Uppity Wisconsin

It has been an amazing week in Iran, and you are no doubt seeing images that would have been unimaginable just a few weeks ago. For most of us, Iran has been a country about which we know very little…which, obviously, makes it tough to put the limited news we’re getting into a proper context.

The goal of today’s conversation is to give you a bit more of an “insider look” at today’s news; and to do that we’ll describe some of the risks Iranian bloggers face as they go about their business, we’ll meet a blogging Iranian cleric, we’ll address the issue of what tools the Iranians use for Internet censorship and the companies that could potentially be helping it along, and then we’ll examine Internet traffic patterns into and out of Iran.

Finally, a few words about, of all things, how certain computer games might be useful as tools of revolution.

The first task for today…let’s talk about blogging:

It turns out that bloggers in Iran risk running afoul of the Press Law of 1986, which, in addition to requiring the licensing of media outlets, reads in part:

Article 6: The print media are permitted to publish news items except in cases when they violate Islamic principles and codes and public rights as outlined in this chapter…

…5.

So you thought Iraq was bad? Look forward to Iran. Read the recent New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh, Preparing the Battlefield.

A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.” (A spokesman for Gates confirmed that he discussed the consequences of a strike at the meeting, but would not address what he said, other than to dispute the senator’s characterization.)

Well, you gotta say that these here war hawks are at least consistent.

One would have thought that the non-news about nukes in Iran would settle things, but no - bad ideas in this administration just keep coming back for another round of attention.

McClatchy newspapers are reporting that bombing Iran nuclear facilities is back on the table . Clearly this isn't going to go away as a Washington pet project. I swear that the McClatchy reporters are some of the few journalists in the country who appear to be awake and breathing.

"Iran is in the eye of the storm," he says, noting that regional neighbor Pakistan and arch-foe Israel both have nuclear weapons, though neither are signatories like Iran of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "It is the duty of every government to equip itself to defend itself. Any state in Iran's position should go after the latest military technology."

Since the NIE report, US officials have raised the bar for Iran's compliance, insisting that Tehran acknowledge that it once had a nuclear weapons program. The new US intelligence described in the IAEA report includes designs for a 400-meter shaft for remotely testing explosives from six miles away, which "would be relevant" to weapons research."   excert from article by Scott Peterson

These are the very same tactics used by the US and Britian to eventually invade Iraq.  They constantly demanded more.  When orginal requests were satisfied, they implied, lied and demanded more compliance.  Basically, there wasn't a way for Iraq to comply since at each juncture the US and Britian would "raise the bar".

A short 6 min. video of American foreign policy in Iran.  JustForeignPolicy is a non profit organization working to effect a grassroots change in America's foreign policy.

JustForeignPolicy: "Stephen Kinzer, the award winning author and former foreign correspondent for the New York Times rejects this argument. He, along with a diverse group of other experts on Iran, Congressional leaders and military experts are traveling across the country to counter the message from Washington and to present options for a more rational foreign policy towards Iran."

February 19: Chicago, IL
6:30 pm at the Northwestern University Chicago Campus in Thorne Auditorium, Arthur Rubloff Building, 375 E. Chicago Avenue
Sponsored by The Pluralism Fund, the North Suburban Peace Initiative, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the No War on Iran Coalition. 

... The more thoughtful military and civilian advisers can rattle off a dozen reasons why an American attack on Iran at this juncture would be foolish in the extreme and risk setting the Middle East afire.

Just some of those reasons would include:

Via MAL Contends — Update: Hillary Clinton Supports Resolution Prohibiting Funding for Military Action Against Iran

I don't know how it is possible for someone who is running for president to so consistently mis-read the mood of the country. Today in response to a question about the US making Iran toe the line, we got this: