Some church in Florida is planning on celebrating 9/11 by burning hundreds of Korans. Perhaps this will be the launchpad for bonfires across the nation of any book suspected of Muslim tendencies.

There’s a different 9/11 celebration going on in San Diego. Lawrence Ludlow emailed me about “Government Blowback Day.” I don’t know if Lawrence and his friends are planning to burn copies of the 9/11 Commission Report.

From the press release:

San Diego Complete Liberty Declares Sept. 11th “Government Blowback Day”

– Wear a black arm-band on September 11; tell the world you didn’t swallow the Big Lie —

SAN DIEGO, CA – September 6, 2010 – The San Diego “Complete Liberty Meetup” group joins other voluntaryists, private-property anarchists, and libertarians by declaring September 11th a day of remembrance: Government Blowback Day. This September 11, nine years will have passed since the price of the U.S. government’s meddling foreign policy was paid by innocent people. Despite the passing of time, gullible people still believe the Big Lie that was cooked up in the Washington, D.C. “lie factory” – namely, that the terrorists “hate us for our freedom.” What freedom? The spy cameras? Phone and email surveillance? The high taxes? The Patriot Act? The paranoia? The promise of endless wars and new terrorists to come? We are tired of the nonsense. On September 11, the first Government Blowback Day will remind the lunatics in Washington, D.C. that some of us know the real reasons for the attacks. The terrorists made no secret about why they attacked: (1) U.S. government support for the apartheid state of Israel, (2) the presence of U.S. armed forces in Islamic holy places, and (3) the U.S. sanctions that killed over 500,000 children in Iraq as of 1995 (and continued until Dubya started his “war on terror” that will never end with Obama).

September 11 is a day to remember the real cause of terrorism: the president, the congress, and their foreign policy

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 1st, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: The WSJ editorial board uses two 30-year-old letters from the Imam of the Park 51 community center, Feisal Abdul Rauf, to show Rauf’s alleged anti-Israel and pro-Iranian revolution leanings. Egyptian president Anwar Sadat’s 1977 outreach to Israel led Rauf to write, “In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority.” In a letter written after the 1979 Iranian revolution, he observed the American and Iranian revolution shared “the very principles of individual rights and freedom”. In Rauf’s response to the WSJ’s publication of his letters, he wrote, “As I re-read those letters now, I see that they express the same concerns—a desire for peaceful solutions in Israel, and for a humane understanding of Iran.”

National Review Online: At NRO’s The Corner blog, Benjamin Weinthal lays out a ‘reverse linkage’ — turning around the usual military/realist thinking that Israeli-Arab peace will help the U.S. deal with other regional issues. He writes, “To bring about peace with longevity between the Palestinians and Israel, the Obama administration has to confront Iran, which means promoting democracy in Iran and terminating its nuclear-weapons program.” Weinthal asserts, “if the sanctions prove impotent, Obama will then have to turn to serious saber-rattling and lay out a blueprint for military intervention.” The statement rehashes the catchphrase from the early 2000s that ‘the road to Mid East peace runs through Baghdad’ – only now it’s rerouted through Tehran.

The New York Times: David Sanger writes about the linkages between Israeli-Palestinian peace, Iraq and Iran. He argues while other presidents have dealt with these linkages, Obama faces a new variation with U.S. forces pulling out of Iraq, tough sanctions on Iran and and the slow emergence of a working Palestinian government in the West Bank. With the withdrawal from Iraq, Obama can claim victory over that source of instability and, according to Sanger’s sources, progress on Iran. Sanger interviews WINEP cofounders Martin Indyk, the Vice President for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution and former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Senior Mideast diplomat Dennis Ross, special adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ross currently works out of the National Security Council, where he focuses on Iran, and has served in the past two administrations. Indyk and Ross agree sanctions have made progress in isolating and containing Iran. “We finally have leverage,” said Ross, pointing to talk from Iranian officials about the possibility of negotiations with the West.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 31st, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: News columnist Gerald Seib has a convoluted piece on Mid East and Central Asian policy where he says that almost all the U.S.’s regional policy is directed at Iran. Seib writes that Obama’s policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel-Palestine all aim to “clear the decks in order to concentrate more intensely on the paramount challenge posed by Iran and its Islamic extremist friends.” Raising the specter of “a hostile state potentially armed with weapons of mass destruction,” Seib nonetheless affirms the neocon bête noire of linkage between the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the rest of the region. He calls the Mid East talks in Washington this week “an attempt to reduce the danger of a traditional flashpoint, the plight of the stateless Palestinians.”

