Iran is no threat to ... the Zionist regime

(picture taken from CBSnews.com)
AFP reports and BBC-persian confirms that Ahmadinejad has said: "We are no threat to any nation, even the Zionist regime".

I see this moderate comment as a direct consequence of Pres. Ahmadinejad's talk with Mike Wallace in the CBS's "60 minutes" show.
What I am trying to conclude is that talking provides a layout for understanding and peace. On the contrary, in my opinion, isolation promotes radicalism.

Now, whether Pres. Bush promotes radicalism (by means of isolating Iran) or moves towards resolving this manufactured nuclear crisis (by not hindering the process of talks), determines as to what his real goals are.

update: An Israeli official has said that Israel is not fooled by such declarations.

Iranian-American space tourist (amateur astronaut)

The forth space tourist and the first female space tourist (amateur astronaut) is the US entrepreneur Anousheh Ansari. This Iranian born lady is a co-founder of Telecom Technologies Inc., a Texas-based company. I was amazed when I saw her wearing a suit with both American and Iranian Flags. (pictures are taken from BBC-Persian and Iranian.com)

update: more photos

Anousheh and her husband were the sponsors of the 10,000,000$ Ansari-X-Prize for the first non-governmental organization to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks.

It is amazing that despite all the propaganda around Iran in the media, and the systematic work of demonizing its current regime, most of the Iranians are proud of their nationality, their culture, their brilliant history, and their beautiful land.

I wish her a safe voyage.

Jay Leno and Iranian space program
This reminded me of an episode of Jay Leno's nightly! show (Video Link), in which he interviews an imaginary Iranian Astronaut. Although the represented character is an Arab character (rather than a Persian one), the show itself is very amusing. For the sake of clarification I have to point out that Iran's national bird is Nightingale and not a buzzard.

update: NewYorkTimes has a nice article about Anousheh.

VOA's "Iran's Desire for Nuclear Power v. the Ability to Maintain It"

To: Patrick Clawson,

I read your remarks about Iran's nuclear program on VOAnews.com and I would like to comment:

I am pretty sure that you know that construction of Bushehr Reactor started well before revolution and the designs/designers were mostly American/European.

I am also pretty sure that you know that researchers from Stanford Research Institute recommended production of 20,000 MW of nuclear electricity (this was before revolution as well)

Now, while the scientists have stated their opinion, I wonder why a politician like you, should comment on whether Iran needs nuclear power or should stick to its Oil/Natural Gas resources.

My little online research shows me that your remark about Bushehr Nuclear Reactor being located precisely on a fault, is not very accurate. Here is the map of faults in Iran (another one and one more) from the website of International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. I do not see Bandar-e-Bushehr (Bushehr Port) being located precisely on a fault. (It is very unfortunate that faults are spread all over Iran and basically no place in Iran is safe in terms of being far from a fault, but your argument still doesn't seem to be accurate).

Regards,
Amir

The two Romanian Oil Rigs in the Persian Gulf

Reportedly, Iran has attacked a Romanian Oil Rig. Although Iranian officials have denied attacking the rig, they have confirmed that Iran has prevented the rig's removal from the Kish Island.

Whereas the story, as it is mentioned in BBC-English, is very vague and poor in content, the BBC-Persian has a detailed coverage of the issue.

• BBC-English coverage of the issue: Iran 'attacks Romanian oil rig'
• BBC-Persian coverage of the issue: 'حمله نظامی ايران به دکل نفتی در خليج فارس'

I have compared the two articles and I've found the following discrepancies:

1. One of the most important shortcoming in the BBC-English's story is that it lacks the Iranian point of view.
2. It fails to mention that both rigs were involved in a legal dispute.
3. It also fails to mention that both rigs were on a 3-year loan to Iran, under a contract which was unilaterally rescinded by the Romanian company.
4. It also fails to mention that, by law, the rigs should have stayed in the Persian Gulf until the dispute was resolved.
5. And that the other rig was covertly taken out of Iran 8 days before the incident.

I don't know why BBC-English should have such a poor report on this. And whether this is intentional or not (obviously, they have access to their employees in another department, right?).

A very important issue, not discussed in any of the two, is whether or not there was any attack. And if there was, whether or not there were any damages/casualties?

Ahmadinejad for Dummies

Frankly, I was not was sure whether to call this post "Ahmadinejad for Dummies" or "Ahmadinejad in 60 Minutes".

Anyways, Mike Wallace interviewed the Iranian President Ahmadinejad in CBS' "60 Minutes".

• part 1 (RealAudio video)
  
• part 2 (RealAudio video)
• part 3 (RealAudio video)

The interview is quite informative.

Update:
Since the above links are now broken, I am posting the updated links here:

• part 1 (RealAudio video)
  
• part 2 (RealAudio video)
• part 3 (RealAudio video)

Hoder says: "Iran Needs Nuclear Weapons"

Hoder, a well-known Persian blogger, has recently written a piece in his blog at WashingtonPost.com about Iran's nuclear program. In his piece, he says that he thinks Iran needs a nuclear bomb to strengthen herself against the not-so-talked-about threats of the nuclear countries in the region, namely, Pakistan, India, and even China. He also suggests that Iran should normalize its relations with Israel and the U.S., which, in my opinion, is easier said than done.

I strongly oppose what he says:

Iran does not need a nuclear weapon to defend herself, simply because a nuclear weapon would pave the way for US and Israeli forces to occupy Iran. (Iran will not have enough time to produce enough bombs to counter the threats posed by US and Israel).

What Iran needs is to master the technology of producing fuel for nuclear reactors (which is undeniably in accordance with her rights, her international obligations, and NPT). 'Being able to enrich uranium' is as deterrent as 'having a nuclear bomb', but not as dangerous. It is deterrent because you can build it whenever you are under attack, and this prevents the aggressors from thinking about attacking you.

This also explains why the American officials are so keen on hindering Iranian progress in this matter.

In contrary to what has been and is being propagated in the media, Iran's peaceful nuclear program will be a source of stability in the region (and may end the US showndown in the region). Without it, Iran will be attacked, sooner or later.

The best way to solve this manufactured crisis is to involve in dialogue with Iran about implementing a more intrusive/extensive inspection mechanism that guarantees the compliance with NPT.