I save a woman’s life, on the worst night of my life

Republican Party Presidential Candidate and conservative columnist Andy Martin says reports of the attack on Lara Logan reopened memories of a similar incident in Iran 32 years ago. Martin took time off from preparing for his upcoming trip to New Hampshire to reflect on an event that reshaped his life. Here is his flashback.

NEWS FROM:

ANDY MARTIN /2012

“The Right Republican” for

President of the United States

www.AndyMartinforPresident.com

Campaign mail:

P. O. Box 1851

New York, NY 10150-1851

(866) 706-2639

http://www.andyforpresident.blogspot.com/

http://www.andyforpresident.wordpress.com/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Republican Presidential Candidate Andy Martin offers a highly personal reaction to the attack on CBS News’ Lara Logan

The Logan incident reopens painful memories for Andy

(NEW YORK)(February 17, 2011) Once in a blue moon a news report hits me in the heart. I have been exposed to so many experiences that sometimes experience just bounces back and smacks me in the face. Memory is a difficult quality to discard. I had an eerie remembrance reading reports of the attack on CBS News’ Lara Logan in Cairo. Logan thought she was in a celebratory environment and thus was probably surprised when she was attacked.

I saved a woman’s life on the worst night of my life.

In 1979 I was in Iran during the hostage crisis. I was tipped off that something had happened in Tabriz, a remote city in Azerbaijan Province. Together with a reporter from Associated Press, Alex Efty, and a Miami Herald scribe, Guy Gugliotta, we decided to travel as a group to Tabriz.

Flying to Tabriz I sat in the cockpit jump seat with the Iran Air crew. It was a scary insight. The co-pilot said that Iran was training suicide bombers. If Iran was threatened they would strike back at America. I didn’t know what to say. Because I had trained briefly as a military pilot, we spoke as pilots and not as people discussing politics. But it was still uncomfortable being in that cockpit. Finally we landed in Tabriz. Alex, Guy and I headed for a hotel.

Just beyond the hotel, a mini-revolt was in progress about half a mile away. Anti-Ayatollah Khomeini forces had taken over the local TV station which sat on a hilltop. While we cased the station thousands of pro-Khomeini demonstrators stormed the facility and retook it. We were engulfed with people who wanted to know why we were there.

That night I received a tip that something was brewing at the Government House. I think the term “Government House” is best described as a local municipal building, perhaps a county courthouse or office building.

Little did I know that the worst night of my life was about to unfold.

When we got to the facility a source led Alex and me into the building. I still remember the screaming and the cries coming from the second floor to the angry crowd in the front yard. Perhaps five hundred people were outside in front of the building, armed with rifles, pistols and automatic weapons. They were chanting. They were whipping themselves into a frenzy to counterattack the TV station. Over a dozen men were to die that night in firefights on the hill.

Finally my guy came back and said the building was about to explode, and we had to get out. The crowd was being herded up to the TV station. Alex and I moved out on to the front steps of the building to watch. The steps were about six feet high and gave us an overview of the ground where the crowd was still yelling and screaming. We hesitated and looked out at the mob. The men were getting increasingly agitated as they prepared to launch their counterattack.

Out of the corner of my right eye I saw a woman. I recognized her visually but didn’t know her name. I had seen her earlier in the day at the hotel. She had a camera crew. As I remember she had three men with her, rather smallish types. She had a pale complexion, reddish hair and was wearing a white coat. The white coat sticks out in my memory. She walked on the periphery of the mob trying to find an opening into the crowd for an angle shot.

Suddenly the men in the mob discovered her. They grabbed her and she started screaming. The screaming was piercing.

In a moment, Alex’s eyes and mine met. His look said, “I’m too small to rescue her. It' you.” Somehow I made a flying leap off the steps into the crowd. I don’t remember that second.

I remember swimming in a sea of humanity, using my arms push forward towards the screaming woman. If you are familiar with the Lara Logan episode last week you can see why her incident triggered these memories.

Finally I pushed my way through the crowd and grabbed the woman in a bear hug, face-to face. I said something, probably “Don’t worry, I’m here.” She kept screaming.

I was scared she might think I was one of her attackers. Seconds became years. I drifted a few feet away, as though floating in violent river rapids. She kept screaming. Each second was like a lifetime. My mind snapped to. I realized she had lost control and was in a breakdown state. The more she screamed the more agitated the crowd became. I swam back to her and grabbed her a second time.

She kept screaming. Slowly I maneuvered her to the side of the mob. Her crew was on the side, outside the crowd, as though on a bank trying to reel her in from the raging river. We got her out. I was alone with the woman and her crew, in the middle of a smaller mob that was still following us.

We started to walk through what appeared to be a garden, towards a car NBC News had rented. Somewhere along the line someone told me she was with NBC News. The woman was Hillary Brown.

Alex and I were separated.

As we approached her car, her men got in and I helped her in. She had stopped screaming as we walked through the garden.

But the car was now surrounded by a potentially hostile mob. Again I looked inside myself. What to do?

In an instant, I started screaming at the top of my voice: “Death to the Shah! Death to Carter.” The crowd was flummoxed. Then they joined in. “Death to the Shah! Death to Carter!” In the confusion the driver saw an opening and drove off to the hotel where all of us were staying.

I think my guy drove me back to the hotel; I don’t remember how I got there or when I reunited with Alex. The night had become totally insane.

But the terror was only beginning.

There was relentless small arms fire. From the hotel windows you could see tracers going towards the TV hill, and tracers coming back from the station.

The street outside the hotel was filled with trucks, packed with people driving to the TV hill. They had more rifles, more pistols, more automatic weapons. I looked at myself and said truly this is madness.

Alex wandered towards the gunfire at the entrance to the TV hill. After hesitating, I went after him to be sure he could get out.

By the time we got back to the hotel the gates were locked and we had to climb the fence to get in.

I tried to get on the telex machine but Pranay Gupte of the New York Times was monopolizing the telex. I waited.

And then disaster struck.

Two men approached me. One said I was under arrest as a spy. The other one had an M-16. With his rifle he pointed for me to go outside. I hesitated, but politely. The men spoke no English and I spoke no Farsi. I asked the hotel clerk to tell them we should stay inside where he could interpret. Amazingly, they agreed. The senior of the two said he was a komiteh, a sort of neighborhood vigilante. He said he had witnessed me orchestrating the battle. Utter nonsense. Very politely I told him he was incorrect. But there was no way to reason with him.

He wanted to take me somewhere, outside the hotel compound. I resisted. Again very politely. I knew if I left the hotel I was dead. I realized that with all the gun fire and automatic weapons relentlessly punctuating the darkness people were dying. This man was trying to blame me. I was in dire danger.

Because Gupte was monopolizing the telex I kept stalling the men and asking the desk clerk to tell them to wait because I had to send a telex to let people know I was under arrest. I don’t know how long the komiteh waited. Every second took forever to pass.

Finally, the men got irritated, then tired of waiting. They grabbed my identification and said I had a forged ID. They promised to return in the morning.

I spent the entire night terrified of what would happen the next day. Should I run? Of course not I said to myself. There was no way to escape Tabriz. The city was isolated. I was trapped.

Pranay and his lady friend eventually helped calm me down.

Next morning the komiteh returned and tried to take me away again. Alex, who was not under arrest, started yelling at the man. The komiteh opened his coat and showed a pistol. He told the desk clerk to tell us that unless Alex shut up, the komiteh would shoot both of us. I thanked Alex and said “Please let me handle this.”

