To Combat Mullahs, U.S. Rep. Advocates Leniency Toward Iranian Group Deemed Terrorist Org.

By Celia Canon-Talk Radio News Service

Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.) addressed the human rights implications of the Iranian government’s treatment of demonstrators, stating that although military engagement was not an option, the U.S. should no longer treat the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), currently recognized as a terrorist organization by the U.S., as an extremist group. As a result, the MEK would be able to work against the Iranian government with greater ease.

“[The U.S.] has put the MEK on the terrorist list here, which means that we can not support them and we hold up any kind of financial transactions that they might want to do,” Filner said during a press conference with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) Friday. Filner went on to describe the MEK as “a democratic, non-nuclear, secular group fighting for freedom and people in Iran.”

In January of this year the European Union ceased to consider the MEK a terrorist organization.

“Sometimes we have invaded countries, but that is not an option today,” added Filner. “We should not stand in their way of trying to get rid of the Iranian regime, so let’s educate the American people about the United States can...do.”

Rohrabacher suggested another avenue through which the U.S. can act, noting that “If the mullahs [Islamic clerics] keep killing their own people to maintain power, the least we can do in the West is track down where they put their loot and freeze those bank accounts.”

Rohrabacher criticized President Barack Obama’s soft diplomacy towards Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, deploring that “one stand that should be made is to be very clear in aggressive words rather than the apologetic tone that we have heard from this administration.”

Experts Re-examine Impact Of Iranian Demonstrations

By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service

During this past weekend, the media attention placed on Iran’s election and popular upheavals have monopolized all TV channels while presenting images of a quasi civil war in the Islamic republic.

Many state leaders have called for a revision of the elections results, claiming that proof of irregularities is abundant, which would render this Friday’s elections undemocratic.

Yet today, experts gathered at the New America Foundation to discuss the significance and outcome of the reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and some even tamed down the media-delivered message that the elections should be rejected by the international community.

Afshin Molavi, a fellow at the New America Foundation, reexamined the clouded image provided by the mainstream media.

“This was the most open and lively and vibrant elections we have seen... Ahmadinejad performed fairly well. He was really pounding his opponents, in particularly( Mir-Hossein) Mousavi as an associate of Rafsanjani who steeped in corruption,” said Molavi.

Flynt Leverett, director of the American Strategy Program at NAF, wrote in his Politico article titled ‘Ahmadinejad Won. Get Over It’ that “The [mainstream media] ignore the fact that Ahmadinejad’s 62.6% of the vote in this year’s election is essentially the same as the 61.69% he received in the final count of the 2005 presidential election.”

According to Ken Ballen, president of the Terror Free Tomorrow, there has also been a misconception on the Ahmadinejad followers whom he claims have been demonized by foreign press and categorized as anti-democratic hard-liners.

On the contrary, polls carried out by Terror Free Tomorrow show otherwise. “86% of the people who said they would vote for Ahmadinejad and supported his reelection also chose ensuring free elections,’ said Ballen.

As for media anticipation that Mousavi would be elected on the account that Ahmadinejad was blamed for having hurt the economy, Leverett added that “While many Iranians complain about inflation, the TFT poll found that most Iranian voters do not hold Ahmadinejad responsible.”

Leverett insisted that the impact of the demonstrations has declined, since demonstrators have expanded their stance from simply protesting voter irregularities to standing against the the notion of an Islamic Republic, which according to Leverett is less likely to achieve results.

“This demonstration is over, in any real strategic sense,” said Leverett.

The demonstrations this weekend have seen both Pro-Ahmadinejad and opposition crowds amass in the streets of Tehran.

Israeli President Shouted Down By Protesters

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico - Talk Radio News Service

Israeli President Shimon Peres spoke today in favor of peace in the Middle East, but some in the audience likely couldn’t hear his call, as protesters within the room shouted him down. Three eruptions of protesters in the audience were stopped by police. The protesters shouted from tabletops and waved signs saying “stop the occupation” and “free gaza.” This all transpired at the Washington DC Convention Center, at a conference led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Peres spoke of his commitment to the peace process, saying that one of the big challenges they all faced was to “disconnect religion from terror”, so extremists are not killing in the name of a higher power.

“History is on the side of peace... history’s on our side,” Peres said. He continued that the extremists leading Iran “are on the wrong side of history.” Peres acknowledged that most Iranians are good people whom he respects, but pointed his finger at extremists like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as being the problem.

“Iran is not threatened by anybody,” Peres said, and continued that Iran’s new missile programs are unnecessary. He said that Iran’s missile development and nuclear program are a threat to Israel “and the global community at large.”

Peres said that he trusts President Obama to make meaningful bilateral negotiations, and to contribute significantly to the peace process.

Iranian trained special militias are biggest threat to Iraq

From the beginning, we have been a team, and our mission is to get rid of all the militias and all insurgents in Iraq, Major General Ali Salih Farhood Oothman, Commander of the 8th Iraqi Army Division, said through an interpreter during a live-via-satellite Pentagon press briefing from Camp Victory in Baghdad. Oothman, head of a division that covers 24% of Iraq consisting of five Iraqi provinces including the Iranian border and Saudi Arabian border, said that his responsibilities in the area are complex because of al-Qaida. However, al-Qaida is not his greatest threat.

The greatest threat according to Oothman is the special militias. In his area of operation, he has both al-Qaida and special militias. In the capital cities of the provinces, he says, there are the militias. The reason for the higher threat level, is that the special groups are trained and equipped by the Iranians. Those groups don’t face you, he said, they use IEDs (improvised explosive devices), or they “stab us in the back” with their politicians. Because the militias are not able to face the Iraqi Army directly, they go to Iran, where they are trained, equipped, and then sent back in to assassinate leaders.

Present as well was Army Major General Michael Oates, Commander of the Multi-National Division Center and the 10th Mountain Division. He agreed with Oothman’s assessment of the Iraq Army’s capabilities, stating that the Army, although much improved and better off than in 2006, demonstrates that there is a need to raise the comparable level of operations that they are responsible for. Four things, Oates said, are needed: we need to work on improving their [Iraqi Army] forces, civics courses need to be given to learn how to assess Iraq’s civilian needs, we need to go after AQI (al-Qaida in Iraq), and we need to reduce the Iranian influence within Iraq.

The topic brought up most frequently during the brief was the inadequate training and supplies. Oates pointed out that the Iraqi Army has been fighting “right out of the box” since the beginning, and was never able to be properly trained. Watching their [Iraqi] army operate, Oates said, he sees that they are very capable and they are seeking initiative in performing their own operations, but we [United States] still are providing valuable assistance. The Iraqi Army is “coming along” but they are not sophisticated with reconnaissance and surveillance. Professionalism is what is missing; the army went into combat with no training, they’ve been in constant combat since 2003, and it’s been tough for them to learn logistics.

Oothman said that since the beginning, they had to work to train their officers. They conducted several training services for their officers, and they send medics to learn some training and they are more professional than they used to be. But to be independent in this battle, Oothman said, we have to not only learn administrative and logistical duties, but we need something else: medical facilities and garages to maintain our vehicles. 80% of these needs are met by coalition forces, and there is currently no plan to build a hospital or a garage.

The Iraqi Army is showing initiative, Oates said, I’m proud to serve with them and I’m here to provide whatever assistance I can. They are making huge strides. We [the United States] should be proud of our soldiers, and they are performing magnificently.