Iran's diplomatic voice of moderation silenced

One semi-moderate hardliner (Larijani) is dismissed as another ultra-hardliner (Pres. Ahmadinejad) stands

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, viewed by the West as a moderating influence in Tehran, resigned before crucial talks with Europe this week over Iran’s nuclear program, signaling that officials here may have closed the door to any possible negotiated settlement in its standoff with the West.

How will the resignation of Larijani affect the already-deadlocked negotiations between Iran and the West over its 'peaceful' — which UN Security Council veto-welder Russia troublingly believes it is — nuclear program. Will the Islamic state become more radical — and rogue?

A BBC News reader summed this all up best: "The Iranian president obviously feel[s] he holds the all the aces". When — if ever — will the ayatollah step in to help relieve the massive tension between Iran and the international community, as he has before (e.g. with the recent temporary release of a jailed scholar)? Has the tipping point for US-Iran relations come to pass, meaning a potentially successful one-on-one meeting is not a possibility whatsoever? (Stubbornness on both sides is to blame.)

Iran has been offered a huge amount of incentives by American and European diplomats; it has played games and refused to take the rational action. Ahmadinejad is probbaly just waiting out for a sweeter deal, as diplomacy is currently at a virtual standstill, similar to the one worked out with North Korea. But whereas N Korea had only nukes, Iran, which is still in the early stages of nuclear development, has plenty of something everyone wants: oil.

Warning signs: Iran and Iraq invasion parallels

FP Passport has a great post about the similarity between American rhetoric preceding the invasion of Iraq, and the current stance increasingly being taken by Bush administration heavyweights.

For at least a year and a half, a dangerous conventional wisdom has been percolating within the foreign-policy community and it is this: America ain't gonna attack Iran. Whether ignoring familiar warning signs or waving them away, most mainstream analysts are towing this line, too. ... Too bogged down in Iraq. Just talking tough to Tehran. The generals won't let it happen. These are all convenient forms of denial, and the foreign-policy establishment and media appear to have bought into them big time.

Nukes plus state support of terrorism, where have we heard that argument for invasion before?

No nuke strikes
Even if we're all a bit naive about the chances of it happening, a heavy military attack on Iran would ultimately be neither politically nor strategically feasible for the United States. I wouldn't be suprised if some clandestine work was already under way, though. As common sense has reasoned and studies have backed up, attacking Iran because of its nuclear desires could easily be counter-productive. That would be all the support President Ahmadinejad, whose popularity is falling more every week, would need to continue his weapons program and it would 'support' his claims of American evil. In addition, the blowback from such an attack would be immense, and not just from Islamic terrorists.

Ruined chances, four years back
Washington had a chance to settle at least part of the Iran-US dispute back in 2003, a year after the country's nuclear programs were unearthed. Iran put forward a proposal that included making its nuclear program more open and no longer backing extremist groups like Hezbollah; in return the US would have to help fight some anti-Iran terrorist groups.

Newsnight found this out this a little while ago:

Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.

But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said.

The offers came in a letter, seen by Newsnight, which was unsigned but which the US state department apparently believed to have been approved by the highest authorities.

In return for its concessions, Tehran asked Washington to end its hostility, to end sanctions, and to disband the Iranian rebel group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and repatriate its members.

Back to today
Meanwhile, the situation with Iran's nuclear program seems to be getting worse. How far can diplomacy goes until everyone gets frustrated? Germany and the EU are increasingly stubborn about sanctions — a tactic which I myself question — and the hawks and neocons on Capitol Hill, Republican and Democrat alike, are painting Iran as the Reich of the Mideast, with Ahmadinejad as Hitler (fitting, considering the intense anti-semitism); Barack Obama even proposed possible strikes on the country! Iran-bashing has also grown popular with those seeking someone to blame for the failure in Iraq (i.e. the White House); the blame should be targeted more thwards Washington then Tehran.

Keep in mind, however, that Ahmadinejad is not the top man in Iran's minutely-democratic theocracy — Ayatollah Khamenei has the final say. Radical as he may be, I doubt he'd lead his country into complete war. Plus, he hates nukes.

As if things were not complicated enough, there's also the matter of oil...

technorati tags: iran

Nuclear news, good and bad

Trouble, progress, and contradictions of nuclear proportions this past Sunday.

Good
North Korea apparently has agreed to nuclear shutdown, says respectable US envoy Christopher Hill. This follows the closure of one of the despotic republic's reactors earlier this year.


Bad
Iran is moving forward with its nuclear plans, even though the IAEA reports conflict with 'official' statements about how far the Islamic republic really is in the development of nuclear weapons — oops, I mean totally peaceful civilian energy (of course). The announcement that Iran is operating 3,000 centrifuges followed an IAEA statement saying Iran has been cooperating.