The episode then took on an Alec Guinness air. I told the komiteh, “I’m happy to go with you, but if you are a policeman, you need to have a police car. So I can leave with you in the police car.” He looked puzzled for a moment; he made a call. Shortly a police car arrived and took us to the local police station.

The police profusely thanked the komiteh and said they would take it from there. The komiteh left.

After calling Tehran, the police handed back my identification and said I could leave. They drove me back to the hotel. Alex told me he wanted to do a story on the daring rescue he had witnessed but Hillary Brown killed the idea because it would damage her career. I found out they were friends and both lived in Cyprus.

Hillary had no idea she had cracked in the crowd. She had no idea of the risks she had created for herself or her crew. She had no idea how close she had come to being killed by the mob. And she was angry at me for rescuing her and saving her life.

I learned over a dozen men had died the night before.

Word of the massacre spread to Tehran. People started streaming in to witness the aftermath. My life-threatening night of terror slowly became something of a lighthearted matter. Friends joked, “We don’t care if you are a spy; we still like you.” Gee, thanks.

A Japanese cameraman, Mr. Nagasaki, came up and said “You Jamesu Bondu.” “Thank you,” I said, not knowing what to say to that encomium.

The hotel staff told me I was booked on a flight to Tehran. I headed for the airport. Faster, faster I said silently.

I had no idea yet that the night had changed my life in ways I could not yet anticipate. I would be coming back to Iran. My escape from Tabriz would lead to new dangers in the days ahead.

A few weeks later I returned to Iran, alone, still during the hostage crisis, and linked up with the mujahideen in Afghanistan who were fighting the Soviet army. Maybe I was in as much danger in Afghanistan, or even more danger, but I was never in as much fear as that night in Tabriz. That night has stayed with me.

I have had horrible experiences since them. But never in my life have I felt so vulnerable, so afraid of being close, too close, to death. And yet, if I hadn’t been in that place, the woman might have died. Thankfully, she didn’t.

That night has made a difference in my life. More about the incident later, someday. Maybe.

Postscript. Years after the Tabriz rescue, I was at a dinner in New York with a date. We were seated next to CBS' Mike Wallace and his wife. My date thought of me as being kind of quiet, maybe too cautious. As the dinner was ending a woman came up to me and threw a glass of wine in my face. It was Hillary Brown. She was still angry that her rescue had precipitated an incident. I suppose Hillary will go to her grave angry at me, because she has no idea what happened on a fateful night when she could have died.

Thankfully, I was there to save her.

It was the worst night of my life.

--------------------------

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: Andy@AndyMartinforPresident.com

--------------------------

LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):

--------------------------

LISTEN TO ANDY’S TALK RADIO INTERVIEWS (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):

http://www.briantilton.com/

[See December 29th entry, for two-part podcast]

To hear Andy in Denver go to http://www.khow/, click on Peter Boyles show, go to left margin for “Past Shows” and look for February 14, January 21 and 7, 2011 and December 31, 2010 Andy Martin audio (you can download) (Boyles can also be heard on EinhornPress link below)

--------------------------

ABOUT ANDY: Chicago Public Radio calls Andy Martin a “boisterous Internet activist.” Andy is the legendary New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He promotes his best-selling book, “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and his Internet movie "Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Martin has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinois for over forty years. He is currently sponsoring http://www.americaisreadyforreform.com/. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us

Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” http://www.contrariancommentary.com/. He comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of investigative and analytical experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

UPDATES:
www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin

--------------------------

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2011

All Rights Reserved

--------------------------

ANDY MARTIN: The 2010 election is 1966 all over again

Political analyst Andy Martin explains why 2010 is not the 1994 election year. Rather, Martin suggests that 2010 is going to prove more analogous to 1966. And 2011? Fasten your seat belts: 1979 is coming back for another go-around. Like Jimmy Carter in 1979, Barack Obama is about to be tested. And tested hard. By America’s enemies. And especially by our “frenemies.”

Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin says “Wait till next year; Obama’s problems are just beginning”

Martin says the old Viet-Nam era refrain “The whole world is watching” may come back to bite Obama

ContrarianCommentary.com
“The Internet Powerhouse”
Andy Martin
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

ANDY MARTIN SAYS PREDICTS THAT A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS WILL BE THE LEAST OF BARACK OBAMA’S WORRIES IN 2011

MARTIN LOOKS AHEAD TO WHAT AMERICANS CAN EXPECT IN 2011; THE PICTURE IS NOT PRETTY

ANDY MARTIN, AMERICAN’S MOST INFLUENTIAL OPINION WRITER AND BARACK OBAMA’S FORMIDABLE INTERNET OPPONENT FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS, SAYS OBAMA HAS A LOT OF CHICKENS COMING HOME TO ROOST (NOW WHERE DID WE HEAR THAT BEFORE?)

ANDY PREDICTS WE ARE HEADING FOR 1966, AND THEN STRAIGHT ON TO 1979

(Note: during the days leading up to the election look for us to be everywhere. But don’t be confused. First, we are still committed to defeating Mark Kirk in Illinois; we have been working on an “undercover” story on Kirk for release next week. Second, we are following the overall national political situation. Finally, we will be doing what we do best: predicting the future by making informed assessments and assumptions about where our politics and foreign policy are headed in 2011.)

(NEW YORK)(October 22, 2010) Barack Obama’s former spiritual director, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, became notorious for predicting that “America’s chickens were coming home to roost.” Well, the chickens may be heading for the Obama White House in 2011. And that’s not chicken feed.

At a time when ordinary media are completely focused on Election Day, we would like to introduce a long-term analysis of where the 2010 election will be leading us in 2011.

Cable TV bobbleheads probably feel that Washington will be returning to “business as usual” on November 3rd.

The Capitol will have to absorb many new conservative legislators. Gridlock will be in season. And Bumbling Barry Obama will, well, bumble through. e may think that iHe may think that if he’s lucky he can “triangulate” against Republican opposition and get reelected as president in 2012. It ain’t happening.

As my readers know, I am both a political analyst and political activist. So I look at matters from both sides of the lens. And while I accidentally became best known as the writer who first exposed Barack Obama as a poseur, my original specialty was and continues to be military, intelligence and foreign policy analysis.

I worked in Washington in 1966, on Capitol Hill, and in close proximity to the White House. I saw the 89th Congress dissolve into the chaos of the late 1960’s.

Most writers have tried to say that 2010 is “another 1994.” Not really. Although power changed hands in 1994 the direction of the country changed only minimally. President Bill Clinton managed to rope-a-dope the Republicans into reelection, and the tension between the White House and Capitol Hill created a hydraulic balance. 2010 is not going to be 1994.

Rather, 2010 is gong to be 1966, all over again. Only bigger and more dangerous. In January, 1966, no one in Washington had any inkling that the Democratic Party and the Great Society were about to be dismembered. The 89th Congress continued to legislate.

Amazingly, The American public felt the tremors of Viet-Nam before the Washingtonians did. Perhaps that is because casualties began to mount rapidly, and the draft began to suck more and more Americans into the growing Indochina war.

My senator, Senator Paul Douglas, knew as early as August 1966 that things were not going well for him. Because I was the low man in the office (below now-billionaire businessman Ron Gidwitz) I got to drive the senator around Washington. The senator and I spent a lot of time alone talking politics, talking the future, talking about the ups and downs of life. Douglas had seen World War I, survived the Depression, and been grievously wounded and crippled in World War II. He was one of the first “Cold warriors.” Douglas sensed the coming tsunami before the media did.

The 1966 election changed the fundamental direction of the United States for a generation. The Republican Party, which had been declared “dead” only two years earlier in 1964 (sound familiar?), roared back and erased the Democratic gains of 1964 in 1966. 1966 led to 1968, and 1968 led to the upheavals that are only now being felt with full force in American government.

Unlike Bill Clinton, Barack Obama was not a Viet-Nam era candidate, despite Obama’s Zelig-like claims to have been everywhere and involved in everything. But today, this nation is still run predominantly by Viet-Nam era individuals.

And so, my first prediction: this election is a “1966” turning point, a far stronger change in direction than 1994. (So far as I am aware, only George Will has recognized the 1966 parallel.)

1966 led to 1968, and 1968 led to? Watergate. What did Watergate lead to? Foreign policy disasters that are still bedeviling Americans. Watergate led to President Jimmy Carter. And Jimmy Carter led to? Chaos. While some may unwittingly connect Carter’s haplessness to Obama’s, they have not yet seen the real connection between the two men and the gathering storm abroad.

Ironically, Jimmy Carter was a lot like George Bush. Both men are decent and honorable. But both men were naïve in the ways of the world, and both men led American into foreign policy disasters. In the case of Carter, the nation was saved by the emergence of President Ronald Reagan. Who will save us in 2012? No one has appeared on the horizon that manifests the manifest destiny of Reagan.

So why is 2011 going to be a replay of 1979? The 1978 election saw Republican gains. Jimmy Carter was exposed as a weak leader. Then 1979 exploded. The supposedly-invincible “Pahlavi Dynasty” was toppled in Iran, after Carter abandoned the Shah. We began what has morphed into four decades of Islamic fundamentalism. Seeing Carter helpless and befuddled, the Russians then moved into Afghanistan and started the First Afghan War. I first went to Iran in 1979, and to Afghanistan in 1980. I saw the gathering storm up close.

Carter’s inability to deal with international chaos elected Reagan. That is why if Obama thinks that he can pull a 1996 Clinton-style reelection he is mistaken. Now you know why I believe 2010 is 1966, and why 2011 is inexorably going to become a replay of 1979.

The evidence that America is endangered is out there in the open. But no one is paying attention. At least most Americans are not paying attention. Attention must be paid. Activists are focused on reelecting Democrats and electing Republicans. But Republican legislators will be as helpless to deal with international chaos as the Usurper-in-Chief.

The desperation of 2011 may create conditions for another radical change: Democrats will likely panic and dump Obama. Barry O may think he has a fair chance at being reelected. I think he should do what he does best: leave office and resume being the greatest entertainer in the world. His term as a “leader” is coming to an early end. I won’t predict Hillary Clinton will be the 2012 presidential candidate; but her reemergence would not surprise me. Democrats will not make the same mistake in 2012 they made in 1980.

So why am I so pessimistic? What do I see out there? What will you be seeing next year?

1. Iraq. Obama took credit for the “peace” in Iraq. But there is no peace. The United States pulled out, but left behind 50,000 American hostages to Iraq’s very possible collapse into chaos. With the American leadership gone, Sunnis are once again gravitating away from Baghdad into the resistance.

Prime Minister Al-Maliki’s recent trip to the holy city of Qum (a city that I became familiar with during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis) is a sign that he is pandering to the most anti-American elements in the region. Al-Maliki may not have yet emerged as an anti-American leader. But the possibility that he could become hostile to the 50,000 Americans left in Iraq is not impossible or even unlikely.

Almost eight months after the March election in Iraq, there is still no government. It looks increasingly as though the regime that will emerge will not be a friendly one.

What will Obama do when American forces In Iraq come under attack? If he stays to fight, a new war begins. If he cuts and runs, he tumbles into the dustbin of history even sooner than anyone expects. Iraq is a time bomb waiting to explode.

2. Iran. Iran is a genuine threat. But I disagree with our Iranian policies. In reality, the Iranian regime’s best friends are Republican Party politicians like Mark Kirk who are constantly beating the drums for “sanctions” against Iran. Sanctions are a dream-come-true for the Persian regime.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is becoming increasingly bold, and increasingly welcome throughout the Middle East. Ahmadinejad’s recent reception in Lebanon was a wake-up call to the snoozing White House.

So what about Iran? On the one hand, Iran is not going to launch a war. Because of the anti-Iranian vitriol in our politics we ignore the fact that although the United States reacted to the hostage crisis by invading Iran, using our then-proxy in Baghdad Saddam Hussein, Iran is seeking regional hegemony, not territorial expansion. If Iran starts a war, which I doubt, it will be a failure for their regime, not a success.

3. Israel. Israel presents two possible risks. First, the failed “peace process” may embolden the Israelis to crack down on Palestinians. On the other hand, Palestinians and the world community are clearly inching closer to the Andy Martin Peace Plan which I put forward in 2000: Recognition first, negotiation second. Netanyahu may think that he can make a power grab while Obama is politically weak. Ironically, I think this may be the one area where Obama can strike back. And will.

More dangerously, Israeli generals may think that they can launch an attack on Iran while Obama is distracted. Israel cannot win a war against Iran. But a lot of Israelis think they can. Israeli overconfidence could trigger a suicide mission. Unfortunately, if Israel commits national suicide, we get dragged in.

4. Afghanistan-Pakistan. Afghanistan is a mess. The Karzai regime is a joke. Here at home, patience is wearing thin with the endless, even though endless war on a reduced level may be preferable to endless chaos and unending risk to our global interests. Pakistan is a failed state with nuclear weapons. The area is a disaster zone. Need I say more?

5. China? China would seem to be our greatest foreign policy worry. But in light of the crazies in the Middle East, the threats posed by China will pale by comparison. At least the Chinese are rational, if only barely so.

Still China is preparing to confront Obama in 2011. He is not up to that challenge. I expect we will see the same ruinous Chinese export policies, trying to drive the American people into peonage. But Americans are waking up. They are sick of kowtowing to Chinese imperialists. But while public opinion may support a confrontation with China, Obama is not the man to do the job. It will have to wait for the next president. In the meantime, the Chinese will be seeking to undermine us at every opportunity. China is a disaster waiting to happen. A military threat is inevitable.

You know things are going to be bad in 2011 when I list the Chinese as one of our lesser problems; China is a mega-problem for the United States. The time for playing “pretend” with China is over.

The foregoing problems are just “for starters.” We have a scary list without adding anything new or currently invisible.

Will the Republicans be any better at dealing with the chaos of 2011 than the Democrats? Strangely no. Foreign policy is uniquely one area where only a president can lead, and must lead decisively. Obama is not the man for the job.

My mom and dad were products of World War II. As I was growing up, while other parents exposed their kids to baseball I was exposed to the Holocaust, to World War II, to Korea, and to the Middle East.

During my adult life, whether I was in Viet-Nam or Hong Kong, Baghdad or Tehran, Cairo or Riyadh, I worked to develop an independent network of international sources. Anyone who followed my reporting from “My Year in Baghdad” knows I can point an antenna in the right direction. Based on a lifetime of foreign experience, 2011 scares me.

Baseball fans like to say, “Wait until next year.” And we began these observations with the old Vietnam refrain, “The Whole World is Watching.” I do not think Barack Obama and his “crew” of Chicago cronies are up to the job. Barack Obama, not our enemies, is the greatest threat to our national security. Who will emerge as the strong leader to replace him in 2012? Right now, I don’t have a clue.

---------
If you would like to see some of my foreign policy views and match them up with subsequent developments, take a look at:

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/
insidestory/2009/09/200992713548502678.html

-------------------------------------
ABOUT ANDY: Chicago Public Radio calls Andy Martin a “boisterous Internet activist.” Andy is the legendary New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He promotes his best-selling book, “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” and his Internet movie "Obama: The Hawai'i years." Martin has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinois for over forty years. He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com
Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” http://www.contrariancommentary.com/. He comments on regional, national and world events with decades of investigative and analytical experience. He has over forty years of familiarity with Asia and the Middle East; he is regarded overseas as one of America’s most respected independent foreign policy, military and intelligence analysts.

He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

UPDATES: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSAwww.facebook.com/AndyMartin Andy's columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
contrariancommentary.typepad.com[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in this story on our blogs; find our latest edition there.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com © Copyright by Andy Martin 2010

Civil War in Iran

Foreign policy expert Andy Martin says the conflict in Iran has become a civil war. Barack Obama is essentially powerless to act or react.

Andy Martin on the evolving civil war in Iran

ContrarianCommentary.com
Andy Martin
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Iran

Andy Martin breaches a taboo by becoming the first analyst to call the conflict in Iran a “civil war”`

America’s most experienced independent foreign policy and intelligence analyst predicts the destabilization of the entire region

Martin says President Obama is helpless to act.

(PALM BEACH)(June 21, 2009) As I wrote on June 15th, the most terrifying night of my life was spent in the middle of a riot in Iran thirty years ago. The images of what was a living bedlam are still vivid in my memory. I jumped into a crowd of people who were preparing to attack an opposition strongpoint and rescued a woman who was probably doomed. There were crowds of opposing Iranians fighting each other, tracer rounds flying everywhere, machine guns in the distance, people rushing to the “front.” The night culminated in my arrest as an alleged spy. I have never had another night like that, neither before nor after.

Even after leaving Iran, I went back. Watching the constant images of the violence in Tehran today reminds me of my earlier experiences. You can almost feel the tension and terror of a taunt crowd, just before it explodes. A civil war has begun.

I am experiencing the emerging Iranian civil war in a multitude of ways.

So what do my feelings tell me?

First, Joe Biden was ridiculed during the campaign for predicting that Barack Obama would be “tested” in the first six months of his administration. Iran is that challenge.

What Biden did not understand was that the “challenge” he anticipated would not come from a direct threat to the United States but rather from the need to navigate policy in the unknown byways of what is becoming the Iranian civil war. (Yes, I am the first analyst to use the term “civil war.”)

Because of my reputation as a critic of Barack Obama (and that is a correct characterization of my views) I am usually criticized by Obama’s opponents when I apply impartial analysis to BHO’s actions or don’t reflexively attack his every action. But my sense of personal integrity and independence compel me to write what I believe, not what some people want to hear.

I have two completely contradictory views on what is unfolding in Iran.

First, within the United States, Republicans are winning the Iranian presidential election. They are demanding tough words and concrete actions. Politicians will always play to their “base,” and the Republican base feels frustrated and helpless watching events in Iran. There is a tremendous temptation to “do something.” Something. Yet nothing could be more detrimental to the foreign policy interests of the United States.

Second, despite criticism of Obama’s restrained approach, and perhaps despite Obama’s own misguided beliefs behind his limited actions, his policy in Iran is the correct one.

Obama is caught in a situation where he will almost certainly lose politically, but where has to run the risk of loss in order to maintain the strategic stability of his foreign policy.

Published reports Saturday night indicated that presidential candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi has stated he is ready for “martyrdom.” If this statement is true, then the challenge facing Obama has just metastasized far beyond his control.

No revolution can survive without a martyr; indeed, every revolution often begins with an act of self-denial and martyrdom. “Martyr” comes from the Greek word for “witness” and can invoke both observation and testimony or disclosure.

The long night I endured thirty years when I risked my life and was arrested, occurred in Moussavi’s home town of Tabriz, located in the Azerbaijan region of Iran. Moussavi’s “roots” become critical to comprehending what he has now done and to explaining where the Iranian civil war is headed. Azerbaijan is a very different part of Iran. Although Moussavi’s strongest support comes from the great urban areas, including Tabriz, Azerbaijani Moussavi’s independent streak is driving his willingness to suffer the consequences of risking his life.

The leading opposition ayatollah to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was an Azerbaijani. No doubt that rebel religious leader (who favored a form of government nearer to separation of church and state) was close to Moussavi. No one has previously made this connection; but now it is out in the open. The Azerbaijani angle will prove crucial in the days ahead.

What transpires inside a human being when they literally move beyond their own bodies to become a sacrificial vessel for rebellion or revolution? No one really knows. If Moussavi has indeed passed into that zone, where he has abandoned and renounced his own personal needs, he has become the missile that will hit the ruling junta in Tehran with lethal impact.

The Russian Revolution managed to hang on for seventy years. That was in an age when communications were nonexistent to primitive. Today communications are instantaneous.

The thirty-year-old “Islamic” revolution appears to have reached its end on a truncated timetable.

Abraham Lincoln was not elected to wage a civil war; he sought to save the union. He ended up fighting a war in order to succeed. Gorbachev and Yeltsin did not believe their demands for reform would bring down the Soviet empire; on the contrary their goal was to preserve and liberalize the existing system. But they demolished a government that was already dead.

Likewise, Moussavi did not become a presidential candidate to eradicate the Islamic revolution. But he too has fallen into the unplumbed and uncontrollable clutches of history. He has become a martyr to, of all things, open and honest elections, freedom of speech and respect for the human rights of every individual.

Republicans and conservatives, of course, are demanding stirring rhetoric strong action from Obama. But this is one time when Obama must stand virtually mute. Yes, he has proclaimed support for universal rights of peaceful assembly and free speech. And yes, as bloodshed escalates his remarks can also increase in intensity. But no, the Republicans are wrong.

It is precisely by being a bystander that America will exercise its greatest influence over events. The very essence of a civil war is that the conflict is between two competing domestic narratives. When the conflict is between slavery and freedom, there is very little outsiders can add. When the test concerns communism versus free markets, likewise bystanders are helpless. When the question is whether there will be separation of mullah and state, no one can insert themselves into this most personal of conflicts.

Ironically, Obama faces a multiplied and magnified threat of the same dimension I faced thirty years ago. If I had fought back, or raised my voice, I was a dead man (a rifle was pointed at me). I had to stay quiet. It was wrenching. A friend who came to my aid and raised his voice was threatened with getting both of us shot. I said “thanks,” and asked him to go away. I had no idea what I faced, but I knew I had to stay calm and stand still. And alone.

In a global sense, Obama faces the identical crossroads. He sees the Republicans nipping at his heels, and he probably wants to offer more vigorous encouragement to the demonstrators. He certainly sees that his carefully calibrated approach to Iran, seeking a deal with the existing regime, is disintegrating.

Because U. S. understanding of Iran is notoriously deficient, Obama has been given no clear conception of what could unfold (he better be reading this column). So he is antsy. And so is his staff. Who expected the “great challenge” to come from a civil war in Iran? Who?

How do you respond to a civil war? How do you react when people of a nation are killing each other, when neighbor is bludgeoning neighbor, when literally “all hell breaks lose?”

Throughout the Cold War American leaders repeatedly faced similar challenges.

President Eisenhower was urged to “bomb Hanoi.” In 1954. He resisted the temptation. Two years later, the Hungarian revolution created calls for direct U. S. action. Ike again resisted calls for intervention.

In 1968, I sat on the Danang River in Vietnam and watched from the sidelines as a revolution unfolded in Czechoslovakia. Then came the Russian invasion. Alexander Dubcek was the martyr in that conflict.

During the Islamic revolution in 1979, President Carter was castigated for failing to attack to free the U. S. Embassy hostages. In all of the foregoing instances, “conservatives” called for robust action, and action was exactly the wrong approach.

Ronald Reagan finally won the Cold War without ever dropping a bomb or launching an invasion in Europe. The Soviet Union imploded without any U. S. action. Reagan made the hostages “too hot to handle” and the ayatollahs relented.

The “Islamic Revolution” is now doomed. But whether it falls in five hours or five days or five months or five years, America is helpless to determine. Much as we like to think we can influence, and even control, events we are helpless observers as the civil war in Iran expands.

No, Islam is not going to disappear as a force in Iran. But Islam as a controlling set of principles to organize a complex modern society has failed.

The inevitable “liberalization” which we are likely to see in the months and years ahead will not be because American military power was projected anywhere, but simply as an unanticipated dividend of the implosion of the Iranian theocracy.

The sixty years of the Soviet empire are likely to be compressed as a result of modern communications into the thirty years of the doomed Islamic experiment.

No one, not even the anointed one some people have been waiting for, Obama himself, can control the pace of the Iranian civil war. No one.

Politically, Obama has been thrust into the same situation as Jimmy Carter. He appears weak because he can’t project strength. If he attempts to act strong, he will be immeasurably weakened.

So what does all of this mean politically?

First, Obama is not acting because he is powerless to act. There is no time at which a foreign military power is as helpless as when another nation is undergoing the catharsis of a civil war.

Second, Obama will pay a price domestically for exercising restraint internationally. He is powerless to do otherwise.

Third, ultimately the 2010 election is not going to turn on what happens in Iran. Iran was a problem, and Iran will continue to be problem. Obama’s star will rise or fall not based on what happens in and what comes of the Iranian civil war. Obama’s political prospects are controlled by the American economy and nothing else.

In closing, I am reminded once again of the great legacy we received from the founding generation of Americans: separation of church and state.

America has no “established” church and yet we are the most religions of nations. Mullahs have tried to impose Islam on a great nation. The people of Iran are in rebellion. All they are asking for is the freedom to choose. To choose when and when not to pray; how and how not to dress; when and when not to think as they wish.

But whether a dictatorship is run by religious extremists in Iran, or political extremists in the former Soviet empire, or by a local madman as in Venezuela, these regimes inevitably collapse.

This I know: On Monday, June 22nd the United States of America will open for business. Some of us love Barack Obama (I am not among that deluded minority) and some of us reject Obama (yes, that’s me) and some of us are disillusioned with Obama (a growing group). We will have our say, and we will vote in adequate but not perfect elections in 2010.

We have room for Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on one side and Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly on the other, and everyone in between and even outside those four corners (I’m in there somewhere). And out of this great gumbo every day there comes a national commitment to peaceful debate and decision.

So, God bless America. And please ask him to keep his mitts off our government. Right now he has his hands full in Iran.

I wish the wonderful people of Iran peace and freedom. It is your battle to win or lose. Today, tomorrow, whenever. Your “religious republic” is dead. What will follow in its place, and when, is unknown. As for Mr. Moussavi, “welcome to the club.” History called. You answered. Now what?

-----------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies (delayed for signing) from the publisher are available.
------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama raises money to oppose President Barack Obama's radical agenda and also to support www.BoycottHawaii.com.
www.CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
Please give generously. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama's political agenda is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama has no bundlers, no fat cats and no illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to almost everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised a billion dollar slush fund, his opponents lack sufficient resources. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
-----------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He is currently promoting his best-selling book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask and producing the new Internet movie “Obama: The Hawai’i years.” Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

Martin comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of experience. He has over forty years of experience in Asia and the Middle East, and is regarded overseas as America’s most respected independent foreign policy, military and intelligence analyst. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York. He is an announced candidate for Barack Obama’s former U. S. Senate seat.

UPDATES: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
[NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329 (cell not always on)
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2009.

Andy Martin on Iran

Martin says the best Persian policy is no policy at all. Once again, America's uniquely qualified and experienced Middle East expert comes up with a contrarian point of view. "Masterly inactivity" is his his proposal for topping the Ahmadinejad regime.

Andy Martin on why no policy is the best policy on Iran

ContrarianCommentary.com
Andy Martin
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

IRAN

BARACK OBAMA'S "POLICY" ON IRAN IS DESTINED FOR THE SCRAP HEAP, ALONG WITH EVERY PRIOR U. S. POLICY OF THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES

ANDY MARTIN ON EVENTS IN IRAN, AND THE FUTURE

OBAMA HAS INHERITED AND ADOPTED GEORGE BUSH'S FLAWED APPROACH TO IRAN, AND HE WILL FAIL JUST AS BUSH DID

(NEW YORK)(June 15, 2009) For an expert on Iran, I have an unusual background. I spent the longest night of my life—a lifetime really—under arrest as a spy in an Iranian town few have ever heard of. In 1979. One false move and the end would have been the end. I made it out. And went back again. But that night is still very vivid in my mind.

My policy recommendations were ignored in 1980, and they will no doubt be ignored thirty years later. I was right then, and I am right now: the best "policy" on Iran is no policy at all.

Allow me to explain.

Politicians gain public office and power by creating promises about "policies." Obama's "policies" include promises concerning the triad of "energy, health and the economy," as well as "negotiation" abroad. But these "policies" are complete nonsense. They assume that the world reacts to our commandments, and they assume that someone, maybe even the president of the United States, can control the world.

"Policy" rarely makes it into the real world and when "policy becomes reality" the result is often disaster. In 1999 Governor George Bush and his brother Jeb unleashed a torrent of abuse on me after I aired a commercial stating GWB wanted to "bomb Iraq." I understood what no one else in the media did: George Bush was obsessed, yes obsessed, with Iraq.

Bush's Iraq obsession destroyed his family's legacy, destroyed his own administration and very nearly destroyed the United States. Our "victory" in Iraq is truly a Pyrric one. Our armed forces "won" a conflict that made the world more dangerous, more unstable and more unmanageable for America.

In 2003 I predicted that Israel would be the big loser in "George Bush's war," and received more abuse for that view. I have been proven correct. Few would deny that Israel is more endangered today than it was in 2003. For my perspicacious analyses I was called an "anti-Semite." Thanks but no thanks.

Politicians, especially successful ones at the pinnacle of power in Washington, in the White House and Congress, are almost psychologically unable to admit that their "policies" are usually just political nonsense, and often self-defeating nonsense, intended merely for campaign donor consumption.

What about Iran? How about a thumbnail history? Our policy before 1979 was to support the Shah. The Shah's regime unleashed obscene excesses, all of which created a populist backlash. The Shah also tortured Iranians. The Israeli Mossad played a large role in training the Shah's Savak how to abuse Iranians. Because of the U.S.'s close relationship with Israel, we got the "credit" for Israel's torture teaching in Iran. Again, thanks but no thanks.

After the fall of the Shah, we entered into a cold war with Iran. It was then that I pitched up in Iran and was arrested in 1979, released, and went back again in 1980.

When I later developed a plan to secure the release of the U. S. embassy hostages, President Jimmy Carter was not interested. He was "using" the hostage situation to conduct a "Rose Garden" strategy for reelection. The "crisis" furnished a basis for Carter to avoid going on the hustings to debate Senator Ted Kennedy. Carter, of course, was deeply unpopular. Carter did win renomination, but the rest is history. Ronald Reagan became president and Carter's years in office were completely discredited. The Rose Garden strategy had succeeded in the short run only to backfire in the long run.

So I go back along way with Iran and the Middle East. People don’t always want to hear what I have to say (these views will no doubt prompt more attacks) but I have been more right than wrong over the past forty years.

This column and the insights I offer have been in the writing for many months, maybe years. Writing has been pushed aside by other breaking news. Now Iran is the breaking news.

Some time ago, probably a year or two ago, the Washington Post Travel section had an article on visiting Iran:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090100511.html

The Post travel story on Tehran fit perfectly into my column-in-the-writing because the innocuous report documented a warm welcome for Americans. The travel section showed how absurd our foreign policy had become. We received more accurate "foreign policy" information from the travel pages than we did from the editorial or news sections.

The reason for this information anomaly was that Iran has become our latest demon. We don’t understand the Persians (as I usually call them), and what we don’t understand we simply cannot accept. So we develop a "policy" to deal with our national ignorance.

In the case of Iran we have an even more dangerous situation. Iran is led by a demonstrably malicious and malignant leader. Israelis, never at a loss to create an opportunity to lose an opportunity, have used Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to substitute for the fallen Saddam Hussein. It was Israelis, after all, who promised Bush that the "road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad." Anyone heard that corker recently?

Today, Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to sell the story that there can be no peace in Palestine until Iran is resolved. He likes that song because "Iran" is not going to be resolved. Persia is a nation state with a history going back thousands of years.

Although Israelis are not responsible for our invasion of Iraq (George Bush is), Israeli diplomats helped inveigle Bush into thinking that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world and an "existential" threat to Israel. The same poppycock is now being rebranded to justify an Israeli attack on Iran.

What is the real world story? What should our "policy" be?

No policy at all.

President Obama should declare that the United States is ignoring Iran, and will let the Iranian people resolve their own differences. The less we say about Iran, the sooner change will come in that unfortunate nation. The only issue which Ahmadinejad has to unify his nation is American "policy" moves, and Israeli threats to trigger yet another Middle East war.

Just to insert a "joke" (no joke at all) at this point. Last year people said if I voted for John McCain, I would get "Bush III." I voted for McCain. And got? Bush III. Obama's foreign policy is indistinguishable from a Bush III approach to Iran.

We have American threats. Israeli saber rattling. U. N. sanctions. Diplomacy. Demands. The usual suspects.

All of these "policies" are sheer nonsense. Sanctions are not going to stop much of the world from trading with Iran. And sanctions will lose their effectiveness against Iran the same way they lost their impact on Iraq. Iran sells millions of barrels of oil every day. The day Iran is prevented from selling oil the price of a barrel will top $200 or more.

Israel has nuclear weapons. We know it. Everyone in the Middle East knows it. Weaponry brings prestige. Eventually everyone is going to have nuclear weapons. This is really difficult for anyone (including me) to accept. But technology cannot be stopped.

The idea that a nation of seven million is going to be allowed to retain nuclear armaments (Israel) while a nation of seventy million will be denied nuclear defenses (Iran) is one of the conceits that foreign policy pays to political campaign fund raising in America. Real world? It ain't gonna happen. So let's get real.

Iranians just had an election. I don't have a clue whether the voting was rigged or not. There are opinions on all sides, and I respect most of those opinions. Surprise: whether the election was rigged or not doesn't make a darn bit of difference to my non-policy. Whether the election was rigged or not is not going to change our need for a hands-off approach.

Here are the opening parameters for our non-policy.

1. U. S. "culture" is still our most potent "nuclear" weapon. We are the undisputed center of the universe when it comes to freedom, with all of the good and bad that such cultural and political and economic freedom can generate. Every day the best and worst that our culture can produce is dumped on the Internet and instantly spread worldwide.

President George Bush was completely correct when he said we should foster freedom and democracy. But we should promote freedom and democracy with electrons, not invasions.

People abroad are free to pick and choose what they want (unless they live in China, where a government of thuggish leaders think they know best what one billion Chinese should receive). Given a choice, people will choose freedom and, eventually, they will fight for freedom. In 1979, Iranians deposed the Shah. No one could stop them.

As soon as Iran exploded this weekend, Iranian goons tried to shut off phone and Internet access. They know where the threat to their regime lies.

2. We should stop fooling ourselves and think we can fool the world. No one was deluded by our previous foreign policy towards Iran and the Middle East; we were marching to the tune of an Israeli military band. With disastrous consequences for the Israelis.

Pro-Israel Americans need to accept that Israel is often a poor judge of what is in that nation's long-term interest. Israelis were welcomed as liberators in Palestine in 1967. If they had given Palestinians freedom instead of occupation, the two nations would be closely joined today. No one wants to remember 1967 because 1967 was a lost opportunity. For Israel. (In all fairness, in 1967 many seasoned Israeli leaders predicted disaster if the occupied territories were retained. History has vindicated their warnings.)

3. Iran has attacked no one. Iran was attacked by Iraq. Iraq was aided by the United States in continuing a murderous invasion of Iran. Americans may have forgotten this "inconvenient truth," but no one in Iran has. We need to remember our failures.

4. U.S. and Israeli politicians routinely use lies and hysteria and disgraceful exaggerations to keep themselves in power. Why not Iranians? Aren't Iranian politicians capable of the same abuses? Most of the world—and, as it turns out—most Iranians--realize that Holocaust denial is disgraceful. Instead of falling for the Israeli catnip that Holocaust denial is the tip of an imminent Iranian nuclear-armed attack, we should apply the same level of scrutiny and skepticism to Iranian political rhetoric that we devote to our own. How about this racist, ignoramus, anti-Obama video on Haaretz:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1090967.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092485.html

Should Obama view the video and bomb Israel? Ban travel to Tel Aviv? Impose sanctions? These are obviously absurd suggestions. But Iranians have no monopoly on ignorance. Watch the videos. (The videos are particularly pernicious because the morons who are speaking are American Jews who are invited to Israel to "learn" the truth. Scary.)

May I also remind readers that laws have been passed by almost every recent congress to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? These laws are wonderful "fetchers," as we use to call them in the Illinois legislature. They "fetch" campaign dollars. Sixty years after Israel was created, the U. S. embassy remains in Tel Aviv.

There is a giant disconnect between political rhetoric and reality and public policy in America; why can’t we accept the same standard for analyzing our critics?

5. The nuclear monopoly is dying. We can pop and toot about Iran and North Korea all we want. Nuclear weapons are going to spread, slowly at times, more rapidly at others. We have not yet reached the stage where a bunch of MIT students can fashion a nuclear weapon as a prank, but we are not far off.

In this regard, Americans often harbor racist misconceptions about other nations. We think our technology is the best (it is) but that everyone else is second-class. Second class can still be world class. Iraq supposedly had modern technology (after all that's why we went to war, isn’t it) and Iran today has world-class technology (which is why we have a new round of Israeli hysteria trying to trigger a war).

Instead of discouraging the spread of nuclear technology, which has been an abject failure, we should probably do precisely the opposite, and offer to arm anyone who can pay (no foreign aid here) with nuclear facilities, weapons, labs. So what? In an extreme situation, we should offer Iran a bomb, put the bomb in a public square, and leave a U. S. Air Force sergeant behind to dust off the weapon from time to time. The bomb will rust away before it is ever used.

6. Iran is going to change. But Iran is going to change not when Israelis bomb Tehran but only when Iranians topple their own regime the same way they did in 1979. The Iranian regime is a soulless (for a theocracy) government in which human rights and human beings are fodder for religious extremists. But so what? When was the last time Iran invaded another country? I can’t remember. Can you? Iran's bad government is no reason for America to start or condone another self-destructive war.

7. I am known (and revered and reviled) as a critic of Barack Obama. But Obama—give the devil his due—is smart enough to realize that triggering a war, or letting Israelis start a war, is insane. Stop. Iran supports Hizballah? Hamas? Of course they do. Is Israel free to mau mau Iran while Iran is not free to do the same? As long as Palestinian rights are denied, Iran will be able to profit from subsidizing Palestinian liberation movements. Hint: the road to Tehran lies through Tel Aviv (U.S. embassy) or Jerusalem (Israel government) not vice versa as Netanyahu suggests.

Netanyahu has reversed the route because he never wants to recognize a Palestinian state. If anyone is in denial, it is the "democracy" of Israel that believes it can appropriate Palestinians lands forever, and maintain a perpetual occupation of the Palestinian people with a peace "process" that is all process and no peace. Now there's a real delusional "policy" for you.

Israeli military leaders (virtually the entire government) claim they would rather start a war with Persia than run the risk of peace. Is that a sensible policy evaluation? Not in my opinion. Israel's existence is threatened by endless war, not endless peace.

The bottom line: I don’t know when or how the Iranian people are going to topple their leadership. It may come soon, or not for decades. No one can predict. That's for Iranians, not Americans or Israelis, to decide. The more input we have, the more likely the "output" will backfire on our strategic interests. Our long-term interests lie in leaving Iranians alone, taking a "hands-off" position and having no "policy" whatsoever.

At Britain's MI5 they would call my proposal a plan for "masterly inactivity." Perhaps were Iran is concerned we meet to master both our emotions and our rhetoric.

The maraschino cherry: If Hillary or Obama called me and said, "What can we do to help the Iranian people?" I would say "end the sanctions, lift the embargo." The only way to torpedo the Ahmadinejad regime is with freedom, not firearms.

Contrarian? Sure. Common sense? Absolutely. Sanctions have never worked, and they will not work in Iran. Freedom can bring down the regime. By essentially doing nothing and ignoring the regime instead of making them central to our national agenda we become more, not less, powerful in Iran. "Iran for the Iranians" is the biggest threat we can direct at Persia.

Why not end thirty years of failure and try an approach that is sure to succeed? Because politicians have to have "polices," and policies are merely prescriptions for failure.

-----------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies (delayed for signing) from the publisher are available.
------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama raises money to oppose President Barack Obama's radical agenda and also to support www.BoycottHawaii.com.
www.CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
Please give generously. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama's political agenda is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama has no bundlers, no fat cats and no illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to almost everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised a billion dollar slush fund, his opponents lack sufficient resources. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
-----------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He is currently promoting his best-selling book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask and producing the new Internet movie “Obama: The Hawai’i years.” Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

Martin comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of experience. He has over forty years of experience in Asia and the Middle East, and is regarded overseas as America’s most respected independent foreign policy, military and intelligence analyst. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York. He is an announced candidate for Barack Obama’s former U. S. Senate seat.

UPDATES: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
[NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329 (cell not always on)
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com © Copyright by Andy Martin 2009.

U.S. policy towards Iran is nothing more than an Israeli charade

Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin blows the roof off the New York Times' refusal to disclose which "allies and domestic constituencies" are blocking abandonment of a failed Iran policy. "What are the identities of these 'allies and domestic constituencies,' that the New York Times refuses to print?" asks Martin. Martin, who was in Iran in 1979-1980 during the hostage crisis, is internationally regarded as America's most respected independent Middle East/Asia expert.

Why U.S. policy towards Iran is nothing more than an Israeli charade

Is Iran stupid, or what? Not likely

ContrarianCommentary.com
Andy Martin
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

HOW THE ISRAELI REGIME IS ENDANGERING AMERICA AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

ANDY MARTIN SAYS A NUCLEAR IRAN IS INEVITABLE, AND ISRAELI OFFICIALS KNOW THAT; RATHER, ISRAEL IS REALLY USING "IRAN" AS ITS LATEST FOIL TO DELAY AND DEFLECT PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD.

THE NEW YORK TIMES TAP DANCES AROUND THE "ISRAEL LOBBY'S" MALIGNANT INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

(NEW YORK)(May 25, 2009) If you want a glaring example of how the "Israel lobby" strikes fear in the hearts of the New York Times and U. S. foreign policy experts, an article in Sunday's New York Times is a golden classic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/
24leverett.html?ref=opinion

The article speaks of "positions that some allies and domestic constituencies won’t like." Who are these secret opponents that are blocking abandonment of a failed strategy? The "Israel Lobby," of course. The "Israel Lobby" became notorious after an academic exposé that in turn created a firestorm of criticism directed against the authors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_
Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

What is the real policy agenda of the Israeli government? Do Israelis really want to start World war III by attacking Iran? Or is Iran just a foil? A charade? A distraction. I believe that "Iran" is only the latest in an endless list of diversionary tactics employed by the Israeli regime to delay and divert Palestinian statehood. Follow me on this.

Just before President Bill Clinton left office in 2001 Israel and the Palestinians were close to an agreement. That 2001 understanding ultimately will form the basis of a future Palestinian state.

President George Bush succeeded Clinton, and Ariel Sharon became head of the Israeli junta. Sharon focused on confusing Bush and creating a pretext for Bush to abandon the nearly completed statehood arrangements. Instead of preparing for the tenth anniversary of Palestinian statehood today, and peace, Israel still occupies Palestine and occupies the U. S. government's foreign policy as well.

How did Israel succeed? By using the same tactics in 2001 that it is using in 2009: creating a bogeyman as a "barrier to peace."

But there is a change in 2009: even Israel's staunchest supporters are beginning to see through the Israel game plan even IF they cannot publicly admit the fact:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/23/AR2009052301536.html

What did Sharon do in 2001-2003?

Sharon sent two types of people to the U.S. He sent professional intelligence people to discuss critical issues (all of which the Bushies ignored) about a potential invasion of Iraq; he also sent clowns to the White House, to scare Bush with claims of an "existential" threat to Israel's existence. 2002 was so 2009.

Israel always has to have an "existential" threat because this "threat" is used to justify delaying statehood to Palestinians. Lacking any foreign policy expertise of his own, Bush turned to his advisers, who were mostly Israeli sympathizers. These men served Bush badly and ultimately betrayed his administration. They launched the invasion of Iraq.

In 2001-2003 Israel was trumpeting that Saddam Hussein was "paying money to suicide bombers." Saddam's behavior was proffered as a pretext to invade Iraq. Bush was buffaloed with false claims of an Al Qaeda-Iraq liaison, and "terrorists" receiving medical care in Baghdad. WMDs anyone? Many of these claims had superficial validity. But none of them individually and none of them collectively furnished any basis to invade Iraq, to squander a trillion dollars, to demolish Bush's presidency and to endanger America's economy.

I am not suggesting that Israel is ultimately responsible for the Iraq mess. I blame Bush and his junta of jerks for invading a nation that was no "existential" threat to anyone. Iraq had been effectively contained with an American policy that had cost only a handful of lives and pocket change in the federal budget. The Israelis may have duped and deceived Bush, but I hold Bush, not Israel, responsible for his own stupidity and incompetence.

The invasion/occupation imbroglio Bush created served as a basis to delay Palestinian statehood and to perpetuate the Israeli occupation and terrorization of the Palestinian people.

In 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu is again making the same "existential threat" claim. This time the "threat" is Iran. He came to Washington saying "no action in Palestine until Iran is solved." People laughed at him. Once again, Israel is making noises about unleashing bombing attacks on Tehran the same way it previously threatened Baghdad. Once again we hear Israelis boasting in the house organ of Israeli propaganda, the Wall Street Journal, that the regime is committing kidnapping, murder and arson in support of its national policy.

Only this time, while Israelis are selling the same "existential" hokum, Americans are not buying. In a curious reversal of reality, the "pro-Israel" Democrats are refraining from self-destructive action where the previously "pro-Arab Bush Republicans" stepped into the Iraq mess. Maybe someone has learned something.

As David Ignatius of the Washington Post put it, there is no "magic bullet" solution to the Iran situation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/22/AR2009052202591.html

Iran can read the newspapers just as we can, and see that Israelis are boasting of kidnapping, murders and arsons all directed at the Iranian people.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243059842325581.html

Likewise, the U. S. has been undermining the Iranian government:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html

The U. S. has appointed an Israeli supporter, Dennis Ross, as "negotiator" to Iran. He's not neutral. Ross works to advance Israeli interests.

In addition, Obama is repeating another one of Bush II's major mistakes: "secret agreements" with Israelis. According to the Washington Times, the U. S. and Israel are creating a clandestine "working group" to "assess the progress" of U. S. Policy.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/20/
us-israel-forming-working-group-on-iran/

Since when does the U. S. need Israeli assistance to evaluate U. S. foreign policy? And they wonder why people ridicule us and hate us in the Middle East. Despite this cloak-and-dagger drama, however, Israel is still employing Iran as a foil to delay and disrupt Palestinian statehood.

The bottom line: Israel is using Iran the same way it used Iraq, as a charade to delay Palestinian statehood. The increased secrecy may indicate that the "allies and domestic constituencies" who cannot be named by the New York Times, namely the "Israel lobby," may finally be losing influence within the executive branch while they visibly continue to impound the U.S. Congress.

Is Iran a "threat" to Israel? No more than Israel is a threat to itself. Israel's forty-year occupation of Palestine, after a concocted 1967 war based on phony claims, including the murderous attack on U.S. sailors aboard the U. S.S. Liberty, is the greatest threat to world peace.

I am not suggesting choirboys lead Iran. Obviously that is not the situation. But Israelis focus on Iranian rhetoric rather than Iranian deeds. Iran has never attacked any of its neighbors. Israel constantly does.

Do Iranians have a reason to dislike Israel? Well, yes. Israelis are world-class experts in torture. Israelis tutored the Shah of Iran's Savak on how to torture Iranian citizens, and especially mullahs. So, yes, if someone had tortured me, and I knew who that person's teacher was, I would not be friendly towards the torture teacher. Anyone disagree? Iran clearly has a basis to hate Israel. Just ask the Iranians who were tortured under Israeli supervision.

What about the bugaboos of U. S. politics, "Hamas" and "Hizballah?" Iran does indeed mentor and supply and finance these anti-Israel institutions. There is no doubt of that fact. But these organizations will diminish when the occupation ends and peace begins. These organizations have never targeted Americans and represent a local, homegrown response to Israel's occupation of Palestine.

Over the past decade I have sketched how "peace" will come to the Middle East. Once peace is formally approved, hostilities will not end all at once. Extremists on both sides—Israelis who claim a mission from God and Muslims who claim an equally God-given mandate—will continue to snipe at each other. "Peace" in the Middle East will not immediately look the way it does along the streets of Chicago or New York or Washington. A level of violence and terrorism will persist.

But as both Israelis and Palestinians recognize, and they will, that they have more to gain from peace than war, Israelis and Palestinians will take control of their own destiny and eventually wipe out their own extremists, the military warmongers in Israel and the resistance in Palestine.

Today racists and extremists who support ethic cleansing as Israeli national policy manage the Israeli government. Avigdor Lieberman is "foreign minister" for the regime; he wants to eject Arabs and seize Palestine as "God-given" Israeli land. He lives in an illegal settlement on occupied land. The "regime" (and I call it a regime for that reason) does not condemn racism, or ethnic cleansing or occupation or torture. The United States tolerates thuggish claims in the Israeli government that it condemns in the Iranian leadership.

Mr. Lieberman, meet Mr. Ahmedinejad.

Torture and occupation have become part of Israel's national DNA. No one can disengage from his or her DNA without external actors. Israel needs a big dose of international chemotherapy before it can legitimately be called a civilized state. Symphony orchestras in Tel Aviv and Nobel Prizes are used to mask torture and occupation. No one is fooled, except American politicians who have their palms out and pretend not to see the Israeli atrocities while scooping up pro-Israel campaign donations.

In the meantime, writers and editors at the New York Times live in fear of naming the unmentionable "allies and domestic constituencies" whose names cannot be printed. Why is the Times afraid to name these unmentionables? Fear of being branded "anti-Semitic." False screams of anti-Semitism are used to silence America's media.

Please do not be intimidated by or misled by Israeli propaganda masquerading as U. S. Government policy. Israelis are the existential threat to Israel, not Iranians. The U. S. should settle the Palestinian question, which the United States crated in 1948, and peacefully resolve its differences with Iran. As for the Israel lobby? You be the judge of what punishment fits the crime of having tortured U. S. foreign policy for over sixty years.

Pro-peace Israelis believe Obama represents a break with past U.S. policy. In'shallah. On this issue, I hope they are right.

-----------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies (delayed for signing) from the publisher are available.
------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama raises money to oppose President Barack Obama's radical agenda and also to support www.BoycottHawaii.com.
www.CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
Please give generously. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama's political agenda is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama has no bundlers, no fat cats and no illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to almost everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised a billion dollar slush fund, his opponents lack sufficient resources. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
-----------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He is currently promoting his best-selling book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask and producing the new Internet movie “Obama: The Hawai’i years.” Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

Martin comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of experience. He has over forty years of experience in Asia and the Middle East, and is regarded overseas as America’s most respected independent foreign policy, military and intelligence analyst. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York. He is an announced candidate for Barack Obama’s former U. S. Senate seat.

UPDATES: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
[NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329 (cell not always on)
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com © Copyright by Andy Martin 2009.