National Review Online: Robert Costa briefly sums up House Minority Leader John Boehner’s speech to an American Legion Convention in Milwaukee before reproducing the speech in full. Boehner, who would become Speaker should the GOP take the House in November, asserts that “international isolation” will not stop Iran from pursuing the bomb. “Iran is more than prepared to sacrifice the well-being of its people for the chance to fundamentally change the balance of power in the region,” he says. “It is the true source of instability in the region, and we must not naively assume a nuclear-armed Iran would be containable.” Without directly mentioning an Israeli attack on Iran, Boehner says that the U.S. should support Israel as an “island of freedom” and “stick by [its] friends.”

Financial Times (free subscription required): Reporting from Tehran, Monavar Khalaj highlights the still-turbulent domestic politics of Iran. While the current sparring in Iran’s majles — or parliament — is between President Ahmadinejad and fundamentalist hard-liners, the wrangling is in direct defiance of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei and indicates how difficult it is for authorities to keep a lid on politics there. In fact, self-proclaimed Green Movement supporter and arch-neocon Michael Ledeen has a post at NRO pointing to calls for a new round of Green protests (though Ledeen strikes a patronizing tone by declaring the opposition’s poster “elegant”).

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy: WINEP fellow Simon Henderson warns that arrests of Shiite opposition activists in Bahrain could threaten to bring greater resentment from the island-kingdom’s Shiite majority. Henderson argues that the large number of potentially disenfranchised Shiites, Tehran’s historical claims to Bahrain (although Tehran renounced its claim to the kingdom during the Shah’s rule), and the importance of the island state to U.S. military staging in the region are all reasons for the U.S. to encourage the Bahraini government to avoid an outbreak of anti-government and anti-U.S. protests.

Popcorn sales are soaring across the nation because Obama will give a live Oval Office speech tonight on the U.S. victory in Iraq.

I’m disappointed that Obama will not be giving the speech after climbing out of a jet wearing a flight suit, like George W. did with his “Mission Accomplished” speech in 2003.

I expect that Obama will have at least half a dozen Montana-sized howlers in his speech tonight.

But will he out-BS Bush on Iraq?

Has anyone seen betting odds on this proposition? It will not be easy, considering that Bush spent 6 years shoveling hokum on Iraq.

On the other hand, Obama has embraced most of Bush’s follies. Perhaps he can rise to this challenge as well.

One interesting nugget from Josh Nathan-Kazis’s Forward article on the various Sept. 11 events going on at Ground Zero:

In addition to Wilders, the rally [led by Pamela Geller] will feature a videotaped address by John Bolton, ambassador to the United Nations during the second Bush administration, and speeches by Republican political candidates and by a conservative radio host. Former GOP House speaker Newt Gingrich was previously listed as a speaker, but he is not attending. A spokesman for Gingrich said that he had never intended to attend, and that the listing was based on a misunderstanding.

While it’s impossible to know the actual story, it sure sounds like Gingrich decided that associating himself with the likes of Geller and Geerts Wilders was not a sound political strategy for a 2012 presidential hopeful. Similarly, it’s notable that even John Bolton — who is about as far right as any high-profile U.S. political figure, and who wrote the forward to Geller and Robert Spencer’s latest book — is declining to appear in person. Perhaps Gingrich and Bolton calculated that there is a not-insignificant chance that Geller’s Muslim hatefest will end in some kind of “incident” — see the near-miss at last week’s Ground Zero rally for an idea of what this would look like — in which case participation at the rally would become politically toxic for whoever was involved.

As I wrote a couple weeks ago, one of the most important stories about the whole controversy over the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” is the extent to which prominent Republican political figures, most notably Gingrich, have mainstreamed a virulently Islamophobic discourse that was once limited to the right-wing fringes. Does Gingrich’s pulling out of the Geller rally mean that he has reconsidered the wisdom of trying to carve out a niche for himself as America’s most prominent Islamophobe? It would be premature to say so for sure, but keep an eye on Gingrich and other prominent Republican opinion-makers in the months to come.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 30th, 2010:

Haaretz: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is calling for Lebanon’s resistance groups to stand together with Iran. Ahmadinejad’s comments come after last week’s announcement from Iran’s defense minister that Tehran was prepared to sell weapons to Lebanon’s government. Tehran’s overtures to the Lebanese government and Hezbollah have picked up in pace after $100 million in US military aid to Lebanon was suspended earlier this month following a skirmish on the Israel-Lebanon border which resulted in the death of two Lebanese soldiers, a Lebanese journalist and an Israeli officer.

