[Fatah-niks] thrilled with terror attack
[aggregated from Elder of Ziyon]

Here are some of the autotranslated comments at the Fatah-linked Palestine Press news agency to the article about the terror attack in Jerusalem today [in which a terrorist driving a black BMW ran his car into a crowd of pedestrians at a busy intersection in central Jerusalem near the Old City --ynet.] :


I hope more heroic operations


Yahya God all the freedom fighters in the city of Jerusalem, especially the bomber


We congratulate the process [operation] and wish [that the source was] the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and it is not with the [Hamas] resistance, the Iranian Hamas pigs who deliver [only] a paper resistance and we say [to Hamas] Go to hell


Thank God with us, which we thought that the beloved Palestine and the Palestinian issue still has insisted in Palestinian hearts and that despite all attempts to disperse the Palestinian thinking, but we can work to break the cover of occupation


Thank God for this work which God chose us Homnfz driver and the process is a martyr hero God bless his soul to God, what a bargain Jewish Lord violin and violin operations Aktar more, you know, I do not kill each other so you O Palestine, Fatah and Hamas miles Msolon us what is Sahhhhhhhhhhhhhawwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Ome fine fine Halina Unit Nationally supported in some yen Thank you, you Iarepettstjibwa Arabs


The name of God Rahamin Rahim
Web and thrown and thrown, but God contact us thank God that we have made Islam and Muslims hail you a martyr and God Spoof you, hero of God you are happy and the Palestinian people in the holy month of Ramadan, God willing, and more heroic operations

Elder of Ziyon comments: But there was one commenter against the attack. Well, of course he praised the attack, but he thought that the timing was not the greatest, because it might delay the Israelis giving up more land to the Palestinian Arabs for free.

Everyone Needs to Worry About Iran
By RICHARD HOLBROOKE, R. JAMES WOOLSEY, DENNIS B. ROSS and MARK D. WALLACE
Op Ed, September 22, 2008 Wall Street Journal

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the United Nations in New York this week. Don't expect an honest update from him on his country's nuclear program. Iran is now edging closer to being armed with nuclear weapons, and it continues to develop a ballistic-missile capability.

Such developments may be overshadowed by our presidential election, but the challenge Iran poses is very real and not a partisan matter. We may have different political allegiances and worldviews, yet we share a common concern -- Iran's drive to be a nuclear state. We believe that Iran's desire for nuclear weapons is one of the most urgent issues facing America today, because even the most conservative estimates tell us that they could have nuclear weapons soon.

A nuclear-armed Iran would likely destabilize an already dangerous region that includes Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, and pose a direct threat to America's national security. For this reason, Iran's nuclear ambitions demand a response that will compel Iran's leaders to change their behavior and come to understand that they have more to lose than to gain by going nuclear.

Tehran claims that it is enriching uranium only for peaceful energy uses. These claims exceed the boundaries of credibility and science. Iran's enrichment program is far larger than reasonably necessary for an energy program. In past inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, U.N. inspectors found rare elements that only have utility in nuclear weapons and not in a peaceful nuclear energy program. Iran's persistent rejection of offers from outside energy suppliers or private bidders to supply it with nuclear fuel suggests it has a motive other than energy in developing its nuclear program. Tehran's continual refusal to answer questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about this troublesome part of its nuclear program suggests that it has something to hide.

The world rightfully doubts Tehran's assertion that it needs nuclear energy and is enriching nuclear materials for strictly peaceful purposes. Iran has vast supplies of inexpensive oil and natural gas, and its construction of nuclear reactors and attempts to perfect the nuclear fuel cycle are exceedingly costly. There is no legitimate economic reason for Iran to pursue nuclear energy.

Iran is a deadly and irresponsible world actor, employing terrorist organizations including Hezbollah and Hamas to undermine existing regimes and to foment conflict. Emboldened by the bomb, Iran will become more inclined to sponsor terror, threaten our allies, and support the most deadly elements of the Iraqi insurgency.

Tehran's development of a nuclear bomb could serve as the "starter's gun" in a new and potentially deadly arms race in the most volatile region of the world. Many believe that Iran's neighbors would feel forced to pursue the bomb if it goes nuclear.

By continuing to act in open defiance of its treaty obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran rejects the inspections mandated by the IAEA and flouts multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and sanctions.

At the same time, Iranian leaders declare that Israel is illegitimate and should not exist. President Ahmadinejad specifically calls for Israel to be "wiped off from the map," while seeking the weapons to do so. Such behavior casts Iran as an international outlier. No one can reasonably suggest that a nuclear-armed Iran will suddenly honor international treaty obligations, acknowledge Israel's right to exist, or cease efforts to undermine the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is also the chief spokesman for a regime that represses religious and ethnic minorities, women, students, labor groups and homosexuals. A government willing to persecute its own people can only be viewed as even more dangerous if armed with nuclear weapons.

