As the Iranian election nears, pundits are wondering who will be the next president of Iran and should the president wait to start negotiations after the elections? The facts are that Ahmadinejad will be “reelected”. He has the approval of the representative of Allah on Earth, Ayatollah Khamenei, who is pleased by his performance as the president.
Ahmadinejad also possesses the power to intimidate and drag every single voter the regime can get out to vote for him and no one else. With a tight grip on the country and the approval of the sole ruler of the land, Ayatollah Khamenei, how can Ahmadinejad lose the next month’s elections?
The rule of the clergy, valayate Faghih, has been unprecedented, never practiced nor mentioned in Koran or the Sharia laws. The Iranian Islamic regime was based solely on a fallacious concept by Ayatollah Khomeini to legitimize his own ascendance to power. When Khomeini promised in Paris that once in Iran, he would go back to teaching at the seminary in the city of Qom and leave the governing of the country to the people no one would have believed he was lying to them.
The Islamic Republic of Iran operates under the absolute rule of one clergy who claims to be the representative of Allah on earth and does not believe in the will of the people. But as the revolution of 1979 was about more political freedom, Khomeini had to accommodate the people with a part in the governing through pretend elections.
In Iran’s elections the leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, hand picks among the candidates - - who must have a proven history of loyalty to the Islamic revolution and the person of the leader. The man who is his choice for the presidency will be given all the verbal support in the Friday sermons, and access to the government-owned radio and television.
The voters get a stamp on their birth certificates; if you are a government employee and do not have the stamp you will be unemployed the next day. Revolutionary Guardsmen of all branches will vote with their families because they are a part of the regime and the guardians of the revolution. The regular military in charge of defending the country have to vote, or else.
Although the government campaigns hard in every city and urges the people to vote the number of voters has remained very low. When people are asked about voting on the elections they laugh and say, Are you joking? This is not an election, it is a selection and an Appointment!
When the ballots are counted, under the keen observation of the leader’s men, the “right” person, who has been supported by him, will get the majority of the votes.
Ahmadinejad has been setting up his rule for a long time to come. He is a member of the Revolutionary Guards Corp, and during the past four years he has placed his trusted RGC comrades in every key position in his cabinet and around the country.
Nine cabinet positions over the most powerful departments of the government are given to his friends in RGC; this includes the ministry of interior that oversees the elections. The office of the director of the elections is also under the control of another RGC comrade.
Also with the consent of the leader, Ahmadinejad has recently given the management of the government-controlled radio and Television to another loyal Guardsman, who has actually denied access to Ahmadinejad’s opponent, Mosavi.
The governors of all the 30 provinces of Iran are either retired or active RGC and so are the mayors of all the cities in the country.
As U.S. Representative, Henry Waxman suggested to President Obama: Do not wait for Iranian elections to embark on negotiations with the Islamic regime. It would also be wise for the president to make sure he will set a time limit for dialogue, otherwise he will spend all his four years in the office spinning a negotiation wheel, while the RGC is completing their nuclear bomb and surprise him with a test, just as North Korea’s Kim Jong Il did this week.
Comment on this item
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Soeren Kern
Austria has emerged as a major base for radical Islam and as a central hub for European jihadists to fight in Syria.
The proposed revisions would, among other changes, regulate the training and hiring of Muslim clerics, prohibit the foreign funding of mosques, and establish an official German-language version of the Koran to prevent its "misinterpretation" by Islamic extremists.
Muslims would be prohibited from citing Islamic sharia law as legal justification for ignoring or disobeying Austrian civil laws.
Leaders of Austria's Muslim community counter that the contemplated new law amounts to "institutionalized Islamophobia."
Official statistics show that nearly 60% of the inhabitants of Vienna are immigrants or foreigners. The massive demographic and religious shift underway in Austria, traditionally a Roman Catholic country, appears irreversible.