Reuters: Iranian Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi says that investigations into spying allegations against three American hikers detained in Iran will be completed soon. The three hikers–Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd and Josh Fattal–have been detained since July 2009 when they crossed into Iran from northern Iraq. The hikers have not formally been charged with spying and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in February that the three Americans might be swapped for Iranians jailed in the US. Families of the hikers say the trio strayed across the border accidentally.

Iran Review: Dr. Kayhan Barzegar, Director of International Affairs at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran, writes that the launch of the Bushehr nuclear plant will, “enhance the peaceful nature and legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear program,” and shows that Russia has conceded that Iran is a nuclear state. Barzegar suggests that Russian cooperation in bringing the Bushehr nuclear plant online will bring Moscow closer to Tehran and result in future bilateral nuclear cooperation. Barzegar argues that it is too late to stop Iran’s nuclear program with an airstrike. He concludes, “…[A]irstrikes alone will not be able to stop Iran’s nuclear program and may prompt the country to withdraw from the NPT and pursue, as some western analysts predict, a nuclear weapon capability. In any event, the United States or Israel will be unable to stage air attacks on Iran on grounds that it is enriching uranium. It is also already too late to attack Bushehr, as nuclear fuel has been uploaded into the reactor and any military assault would be concomitant with major health hazards resulting from nuclear radiation and exposure.”

Looks like producers for Dr. Phil and Montel might be waiting awhile if they think they have a celebrity dad-hating story in the making. Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post seemed to have obtained a scoop yesterday rising to the level of Dr. Evil/Scott Evil proportions, excerpting a FaceBook quote from Daniel Assange, 20, that appeared on its face to fuel the growing personal attacks against his father, embattled WikiLeaks founder and director, Julian Assange:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s own son thinks he’s a nightmare when it comes to women.

“That man does have a way of making a lot of female enemies,” Daniel Assange, 21, said about his embattled dad.

Daniel made the Facebook posting after two Swedish women came forward with allegations that led to rape and molestation charges against his dad.

Daniel also wondered about his father’s claim that the accusations were part of a Pentagon “smear campaign.”

“Interesting to see whether this is the result of a government plot or personal grudges,” he wrote.

Daniel Assange is no 'Scott Evil'

But later on Friday, Daniel, under the moniker Somnidea on a website called The Sleepy Lammata lashed out at the newspaper, calling the story “godawful sensational tripe”:

I’d just like to note here that the comments in question were very tongue-in-cheek and never intended to be made public like this, much less support the conclusions of the article. The NYP did not interview me or otherwise attain my consent in any way for their publication. I have much respect for my father and his cause, and these ridiculously ill-handled allegations of sexual abuse serve only to distract from the audacious awesomeness that he has actually done.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 27th, 2010:

Reuters: According to Olli Heinonen, the former chief of U.N. nuclear inspection, Iran has stockpiles of enough low-enriched uranium for as many as two nuclear weapons but will not build a weapon at this time. “In theory, it is enough to make one or two nuclear arms. But to reach the final step, when one only has just enough material for two weapons, does not make sense,” Heinonen said in an interview carried out just before he left office earlier this month.

The Washington Post: The American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin writes that missing from the list of U.S. consulates in Iraq is any plan for permanent U.S. representation in Najaf. Rubin argues that the importance of Najaf in the Shiite world and the high number of Iranian visitors means, “[t]here is no better place outside Iran for diplomats to interact with ordinary Iranians across socioeconomic divides because everyone, rich or poor, wants to make a trip once prohibited by war and politics.” If the U.S. fails to establish an official presence in Najaf, says Rubin, Iranian influence in the area will rise and, “America’s enemies will define our legacy.”

Sic Semper Tyrannis: Colonel Pat Lang theorizes that Michael Rubin might be angling for an appointment as the first U.S. consul to Najaf.

