro-terror and anti-Semitic ideas. Although it may ultimately support the destruction of democracy, Human Appeal seems more than happy to use democratic means, such as the courts, to silence its critics.

Lavrov: Iran agrees to halt 20-percent uranium enrichment. West must lift sanctions

DEBKAfile Special Report June 18, 2013, 6:00 PM (IDT)

Tags:  Sergey Lavrov,  Iran nuclear,  G8,  Syrian war,

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov

Iran has confirmed it is prepared to halt its enrichment of 20-percent uranium, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reported on the ministry website Tuesday, June 18. He urged Western nations to reciprocate by lifting sanctions. debkafile: It was not clear whether this was a temporary suspension, an absolute halt – or a dodge for getting sanctions eased to enable the incoming Iranian president Hassan Rouhaini get to grips with his top priority, his country’s dire economic straits..

Lavrov explained persuasively in his message: “For the first time in many years, there are encouraging signs in the process of settlement of the situation with the Iranian nuclear program. It would be a shame not to take advantage of this opportunity.”

He called Tehran’s concession “a breakthrough agreement, significantly alleviating existing problems, including concerns about the possibility of advanced uranium enrichment to a weapons-grade level.”

Lavrov urged the international community “to adequately respond to the constructive progress made by Iran, including gradual suspension and lifting of sanctions, both unilateral and those introduced by the UN Security Council.”

The Russian foreign minister’s move ties in with two other developments – one at the two-day G8 summit ending Tuesday in Northern Ireland and the other in Tehran:

1. The Group of Eight was about to wind up its summit Tuesday evening by issuing a joint communiqué – over President Vladimir Putin’s objections – calling for a transition government in Damascus and Bashar Assad’s removal from power. Lavrov’s message from Tehran sought to persuade the Western powers, chiefly President Barack Obama, that they would be missing the chance of a nuclear settlement with Iran, because Tehran would never countenance Assad’s ouster.
debkafile: The Syrian conflict and the nuclear controversy with Iran have long been closely intertwined.

2.  Moscow tried to put a positive slant on President-Elect Rouhani’s negative statement at his first news conference Monday, when he said Tehran “would not consider halting the country’s uranium enrichment activities entirely.”

What he meant, Lavrov hinted, was that Iran would not abandon low-level 5.3 percent enrichment - only the 20 percent grade which brought its nuclear program close to a weapons-grade capacity.
The Russian minister’s comment about it being “a shame not to take advantage of this opportunity” was addressed to Jerusalem.

debkafile’s military sources report that, two years ago, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and defense minister at the time, Ehud Barak, came to a secret agreement with the Obama administration that if Tehran stopped the 20-percent enrichment of uranium and shut down its underground enrichment plant at Fordo, Israel would have no objections to Iran carrying on producing uranium refined to the 5.3 percent level.

Israel revoked this deal at the end of 2012 when Iran began massively accelerating its enrichment activities and accumulated enough 5.3 percent material for a rapid switch to 20-percent enriched uranium.

• Poll shows Erdogan's popularity has taken a hit. Could he lose his mandate?

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's approval rating has dropped almost 10 points since December, with a sharp decline since he began cracking down on protesters in Istanbul. 

By Tom A. Peter, Correspondent / June 18, 2013

• 

Turkey Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan is pictured after his speech during conference in Ankara, June 18. After weeks of clashes between protesters and police in Istanbul and around the country, Erdogan has seen a measurable drop in popularity, poll shows.    Dado Ruvic/Reuters

Istanbul

After weeks of clashes between protesters and police in Istanbul and around the country, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has seen a measurable drop in popularity, according to MetroPOLL Strategic and Social Research Center.

Though Mr. Erdogan still has the support of more than half of those polled, the numbers indicate that he is not immune from losing his majority if the unrest continues.

The center found that he has steadily lost popularity since last December, when he enjoyed a 62.3 percent approval rating. In April Erdogan's job approval dropped to 60.8 percent and in the most recent survey it fell to 53.5 percent. Meanwhile, Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) has lost only one percentage point since last April and a number of opposition parties increased by 1 to 3 percent in popularity.