Finally, our economy has suffered under the burden of rising oil prices. Iran is strategically located on a key choke point in the world's energy supply chain -- the Strait of Hormuz. No one can suggest that a nuclear Iran would hesitate to use its enhanced leverage to affect oil prices, or would work to ease the burden on the battered economies of the world's oil importers.

Facing such a threat, Americans must put aside their political differences and send a clear and united message that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable.

That is why the four of us, along with other policy advocates from across the political spectrum, have formed the nonpartisan group United Against Nuclear Iran. Everyone must understand the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran and mobilize the power of a united American public in opposition. As part of the United Against Nuclear Iran effort, we will announce various programs in the months ahead that we hope will be rallying points for the American and international public to voice unified opposition to a nuclear Iran.

We do not aim to beat the drums of war. On the contrary, we hope to lay the groundwork for effective U.S. policies in coordination with our allies, the U.N. and others by a strong showing of unified support from the American people to alter the Iranian regime's current course. The American people must have a voice in this great foreign-policy challenge, and we can make a real difference through national and international, social, economic, political and diplomatic measures.

Mr. Holbrooke is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. Woolsey is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Ross was a special Middle East coordinator for President Clinton. Mr. Wallace was a representative of the U.S. to the U.N. for management and reform.

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist posting the following. //Mark

‘Taliban back UN Peace Day’

Sunday, September 21, 2008
KANDAHAR: A spokesman for Afghanistan’s Taliban said the militia would cease attacks on UN Peace Day on Sunday.

The Afghan army and international military forces have also announced, after a call from President Hamid Karzai, that they would halt offensives on Peace Day, September 21.

“In respect for the international Peace Day, Taliban have issued a declaration that we are in a defensive position and we will cease attacks,” a spokesman for the group, Yousuf Ahmadi, told AFP. The extremists, who are linked to al-Qaeda, posted a statement on their website to the same effect. “If Nato and America and their followers respect this day for real, and avoid tricks and announce the ceasefire from the depth of their heart, the (Taliban) will also instruct to its own Mujahedeen to take the defensive position on this day,” the statement said.

RALLY TO STOP IRAN set for UN visit by Ahmadinejad
to protest the presence of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad at the United Nations, and to oppose his nuclear weapons program.

From The National Coalition to Stop Iran Now

(New York, Sept. 18, 2008) --- The purpose of “THE RALLY TO STOP IRAN NOW” on Monday, Sept. 22, 2008, is to protest the presence of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad at the United Nations, and to oppose his nuclear weapons program. We take most seriously his threat to wipe the United States and Israel “off the map” and believe the world leaders gathered at the United Nations must act with resolve to prevent a nuclear armed Iran that would be a threat to this country, Israel and the world.

For this reason, tens of thousands of people of every faith and ethnicity are expected to hear messages from prominent religious and civic leaders, including Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel and Israeli Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik. In order to keep the focus on Iranian threats and to ensure that this critical message not be obscured, the organizers of the rally have decided not to have any American political personalities appear.

This issue, opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran, is one which enjoys bipartisan support and the backing of the American people across the political spectrum. On this, all Americans stand together. We acknowledge and deeply appreciate those American political leaders who have been and remain prepared to stand with us as we collectively address the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and its support for terrorism globally.

We hope that the world leaders gathered at the UN will hear this message and resolve to act decisively against the Iranian nuclear program by implementing UN and Security Council resolutions and sanctions.

We again call on all concerned Americans of every background to join us at the "RALLY TO STOP IRAN NOW" on Monday, Sept. 22, at 11:45 A.M.

Signed:
The National Coalition to Stop Iran Now
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
United Jewish Communities
UJA-Federation of New York
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs
The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York

McCain and Obama campaigns focus on sanctions as Iran threat looms By Ron Kampeas. [excerpt] WASHINGTON (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, www.jta.org) 9/16/2008 -- The mounting anxiety over Iran’s nuclear program is sparking campaign chatter over a possible Israeli strike and prompting a bipartisan effort to revive long-stalled sanctions legislation in the U.S. Congress. ...

European Jewish Congress President: military action against Iran only under UN auspices by: Yossi Lempkowicz Updated: 15/Sep/2008 European Jewish Press

BRUSSELS (EJP)---The President of the European Jewish Congress (EJC) Moshe Kantor said that «if there is an obvious evidence that Iranians are going to have the nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it, somebody should stop them on behalf of the United Nations, even by military action.”

Kantor made the comment to journalists Monday in Brussels where he chaired a gathering of a dozen international experts on nuclear non-proliferation who discussed the danger of the Iranian nuclear program and the potential propagation of nuclear terrorism around the globe.