The Weekly Standard blog: Michael Weiss asks why Obama has failed to do more to help Shiva Nazar Ahari, an Iranian human rights advocate. She has been arrested several times and will stand trial on September 4th for disseminating “anti-regime propaganda” and participating in an “act contrary to national security” through her attendance at gatherings in November and December. Weiss characterizes Ahari, who may face the death penalty, as “clearly pro-West and philo-American.” Weiss’s calls for Obama to publicly show solidarity with Ahari contradicts the advice of Akbar Ganji, the celebrated Iranian journalist and former political prisoner, who warned in May that explicit U.S. government support for the Green Movement would hurt the movement’s legitimacy in Iran.

Timothy P. Carney weighs in on the “Cato purge”:

[Brink] Lindsey will be portrayed as a martyr, excommunicated for his heresies from the Right’s dogma. In this role, he joins neoconservative writer David Frum, who was driven from the American Enterprise Institute after praising Obamacare.

Lindsey and Frum followed parallel paths. In 2002 and 2003, Lindsey – contra most libertarians – prominently beat the drums for invading Iraq. Meanwhile, Frum played the conservatives’ Robespierre, trying to purge from the Right those who opposed the invasion, whom he slurred as “unpatriotic conservatives.”

Lindsey, when he admitted in 2006 that invading Iraq was a mistake, still billed himself as “extremely controversial” and open-minded in the face of dogma. Frum, today, basks in the Left’s praise as an independent thinker. But Lindsey and Frum, in backing Bush’s invasion then and supporting Obama now, were the opposite of dissidents: They consistently supported those in power who were fighting for more power.

This pattern doesn’t make Lindsey or Frum sycophants, but it undermines their claim to be dissidents.

Amen.

The reason I keep banging on about Iraq War supporters – including the “born-again doves” – is simple: The road out of militarism and empire runs through the ruins of the Washington establishment that got us here.

First, there must be some penalty for supporting wars of aggression, even in a non-governmental role. I don’t mean a legal penalty, obviously, but shaming, shunning, boycotting, and the like. But everywhere you look, the very people who sold the Iraq War have not only not paid for their bloodthirsty idiocy, they’ve often been promoted. Second, as long as even “reformed” warmongers hold positions of influence, there’s always the danger of relapse. Clearly, the personality defects that contribute to the endorsement of monstrosities don’t go away quickly, if ever. For example, here’s one ex-Bushbot-turned-Obamaton sticking it to the White House’s critics:

Personally, I’m not satisfied with the job they [Obama & co.] are doing (unemployment is horrible, they’ve spent too much time negotiating with Republicans, the drone wars, the civil liberties issues, Lloyd Blankfein is still a free man, etc.), and think there have been some real failings and some real let-downs. But I will belly crawl over broken glass while someone pours lemon juice and rubbing alcohol on me to vote for the Democrats in November.

Note how drone wars and civil liberties fall behind “negotiating with Republicans” on this list of sins. To paraphrase Mick Jagger, could you use a lemon-squeezer, dude? I volunteer.

I could go on – there are so many targets – but instead, I’ll leave you with a thought experiment. Imagine that the invasion of Iraq had succeeded on the war supporters’ own terms, and the U.S. had crushed all armed resistance within a few months and set up some plausibly “pro-American” Potemkin democracy that didn’t need a foreign army to defend it from the citizenry (this requires a lot of imagination, I know). Let’s assume that the U.S. military had accomplished this by really taking the gloves off, as many war supporters urged in the days when the occupation began to implode. Thus, in our counterfactual, the Iraqi civilian casualty count is roughly the same as the actual count today, anti-American sentiment is inflamed throughout the Muslim world, and Iran is the unquestioned dominant regional power, all for a preventive war against a fabricated threat. Do you think that our born-again doves – much less the dead-enders who still think the war was a good idea – would have had any moral or even practical second thoughts? Or do you think they’d be doing a sack dance in the peaceniks’ faces and demanding the destruction of the next country on their list?

UPDATE: I think this sort of amends-making is a wonderful idea, but I suggest it for people who have abetted acts of mass destruction. How many prosthetic limbs could the Brinkster buy with his disposable income? Shoot, Andrew Sullivan could probably fund half a dozen orphanages across Iraq if he cut his personal expenditures back to bare subsistence levels. Let’s make this happen!