Erdogan, whose party won 50 percent of the vote in the country’s last election in 2011, has used that sweeping victory as a mandate to push through a number of policies unpopular with the other half of the country who did not vote for him. The recent poll indicates he may have trouble advancing his agenda going forward.

“In my opinion this is a very big drop,” says Ozer Sencar, general director of MetroPOLL, explaining the prime minister’s loss in popularity. “If the prime minister can’t understand this young generation, the opposition will increase, but if he understands these young people and creates solutions to these problems, he will manage the problem.”

Turks will next cast their ballots in 2014 local elections and again in general elections in 2015. Based on his findings, Mr. Sencar says Erdogan and the AKP may be surprised by the number of voters that shift to rival parties.

Protests in Turkey erupted nearly three weeks ago when police used excessive force to break up a peaceful sit-in to protect Istanbul’s Gezi Park from commercial development. The survey found that 62.9 percent of respondents would prefer to keep Gezi Park as it is, while just 23.3 percent favored the plan to develop it, and the remaining 13.8 percent had no response.

At the core of protesters’ complaints is the behavior of the government, which demonstrators say has become more authoritarian than democratic. For the first time in its recent survey MetroPOLL asked if respondents shared this sentiment.

It found that 49.9 percent of those surveyed said they worried the government was becoming more authoritarian.

To conduct the poll, the center interviewed 2,818 people nationwide from June 3 to 13 with a 2 percent margin of error. Police broke up the sit-in at Gezi Park, triggering nationwide protests, on May 31.

Erdogan has downplayed protests, blaming everyone from the foreign media to twitter. On Sunday he told a crowd of hundreds or thousands of supporters that his “patience has run out” with the demonstrations.

While the crowds Sunday made clear that he still has his plenty of support, he seems unlikely to come out of these protests unscathed.

“If Gezi Park protests and these clashes are ongoing, I think many people cannot support AKP party,” says Yusuf Cinar, president of Strategic Outlook, a Turkish think tank in Konya, Turkey.  “Turkey has a democracy and elections, so the government didn’t need to show their power, it was unnecessary in my opinion.”

Still there remains a strong possibility that even if Erdogan and his party suffer a substantial loss of support, he will be able to win reelection in 2015. When he was first elected in 2002, he came into office with just 34 percent of the vote, and those who’ve taken to the streets in protest remain fragmented and thus far unable to produce a unity candidate capable of effectively challenging Erdogan.

“There is no concrete platform that will embrace all of these people. It’s a matter of organization, it’s a matter of a single leadership, it’s a matter of unity of purpose. Apart from being against Tayyip Erdogan, I don’t think there is anything that binds them,” says Umit Cizre, the director of the Center for Modern Turkish Studies at Istanbul Sehir University. Still, adds that opposition groups have gained confidence in their ability to affect the political agenda. “Something has changed in the air,” she says.

• 'G7 plus one'? Isolated Russia holds line on Syria.

The G8 summit ended today with Russia far from agreement with the West over how to resolve the Syrian civil war. Russian experts say the rift is probably permanent.

By Fred Weir, Correspondent / June 18, 2013

• 

President Barack Obama (l.) meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, on Monday. Though both Moscow and Washington still officially support the idea of a joint US-Russia peace conference on Syria, the likelihood of agreement between the two on how to move forward on Syria appears to be dwindling.    Evan Vucci/AP

Moscow

Russia's fundamental differences with the West over how to seek peace in war-torn Syria has left Moscow isolated and this year's summit of the Group of Eight industrial democracies in some disarray – creating a situation that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper bluntly described as "G7 plus one."

And though a sour-faced President Vladimir Putin soldiered his way through the two-day meeting at a golf resort in Northern Ireland – he avoided the G8 altogether last year – some Russian experts say that Moscow may not care much if its stubbornness over the shape of a Syrian peace settlement isolates it, or even compromises the G8 membership that former Russian President Boris Yeltsin worked so hard to attain in 1997.

"We're a new member of this club and we have our own views, which we will express," says Andrei Klimov, deputy chair of the State Duma's international affairs committee.