“If Israel or the US will be authorized to do a military action is not the question but rather that it (the Iranian nuclear program) should be stopped because it is a danger for the whole world,” Kantor said, stressing that Iran is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“If such military action is done legally, it is a very good protection for the European Jewry,” he added, insisting that everything “should be done legally”, and within the framework of the UN Security Council resolutions.

Kantor deplored the fact that around 10,000 companies in Europe are still collaborating with Iran on the development of its gas and oil industry. “A market with a turnover of about 100 billion dollars,” he stressed.

“The collaboration continues and even big EU countries cannot stop their business community from investing in Iran’s proliferation process,” Kantor, who is also president of the International Luxembourg Forum on Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe, said.

Iran is still blocking attempts to investigate allegations that Teheran carried out research and experiments linked to a nuclear weapons program, said a report released Monday by the UN nuclear agency.


At the gathering, a Russian expert, Vladimir Dvorkin, a retired general, reported about the different scenarios of an attack of Iran or from Iran.

He said that the disaster would be smaller if somebody attacks Iran first. “If we wait for Iran to have the nuclear weapon, it will be more problematic,” Dvorkin reportedly said.

The experts stressed that economic sanctions against Tehran “are not effective” because they do not hit the sensitive part of the Iranian society. “Any critic against the nuclear program is seen by the Iranians as a threat against the position of Iran in the world.”

There is a mobilization of the society around the current leadership, they said.

Monday’s roundtable discussion was also attended by experts from the US, UK, Norway, Israel, Belgium, Holland and the Czech Republic.

New IAEA Report: Iran Continues to Withhold Nuclear Program Info
IAEA Report released Sept. 15, 2008


The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) today (Sept. 15) released new findings that Iran is continuing to refuse to provide information about the nature of its nuclear program and its uranium enrichment activities. The Islamic Republic could face a new round of sanctions for its intransigence. See below for additional information about past reports and visit www.theisraelproject.org/iranpresskit for more information about Iran.

The IAEA's reports about Iran’s nuclear program have consistently found that Iran has failed – and continues to fail – to fully cooperate with the IAEA, pointing to a military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program.[1] Iran has acknowledged working on a nuclear program for more than 20 years[2] and pursued a policy of concealment until October 2003. Since then, Iran has failed to provide satisfactory information about and access to its program.[3]

The reports have also found that Iran is continuously developing and operating new centrifuges[4] and enriching uranium in violation of several U.N. Security Council Resolutions. This is a major concern for the IAEA.[5] Other findings conclude that Iran apparently is conducting secret studies to convert uranium dioxide into “green salt,” which can be used to make fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile material for a bomb. Iran is also testing “high explosives” and redesigning the inner cone of the Shahab-3 missile re-entry head to accommodate a nuclear warhead, a subject of concern to the Agency.[6]

Of pertinence.

"If all of these activities are real, it would mean that Iran is moving faster and is closer to obtaining a nuclear-weapons capability than the hard facts suggest. .... [I]f Tehran were to believe that American -- not Israeli -- military action is imminent, it might slow work on the elements of its program that it thinks the world can observe." -- David Kay, Washington Post, September 14, 2008 Op Ed



OPED / David Kay
What's missing from Iran debateBuilding a security framework for a nuclear TehranBy David Kay • Special to The Washington Post • September 14, 2008

It would be impossible and foolish to predict what lies immediately ahead for Iran. Inflation runs rampant and domestic unrest is growing, but the leadership is banding together in support of the country's nuclear program. Threat assessment and war planning are (or should be) about best-guessing capabilities and intentions. When it comes to Iran, these calculations are difficult, but there are things we can -- and must -- figure out. Given what we know and what we can best-guess, it looks as if Iran is 80 percent of the way to a functioning nuclear weapon.


Every nuclear program needs raw materials, a way to refine them and, in the final stage, weaponization. Getting and enriching the materials is the hardest part; without this, a nuclear reaction is impossible. How does Iran's nuclear program measure up?

The situation is a bit murky, but we know, basically, that Tehran has a handle on the fissionable material. Iran imported significant amounts of raw uranium from China in 1991. It has also attempted to produce weapons-grade material, conducting secret enrichment efforts and acquiring designs, materials and samples of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment from the A.Q. Khan network. Plus, over the past 18 years, the Iranians have developed and tested state-of-the-art centrifuges and enrichment techniques. If Iran's 6,000 forthcoming new-design centrifuges were working for a year, the program could produce about five weapons. My best guess is that they are about two to four years away from accomplishing this.

Next comes weaponization. The fissionable material must be converted into metal and packaged. Here again, Iran has made substantial progress. What remains is to produce these elements in adequate numbers and amounts; combine them in an engineering design that ensures that they work and that fits on a missile; and gain confidence that the resulting weapons will get the job done.