YouTube Preview Image

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 26th, 2010:

Reuters: John Irish reports that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has warned Iran that, “If a credible agreement [over its nuclear program] cannot be reached, Iran’s isolation would only worsen.” Sarkozy continued, “And in the face of worsening threat, we would have to organize ourselves to protect and defend states that feel threatened.” Sarkozy has said he supported the start up of the new nuclear power plant at Bushehr, fueled by Russian fuel rods, as long as it adheres to international law. (Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin is encouraged, calling Sarkozy’s comments “Better Than Nothing.”)

Associated Press (via Yahoo): Nasser Karimi reports that Tehran is proposing to jointly assemble nuclear fuel for the Bushehr nuclear plant alongside Russian technicians. The U.S. and Western allies agreed to lift their opposition to the Bushehr on the condition that Russia handle all the nuclear fuel. “We have made a proposal to Russia to create a consortium under Russian license to do part of the work in Russia and part in Iran,” the head of Iran’s atomic energy agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, told the Iranian state-run Press TV. Moscow is reported to be studying the new proposal.

International Herald Tribune: Avner Cohen and Marvin Miller make the case for Israel ending its longstanding policy of nuclear opacity. “International support for Israel and its opaque bomb is being increasingly eroded by its continued occupation of Palestinian territory and the policies that support that occupation. Such criticism of these policies might well spill over into the nuclear domain, making Israel vulnerable to the charge that it is a nuclear-armed pariah state, and thus associating it to an uncomfortable degree with today’s rogue Iranian regime,” they write. “Indeed, while almost all states publicly oppose the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran, there is also growing support for dealing with this problem in an ‘evenhanded’ manner, namely, by establishing a nuclear weapons free zone across the entire region.” The authors emphasize that international support for Israel and its policy of opacity is eroding as Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories drags on. (Ali wrote about Cohen and Miller’s op-ed yesterday.)

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 25th, 2010:

Washington Times: In an editorial, the hawkish daily chronicles what it calls, “Iran’s emergence as a regional hegemon,” based on its slowly advancing nuclear program and its unveiling of a new line of unmanned aircraft. The editorial cites the Israeli Foreign Ministry in saying that the developments are “totally unacceptable” and wonders if the term means as much to President Obama. Coyly attributing two recent mysterious events to Israeli subversion, the Times takes comfort that “perhaps ‘unacceptable’ means something after all.”

Foreign Policy: On FP’s “Shadow Government” blog, the Foreign Policy Initiative’s Jamie Fly admits that the new Iranian reactor at Bushehr “fails to meet the hype,” but nonetheless reveals a failure in U.S.-Iran policy. He says, “a serious exploration of new options, including the military option, is thus in order if the United States remains unwilling to accept a nuclear Iran.” Fly also disapprovingly notes Russia’s complicity in the reactor’s start-up, and raises questions about Iran’s nuclear time line. On the latter point, Fly wonders “how close Iran should be allowed to get to a nuclear capability before military action is taken.”

Commentary: On the “Contentions” blog, prolific über-hawk Jennifer Rubin riffs on a Bret Stephens Wall Street Journal column asserting that the United States didn’t act soon enough to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq. She extends the logic of Stephens’ “Twenty Years War” with Iraq to the “the Thirty-One Years War that Iran has waged against the United States and the West,” urging Obama “to finally engage the enemy, thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and commit ourselves to regime change.” She concludes with a note that recalls the measures taken against Iraq by Bill Clinton, which laid the groundwork for Bush’s war there: “But perhaps, if Israel buys the world sufficient time (yes, we are down to whether the Jewish state will pick up the slack for the sleeping superpower), the next president will.”

Huffington Post: Conservative pundit Tony Blankley lists differences between “1938ers” — those who believe it’s always 1938 and Hitler always lurks around the corner — and the Obama administration’s policies. “So the question today is not whether to appease Iran or not — but whether Iran is appeasable. And if not appeasable, whether its threat can be defeated with acceptable costs,” writes Blankley. He concludes that Obama’s strategy is based on “wishful thinking, at best,” and that, “the grim assessment of the 1938ers seems sadly more realistic.”

Iran’s PressTV interviewed Antiwar Radio’s Scott Horton on the announced retirement of Pentagon Chief Robert Gates.

Scott appeared with former US ambassador Edward Peck and MediaChannel.org’s Danny Schechter. On the program, each of the three responded to each question, so Scott’s answers are throughout the 25-minute program.