Methinks Ahmedinejad's bark is far worse than his bite. How could Iran be slowing down, as the IAEA insists, if it is making the rapid progress its president speaks of? Ahmedinejad, who is, I might add, not actually at the top of Iran's hierarchy (even though he's president), remains defiant to UN sanctions and pressure from the West. He is losing support.

The worst move a foreign state could make (*cough*, *cough* Israel and America) could make would be to attack Iran militarily. Study after study has shown that bombing Iran would be counter-productive, would only increase hate of America abroad, and would empower Ahmedinejad and radical Iranians. It's one of the stupidest things a western regime — or Israel — could do right now. Iran is a threat, but we dealt with North Korea diplomatically, didn't we? It tales patience.

Political stability against extremists: the real Mid-East danger

Iran is in the news more and more. Between its capture of 15 British sailors, to the advancement of its nuclear weapons program and defiance of sanctions. Much of it — from anti-Zionist rhetoric to nuclear politics — might just be an act. Like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Iran's Ahmadinejad is populist and very showy.

At the risk of sounding like I'm in Shakespeare's time: How will this all fadge?

I think there are many factors that cause discomfort on both sides — Iran and the United States — one issue being the Iranian president's harsh anti-Israel rhetoric, another being the allegations of meddling in Iraq (which could just be a scapegoat excuse for the Bush administration, who often create false scapegoats), along with Iran's refusal to halt its nuclear program. I think if Iran, Israel, the US, and Palestine all were more open-minded, a treaty of peace and political recognition could be in order and would help relations between all of the countries — including those between Israel and the US and the Arab and Muslim world.

Iran still needs to at least let IAEA inspectors in. But with the political situations at home for America, Iran, and even Israel and Palestine, who knows who will next be in charge and how that will shape this nuclear diplomacy we are seeing more and more of. I think the US would rather have the prospect of its own security — even if that is only a sense of security — than the prospect of peace. American foreign policy has consistently focused more on preventing aggression than promoting peace. There are still plenty in the government who think peace is best achieved by though military force.

Ahmadinejad may think his hard-line rhetoric is helping him win over supporters abroad, but it is not helping him at home. Respect is an issue all sides need to learn, for without it, real diplomacy cannot take place and real progress cannot be made. It is now in the mutual interest of both Iran and the United States to work together on Iraq. It is in the interest of the US and Israel (since they are allies) to work with Israel's neighbors; peace between Israel and the Arab world also helps lower international terrorism and Muslim extremism, as does quelling the sectarian violence in Iraq. The Israel-Palestine conflict, as well as the civil war in Iraq, have both spread Islamic fundamentalism and created new waves of hopelessness, aggression, and, thus, terrorism and irrationality to those lands in such strife and their allies and supporters.

A big issue is political stability. If the current hardline government is taken over by extremists — because the government isn't delivering what the people want (thus the radicals get public support) or some other reason — those extremists may have an industrial level nuclear program in their hands. That is not good. The same thing goes for Pakistan. In that case, the US is close to the country (Pakistan), which empowers the extremists in a way. Pakistan is already a nuclear state — imagine if Islamic terrorists got hold of nuclear weapons. However, in Iran's case there does need to be a level of dialogue. Isolation would empower extremists even more than seeing their country talk to a country they despise would.

In short: the US needs to talk with Syria to get it away from Iran; needs to talk with Iran for plenty of other reasons; and needs to talk to all in the Middle East because of the Iraq issue, along with the problem of terrorism. Syria, Pakistan, and Iran are all oppressive governments with ties to militias. However, all three view terrorism as as much of a threat as the United States does, if not more (extremists are in their own backyards).

Israel and the US alike need to stop ticking off those in the Middle East and empowering radicals, the opposite of their goals but nonetheless they are direct products of their policy. All parties need to learn from history. A closed, aggressive, hardline state cannot last long in the modern world of politics — at least it cannot when extremist movements more conservative than their own governments are brewing within and close to their borders. A regional power, but outcast, cannot continue annoying its neighbors, nor can it concede.

The world's superpower, seen as imperial and bad as ever by those in the Mid-East, cannot continue in its rogue anti-terroirsm fight when it makes the terrorist situation worse for itself and others (fire paradox again). It's perfect to choose the US as the face of evil: its big and powerful, yet faulty, as the Iraq debacle has shown, and does not position itself as benevolent or afraid to use preemptive force. It also sides with Israel through thick and thin.