"Just because the other seven have a different view doesn't mean we should change ours. It's not the last word. For example, when the G20 meets, Russia is not alone. There are lots of other countries that share our views, even if they're not in the G8," he says.

Though both Moscow and Washington still officially support the idea of a joint US-Russia peace conference, in which each would shepherd their proxies to the negotiating table in Geneva before August to hammer out a settlement, it was the mutual admission of key differences that seemed to speak loudest at a press conference following a face-to-face meeting between President Vladimir Putin and President Barack Obama on Monday.

"Our opinions do not coincide, but all of us have the intention to stop the violence in Syria, to stop the growth of victims, and to solve the situation peacefully, including by bringing the parties to the negotiations table in Geneva," said Mr. Putin. "We agreed to push the parties to the negotiations table."

Mr. Obama's take: "With respect to Syria, we do have differing perspectives on the problem, but we share an interest in reducing the violence; securing chemical weapons and ensuring that they're neither used nor are they subject to proliferation; and that we want to try to resolve the issue through political means, if possible."
The key disagreement that neither leader spelled out concerns the fate of Syria's embattled leader, Bashar al-Assad. The US, its Arab allies, and the Syrian rebels want guarantees that Mr. Assad will be removed as a precondition for any talks on the way forward in Syria. The Russians, who have blocked every attempt over the past two years to sanction Syria or bring international pressure to bear on Assad, insist that peace must be negotiated between the actual warring parties.

In an interview with a Kuwaiti news agency Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov insisted that Moscow has done its part in persuading the Assad regime to come to the table. He insisted that Putin and US Secretary of State John Kerry had agreed at a May 7 Kremlin meeting that there would be no preconditions – such as Assad's removal – set before the peace conference begins.

"We worked hard with the [Syrian government], and convinced them to participate in the peace conference and name a negotiating team, which will be led by Deputy Prime Minister Walid Muallem," Mr. Lavrov said.

"The main task before us is to seat representatives of the government and opponents of the regime at a negotiating table with the prospect of reaching agreement to start a political process based on broad national dialogue," he added.

Lavrov complained that the West, particularly the US, have not done their part in compelling the fractious Syrian rebels to come, without preconditions, to Geneva. He admitted that it's "a much more difficult" problem.

Many Russian Middle East experts say it's more like a hopeless problem.
"The Geneva-2 peace conference is a pipe dream," says Vladimir Sazhin, an analyst at the official Institute of Oriental Studies in Moscow.

"The Syrian opposition is totally divided. There is no front line, the battle goes on within each village, and every head of an armed group thinks of himself as a national leader.... Assad's regime has at least what's left of a central state and a regular army, so why should anybody think he would just agree to go away?" Mr. Sazhin says.

"There are so many different forces inside Syria, and so many interested outside parties. They're all of different size, and have differing goals. It will be real progress indeed if anyone can make them sit down together," he adds.
Other disagreements have flared in recent days, including Russia's insistence that Western claims that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons are "fabricated."

On Monday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Lukashevich told journalists that the idea of imposing a Libya-style no-fly zone over Syria is strictly illegal. "I think [Russia] fundamentally will not allow this scenario," he told journalists.

Russia, and the USSR before it, maintained a strong client-state relationship with Syria under the two-generational Assad regime, and many critics have argued that Moscow's staunch defense of Assad is rooted in fear of losing the estimated $5 billion in arms contracts that are in the pipeline with Damascus, the use of a naval supply station at Tartus – Russia's only military base outside the former Soviet Union – and the political influence that flows from having a close partner in the Arab world.
But the Russians insist that it's not about material issues, nor are they wedded to Assad. They argue that it's the West that doesn't know what it's doing in trying to impose a simplistic "dictatorship versus democracy" template upon Syria's complicated increasingly tribal and sectarian civil war, and that previous Western efforts to intervene – as in Libya – have only succeeded in sowing chaos and fomenting jihadi blowback across the region.
The G8 summit ended Tuesday with a final communique that papered over the main differences between Russia and the organization's other members by avoiding any mention of Assad's fate. But some Russian experts say the rift is probably permanent, regardless of what happens in Syria, because the Russia of Vladimir Putin is rapidly drawing away from the West and adopting views and behaviors that are basically incompatible with G8 membership.