All of this is public knowledge, but the answers to most of the important questions relating to intent and progress on crucial elements of weaponization are unknown. It's the only partially understood and suspected activities of Iran that are most alarming. Signs of these activities include detection by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors of samples of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium; more extensive plutonium separation than Iran has admitted; weapons design work; construction of a heavy-water reactor and its associated heavy-water production facility; design work on missile re-entry vehicles that seem to be for a nuclear weapon; and reports of yet-undiscovered programs and facilities.

If all of these activities are real, it would mean that Iran is moving faster and is closer to obtaining a nuclear-weapons capability than the hard facts suggest. Obtaining that last 20 percent of the elements needed to make a nuclear weapon would take perhaps one to two years, instead of the four to seven years needed if they were not.

While we know a lot more about Iran than we did about Iraq (before the Persian Gulf and Iraq wars), we still lack answers to the most important questions, including:

If Iran has decided or decides to acquire nuclear weapons, how long will it take to do so and how many could it produce per year?

How much foreign assistance has Iran received, and from whom did it receive it?

Does Iran have unknown clandestine nuclear facilities and, if so, how many? Doing what?

What are the real capabilities of Iran's various weapons-delivery options, particularly its missiles?

What are the command-and-control arrangements for Iran's nuclear program? Where is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in this mix?

This dirty-laundry list is one reason efforts to provide net assessments about where the program is have proved so contentious. The last U.S. attempt to produce a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, in December, led to a comedy remarkable even by Washington standards. Yet we are talking about a country with known nuclear ambitions and a track record of violating international obligations in pursuit of that goal.

Despite the unanswered questions, we have some pretty frightening knowledge about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Less clear are its intentions.

Tehran often claims to want only to pursue a civilian nuclear program. But it also says it wants to wipe Israel off the map. And Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with Ahmadinejad, sees nuclear "power" as a symbol of national pride. It's difficult to know what to believe.

What truly raises tensions, though, is Iran's worldview. Iranians have learned to fear the power of others and to believe that they must ultimately organize their world in a way that lessens the power of the states that pose the greatest threat to them. And Iran's essential national security threat has never been Israel. It is the United States.

My humble best guess is that Iran is pushing toward a nuclear-weapons capability as rapidly as it can. But if Tehran were to believe that American -- not Israeli -- military action is imminent, it might slow work on the elements of its program that it thinks the world can observe. Yet such temporizing would only be tactical. Its strategic goal is to acquire nuclear weapons to counter what it views as a real U.S. threat. Iran appears to believe that the United States is not willing to accept the validity and survival of the Iranian revolutionary state.

Of course, Iran does not exist in a vacuum. How Israel and the United States perceive the threat, based on their own historical memories and strategic priorities, figures significantly in just how messy this may get.

The context within which these national strategies and decisions are interacting is being reshaped by two factors. First, oil prices have exploded, greatly enriching Iran and making clear to the West the economic and political pain and destruction that could come from a serious disruption in the flow of oil. Second is Iran's belief that it has gained a strategic advantage against the United States as a result of its being tied down in Iraq, and against Israel, because of the tactical blunting, if not defeat, of its military in Lebanon.

Strategic objectives
The United States must figure out and articulate its strategic objectives regarding Iran's nuclear program. At present, its actions and rhetoric are often as conflicted as those of the Islamic Republic.

And while not all would agree with Sen. John McCain's assessment that the only thing worse than a U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran would be Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, few in the mainstream of American politics seem ready to go on the record with a plan for "the day after" that does not involve military action.

Two concerns seem to be most absent from discussion of Iran's "nuclear future," whatever it is: First, what policies would limit any advantage, political or military, that Iran might gain from such weapons? Second, how do we begin to craft, with all the states of the region -- including Israel and Iran -- political, economic and security arrangements that recognize their varied interests and concerns and their often very different perspectives on what these are? In the end, we need to decide how we can perform damage control and create arrangements that take into account states' varied interests.

Figuring this out is not rocket science. But we must begin the process of discussion, consultation, planning and acting that will lay the groundwork for a future far different from either the conflicts of the past or the current path toward a regional conflagration that may well involve nuclear weapons.

The United States, along with all of the states in the Middle East, has to create security policies that guarantee that acts of aggression will not be allowed to threaten any state's survival while also beginning to build the economic institutions and policies that can create a future where war seems impossible. While Iran's economy suffers, engagement is more feasible.

What is hard is the actual act of stepping off the (probably sinking) ship we stand on to construct a very different vessel. This is one of those times in history when will is more important than brilliance and when determination to shape a different future is more vital than experience in rituals of the past.

The writer led the U.N. inspections after the Persian Gulf War that uncovered the Iraqi nuclear program. He later led the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which determined there were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction at the time of the 2003 invasion. This article was adapted from a longer on in the current issue the National Interest.