Iraian Urges Gulf Security

IRANIAN URGES GULFSECURITY PACT

Desember 4,2007

In it's 28th annual gatering of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), President Ahmadinejad , the first Iranian leader before a key group of Pertian Gulf nation , proposed the establishment of economic and security pact and institutions among tie seven states-Bahrain,Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates-to serve the people of the region without forein influence .

The Gulf meeting took place less than a weak after Mideast peace summit in Annapolice, United States, in which Arab nations attended to discover a way ,with their old aiiy's help, U.S, to bring "Peace"in MiddleEast.

After the revelution in Ian, Arab countries, foremed a party named"Gulf Coopration Council" to counter the spread of the new Shi'ite! Regim in their neiborhood.The new government in Iran ,claimed the Middle East countries should take the security control of the region and also the economical benefit of it.Arab countries couldn't rely on Iran , their potentional enemy which opposite to the United States , the superpower of the world and their old ally.On the other hand,with Shah and Pahlavi gone U.S lost it's position in one of the most strategically, economically and militarilily important region in the region in the world.

MiddleEast,with it's abundant sourses of oil, could be very useful for the economic of the U.S .So American administer supported Arabs to oppose Iran ,their same enemy .But now after 28 years ,Arab's invitation of Iranian leaders approximatly around their meeting in the Anappolice ,shows that there is something hapening .
1. Can they ignore Iran ,a power near to them and more close to their benefits, security and peace?
2.Is the "peace" in American terminology means the "peace"Iran is looking for amoung the countries ?
Is it possible to continiueto exist without the U.S support and replacing Iran?3.

It seems that Arabs are facing a big dillema and their conclusion would be vital for the three sides:Gulf nation , united states and Iran.

British teacher found guilty in Sudan

BRITISH TEACHER FOUND GUILTY IN SUDAN

BY:JEFFRY GETTLEMAN
PUBLISHED:NOV.30,2007.NEW YORK TIMES

A british teacher who let her 7_year_ old students name Teddy Bear," Muhammad" was found guilty and sentenced to 15 days in jail and deportation.British officials were furious and summened Sudanese ambassador in London.

It was when Ms.Gibbons wanted her students to name a teddy bear and photograph it and write a dairy about it named "my name is Mohammad".Students parents complained to the authorities.


People in Sudan where most of it's population are Muslem considered it as an insult to Islam and muslem's prophet.Although it's not the first conflict between west world and muslems, it should be considered as apolitical issue on the west benefits from the challenged reigion "Darfur"west of Sudan .This happpened at the time when Sudan's relation with west is stained in a high level. Branding an outrageous jail sentence for Ms. Gibbons,The United States ,backing staunch ally Britan, seems is looking for it's own intrest.Britain and U.S are profited from selling arms to any reigion in war.On the other hand they would be satisfied if they can have a government which support their policy.So it can be a chance for them to divert world's attention to religious matters and make it best for themselves.

news

Going Nuts:Why Iran Nibble Worries U.S

Wednesday November 21,2007-11-23







The U.S and Israel are angered by Iranians pistachio export to Israel.Iran is the biggest produser of pistachio nuts and it is finding it's way to Israeli shoping through Turkey.It's against law because Israel has banned all Iranian products.It's olso part of Bush strategy to keep Iran away from nuclear weapon!.It's also a competition because California is the second largest produser of pistachio in the world.



U.S as the most effective allies of Israel in the world and specially in the middle east tries for Israel's intrests and it would be more important if they were in the same direction of the U.S itself.As economical issuse are the basis of political matters,as I think,and because always Iran's affaires are important especially those due to U.S and Israel, this case seems to be vital for three sides.Being the super power,U.S administrators can't stand the growth of any country,specialy when Israel's profit and political prestige is in danger.These two powers want moreUN sanctions against Iran's nuclear matter,but now they faced Iran's attendance in economical markets,even in their own teritory.

Surely they will resist.They will continue scientifically to be better in production of pistachio or other productions that Iran as their considereable enemy is master in the world.Being effective powers help them to face politically and make problems for Iran.



Iran ,on the other hand,has experts in scientifical matters.The only problem is domestic desitions that sometimes Iranian administrators make that not only is not for country's benefit,but help the other side .

Transition toward Diplomacy

Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate has assigned a letter among 29 other Democrats to President Bush to take serious action against Iran, and it's nuclear matter. she recently asserted that she had not voted for war in 2002 and just voted for desperation for nuclear weapons.
She also declared that nothing in the resolution grants Bush the authority to take the military attack against Iran.

It seems that there is something happening in the U.S. foreign policy and especially toward the most challenging country, Iran. Even American people' approach toward international issues has changed. Although they are yet afraid of their security, and pay attention to the matters like TERRORISM, they seem came to the conclusion that the already policies taken by their governors not only have not been worthy, but they have brought other problems for them.
So, presidential candidates try to avoid rigid position in their policies .Hillary Clinton as a Democratic candidate tries to take a softer position toward Iran.
Had been said by Iranian politicians, Iran avoids military approaches and tries to come with diplomatic policy. But even in the worst situation militarily it can defend. However, peoples view toward war is another matter.

In Pakistan,Echoes of Iran

David Ignatius from Jerusalim gave an absorbing comparison on relations between US and Pakistan with US and Iran before Islamic Revolution. For instance, Pakistan exactly like Iran who was American allies in war with Soviet Union was against al-Qaede aside US. Ignatius talks on deficient policies American government had in Iran which resulted in Islamic Revolution and against American programs for (so-called) reform and democratic regime in Iran. He believes the delay made Ayatollah Khomeini successful in Iran and in Pakistan we should not repeat the experience. US has to act efficiently and firmly to do reforms toward a democratic regime in Pakistan especially using Benazir Bhutto as opposition leader.
Of course, I think there are many hints to show that Pakistan and Iran are different in many respects. Inside Pakistan on the contrary to Iran, at Revolution era) the case is not almost all people and tyrannical government. But in Pakistan the tribal and religious crack among people and politicians.The leadership also looks very different in Pakistan. So, I do not think there are enough potential to be really against US.Simultaneously,I think controlling the present turmoil and establishing a democratic government in Pakistan by US makes Pakistan its more loyal ally.