"This G8 summit will probably go down in history as the meeting that revived the old formula of 'G7 plus one,' just as the Canadian prime minister remarked," says Sergei Strokan, a foreign affairs columnist with the Moscow daily Kommersant.

When Russian joined the G7 in 1997, it was admitted on the basis of its democratic aspirations and not because it was an economic equal, says Mr. Strokan. The recipe of 'G7 plus one' referred to Russia only being admitted to the political deliberations of the group. Since Putin came to power, Russia has experienced a dramatic economic revival and, for several years now, people have referred to the organization simply as the G8.

"Now the expression 7+1 is creeping back, not because of any Russian economic weakness, but because Western leaders no longer have any illusions about Russia being a democracy. The Syria issue is just a litmus test that reveals to all that Russia and the West have fundamentally differing views of the world," he adds

Putin will address G8 summit as head of winning Syrian war camp

DEBKAfile Special Report June 17, 2013, 11:04 AM (IDT)

Tags:  Vladmir Putin,  Barack Obama,  G8,  Syria,  Iran,

Vladimir Putin at G8 summit

Russian President Vladimir Putin set the tone for the discussion on Syria at the G8 summit which opened  in Northern Ireland Monday, June 17, when he rounded harshly on British Prime Minister David Cameron in London Sunday for supporting rebels who “kill their enemies and eat their organs.” Hitting back at this week’s decision by US President Barack Obama – whom he will meet privately at the summit - to give the rebels “military support” – Putin asked: “Are these the people you want to supply weapons?”

The lovely lakeside venue for the two-day gathering of US, Russian, Canadian, French, German, Italian, British and Japanese leaders was worlds away from the Syrian killing fields, where 93,000 people have died, according to conservative estimates. But the Russian president will make sure that the voices of his allies, Bashar Assad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Hassan Nasrallah, are heard loud and clear in the conference hall, until they are acknowledged the victors of the vicious Syrian war. If world leaders hold back, the Syrian and Hizballah armies will continue their march on Aleppo, Syria’s biggest town, for their next bloodbath.

The light arms President Obama proposes to release for the Syrian rebels don’t give them the smallest fighting chance against the fighter-bomber jets, heavy tanks, and unlimited ordnance supplied Bashar Assad’s army by Russia and the missiles and troops coming in from Hizballah and Iran.

This unbeatable preponderance makes the fall of Aleppo and Assad’s victory a foregone conclusion
Israel Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, speaking in Washington over the weekend, argued that the Syrian army’s successes did not add up to a strategic victory. The Russian leader will present the opposite case to which his fellows in the Group of Eight have no answer. They will therefore hammer at the only point on which they agree, the quest for a political solution of the Syrian crisis by means of an international conference, i.e., getting Geneva-2 off the ground. 

Putin and Obama will therefore need to put their heads together on accepted ground rules for this event.

Although on the face of it, nothing could be more reasonable, debkafile’s Russian and Middle East sources report it is a tall order indeed, given the list of at least four pre-conditions Putin plans to put before the US President on the strength of his partners’ war successes:

1. Geneva-2 will not be convened by the US or Russia, as first agreed, but by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. This would force Washington to stay within the bounds of UN resolutions and not act as did the US and NATO in Libya to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi outside their Security Council mandate.

2.  Bashar Assad must remain in power as the legitimate ruler of Syria. Russia’s sale of arms to the Syrian government in Damascus was therefore legal.

3.  Iran must be given a seat at Geneva-2.

The Russian president is determined to thwart any attempt by Obama to take advantage of Hassan Rouani’s election as president of Iran to supersede the battlefield successes of Russia, Iran and Hizballah in Syria. Ayatollah Khamenei will go along with him on this.

Sunday night, Washington was evidently exploring new diplomatic ground with Tehran when Denis McDonough, White House chief of staff commented that Hassan Rouhani’s election as president of Iran was a potentially hopeful sign. “If he is interested in, as he has said in his campaign events, mending his relations… with the rest of the world – there’s the opportunity to do that.”

But then, he said: “But doing so would require Iran to come clean on its illicit nuclear program.”
This was the Obama administration’s answer to Putin’s comment Tuesday, June 11 when he said: “I have no doubt that Iran is adhering to international commitments on nuclear non-proliferation, but regional and international concerns about Tehran’s nuclear program should not be ignored,” said the Russian leader.

4.  Putin has gone back on his earlier consent to a single, united delegation representing the Syrian opposition at the projected international conference. He now maintains that the rebel front is hopelessly divided and the delegation should truly represent the real situation.

This too will be a Russian attempt to frustrate Western plans for a united opposition camp to speak with one voice opposite the Assad regime, by accentuating the rifts dividing the rival Syrian opposition factions and militias.

As matters look now, Assad’s drive to recapture all of Aleppo will continue after the G8 leaders have gone home. Putin, Khamenei, Assad and Nasrallah will continue their hideous victory march and the US, West and Israel will continue to hold back from intervention that could reverse the tide.

Bluntly Unequivocal

"We are not in Canada, at the present time, we are not contemplating arming the opposition in Syria. I understand -- fully understand -- why our allies would do that, particularly given recent actions by Russia, Iran and others. But our aid, at the present time and our aid for now, will continue to be humanitarian aid.
"I don't think we should fool ourselves. This is G7 plus one. OK, let's be blunt. We in the West have a very different perspective on this situation. Mr. Putin and his government are supporting the thugs of the Assad regime for their own reasons that I do not think are justifiable, and Mr. Putin knows my view on that. But we will not, unless there's a big shift of position in his part, we're not going to get a common position with him at the G8."
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Nothing bland and uncontroversial about those statements. They're clear, concise and to the point. And the emphasis on Russian President Vladimir Putin's resolve not to abandon his support for the Alawite Syrian regime of President Bashar al Assad places the G8 meeting in perspective. The group will have the situation in Syria at the top of their agenda.

The 'situation' of dire misery for the civilian population of Syria, the thousands dead, the millions bereft of their homes and security and constantly under threat is one that cannot be set aside.

Mr. Putin seeks to secure his country's advantage in befriending Syria, Iran and Hezbollah and their cause, ensuring Russia a foothold in the region, clients for Russia's munitions manufacturing and its nuclear industry. And a handy port for its Black Sea Fleet. In fact, Russia has decided to restore the presence on a permanent basis of the Russian Federation Fleet. And part of the reason for that is its commitment to Syria's regime survival, partly to restore its historical presence in the Mediterranean.

Russia bridled at the decision by the Obama administration to relent and arm the rebels against the superior arms of the regime which, with the invaluable aid of Hezbollah has routed the rebels from towns they had held for over a year. The setback seen for the Free Syrian Army and prospects for additional setbacks are alarming for Western nations looking in on the brutal conflict. All the more so with the United Nations adding its voice in dismay at the deteriorating conditions for Syrian civilians and the growing numbers of refugees.

Prime Minister Harper's emphasis on the G7 [+1] placing pressure on Russia to re-think its position in support of Syria's tyrannical regime still leaves no doubt that nothing will be gained in the nature of turning President Putin in the direction of joining the other nations in condemning Syria and supporting the opposition. President Putin speaks with theatrical disgust of the rebels as fiercely cannibalistic and who would in their right minds arm such barbarians?

One demented video produced for show-and-tell to emphasize the degree to which each side demonizes the other through a primitive demonstration of just how low in brutal excess a combatant can stoop, now serves as an instrument for Vladimir Putin to bludgeon his critics with. But Prime Minister Harper has pledged himself on Canada's behalf to continue to work with allies in the G7 and NATO to dredge up a practical solution toward an alternative government in Syria "not embracing of terrorist or extremist elements".

Far more readily enunciated than produced out of a hat of tricks. "The Russians and Americans are so polarized on this issue that there are few countries that can play the middle ground. Canada may find itself in a position here, as it becomes more polarized among the superpowers, it may try to revert to its traditional position to be an honest broker", commented Christian Lepreucht, military strategy expert from Queen's University and Royal Military College.

Iran, Re-Treaded

"The person tagged to replace [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad will simply be another of [Supreme Leader] Ayatollah Khamenei's puppets in the tragic and dangerous pantomime that is life for all Iranians."
Foreign Minister John Baird, Canada

"We need freedom of speech and the right to criticize. If we cannot criticize decisions, then our problems will not be solved."
Hassan Rowhani, Iranian President-elect

The world seems to be falling all over itself in congratulating a suddenly-less-threatening Islamic Republic of Iran, for the people have spoken. A goodly proportion of the voting Iranian public have spoken, in any event. Spoken at the ballot box. They have voted into office what passes for a 'moderate' in Iran. What a proud achievement. That from among a handful of candidates that the Ayatollah and his Supreme Council permitted to put themselves forward as candidates because they were inoffensively supportive of the regime, one was chosen.

The winner himself characterized his win whereby he had secured over half of the votes from a purportedly 70% turnout of eligible voters, as "a victory of wisdom, a victory of moderation, a victory of growth and awareness and a victory of commitment over extremism and ill-temper". So how is it that Canada's top diplomatic presence within the international community is alone (well of course there is always Israel, recommending caution) in tempering enthusiasm?

Not so Britain, France, Germany and the United States where the U.S. Secretary of State used the occasion to praise the perspicacity of the the electorate in its wisdom for selecting a presidential candidate who would lead to a situation that would "restore and expand freedoms for all Iranians". One assumes he knows of what he speaks. Or, more likely, not at all.

Do we just shunt aside the reality that is Iran? That reality being that it is Grand Ayatollah Khamenei whose word is final?

And among his final dictates is the implacable reality of a nuclear program that Iran will not be denied. And of course additional realities as well. Such as the hordes of Iranian citizens who have been arrested, detained, tortured, imprisoned and even executed for offending the sensibilities of the ruling Ayatollahs. Freedom of expression is a Western concept, a contemptible one according to the Ayatollahs.

The commission of terrorist criminality did not deter the Supreme Council from giving a clean bill of health to the presidential candidates they vetted. As long as they were sufficiently expressive of the Republic's values. Will the winning presidential candidate turn his attention to the execution of minors, the incarceration of journalists and bloggers, the persecution of women, and religious minorities? Just...wondering.

And the Government of Canada is also wondering, its spokesman saying outright that the vote was a sham, and Rowhani was a very useful "puppet".  Because, said Canada's Foreign Minister John Baird, the election was "effectively meaningless", since only "regime-friendly candidates" were permitted to stand for office, none of whom "represents a real alternative for Iranian voters".

Hassan Rowhani is no novice plucked out of nowhere to become the successor to the abrasive Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who failed in the last several years to endear himself to the Supreme Leader. Mr. Rowhani made common cause with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in his Paris exile, served as security advisor to former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and was later head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council before becoming the country's nuclear negotiator.

How moderate, how independent, can this man be? He is, in fact, an influential regime insider, one whom the Ayatollahs have reason to trust. According to Sayeh Hassan, a Toronto lawyer and pro-democracy activist who left Iran for Canada a quarter century ago, Mr. Rowhani "may be a moderate, but that is moderate within the Islamic Regime. He was one of the only 8 people out of 600-plus who were allowed to run for the presidency and approved by Khamenei and the Guardian Council."

"They were essentially hand-picked", she stated. "The regime is weak and facing so much pressure, and has lost most of its legitimacy at home and abroad. It needed a high voter turnout, and it needs someone moderate to engage the West and stop some of the pressure on Iran. So enters Rowhani... This is not a victory.  We may see some small but non-fundamental changes, maybe a lesser strict rules on the dress code and maybe women will be able to have nail polish on their hands without being arrested, but there will be no change in the real issues and real oppression", she said.

Her view was supported by Shabnam Assadollahi, an English-as-a-second-language instructor in Ottawa and another pro-democracy activist. She too throws the cold water of reason on the prospect of Iran having suddenly become "moderate". Tehran is buying time, closing in on its nuclear weapons goal. She spoke of Mr. Rowhani as a "sly" regime loyalist who has, in the past, been known to boast of having duped Western powers during nuclear negotiations.