America finds Iran as easy a scapegoat (for Iraq troubles) and poster-child for evil (see 'war on terror' and 'axis of evil') as Iran does for America ('death to the great Satan). That kind of politics doesn't help anyone but the extremists and the Manichaens like Bush and Ahmadinejad. Neither is doing swimingly at home either. (Keep in mind Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. Although he is the most internationally visible, he is probably roughly third on the chain of command.) Supremacy in a region as volatile as the Middle East is a tour de force. That being said, it often requires either massive brute force or political ingenuity.

technorati tags: iran, in+the+news, politics, international+relations, foreign+policy, ahmadinejad, united+states, usa, israel, syria, terrorism, islamic+extremism, pakistan, nukes

A 'present' to the UK: British sailors to be freed

I've been reading that the situation between Iran and the UK, which had seemed to have spiked, was calming down and the two countries were negotiating. Iran announced it would not put the soldiers on trial, even after many riots by Iranians for the sailors to be put on trial. Much drama has come to life over this series of opposing events. 15 naval crew members of the British military were detained by Iran on 23 March.

It looks like diplomacy worked. Imagine how horribly bad this could have turned out if the US or UK resorted to military force against Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the sailors, though they 'invaded' Iranian waters, are free to go, consider it a 'present to the British people'. He made the seemingly benevolent comment in a patronizing ire.

Ahmadinejad is the hardline president of Iran, a controversial one at hope and abroad for tempting sanctions on Iran and challenging the international community by continuing Iran's nuclear weapons program. Remember he is not the ultimate power figure, because Iran is a semi-theocracy there are many influential religious figures.

BBC News:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.
...
He repeated allegations that the Britons were captured in Iranian waters, and awarded medals to the Iranian commanders responsible for detaining them.

It was all part of the build up to his extraordinary theatrical gesture, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins.

"We have every right to put these people on trial," Mr Ahmadinejad asserted.

"But I want to give them as a present to the British people to say they are all free."

"I'm asking Mr Blair to not put these 15 personnel on trial because they admitted they came to Iranian territorial water," he added, referring to taped "confessions" made by the British sailors and marines.

Britain says the confessions were extracted under duress.

"I ask Mr Blair: Instead of occupying the other countries, I ask Mr Blair to think about the justice, to think about the truth and work for the British people not for himself."

"Unfortunately the British government was not even brave enough to tell their people the truth, that it made a mistake," Mr Ahmadinejad added.

As you can see, each side had its own view of the events, albeit confusing ones.

UK VERSION OF EVENTS
1 Crew boards merchant ship 1.7NM inside Iraqi waters
2 HMS Cornwall was south-east of this, and inside Iraqi waters
3 Iran tells UK that merchant ship was at a different point, still within Iraqi waters
4 After UK points this out, Iran provides alternative position, now within Iranian waters

IRANIAN VERSION OF EVENTS
1 Royal Navy crew stray 0.5km inside Iranian waters
2 Iran gives set of co-ordinates to back up their claims
3 According to seized GPS equipment, the Royal Navy crew had previously entered Iranian waters at several other points
4 Iran informs Britain of the position where the crew were seized, inside Iranian waters

technorati tags: iran, ahmadinejad, british+sailors, sailors+iran, uk+iran, uk, news, politics

Fresh sanctions on Iran

Iran is receiving more punishment by the international community over its stubborn diplomacy and inability to halt its un-inspected nuclear (weapons) program.

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to approve a resolution that bans all Iranian arms exports and freezes some of the financial assets of 28 Iranian individuals and entities linked to Iran's military and nuclear agencies.

The 15 to 0 vote came one day after President Mahmoud Admadinejad canceled plans to travel to New York to confront the Security Council, leaving his foreign minister to speak in his place. It unfolded as 15 British sailors and marines seized by Iranian naval forces were transferred to Tehran, escalating diplomatic tensions between the two countries.
...
The measures adopted Saturday fell far short of the punishing trade, travel and military sanctions initially proposed by the United States and its European partners. But they insisted they were pleased with the outcome.

More penalties may be coming in 60 days unless Iran allows IAEA inspectors to examine its program and provide proof it is not developing a weapons program — a common belief among... well everyone. When will the straw (sanctions) break the camel's (Iran) back? President Admadinejad is already facing enough political pressure over economic and nuclear issues at home. Like US President Bush, I think he will push the envelope of presidential arrogance and defy the public and other branches of the government for as long as possible.

Even though the situation is worsening diplomatically, the EU insists the door is still open for further talks. Whenever it is presented with a good deal, Iran turns it down. However, the US also needs to be less stubborn in its diplomacy; opening the channel of dialogue on Iraq is a step in the right direction.

Are sanctions accomplishing their goals? It's anybody's guess. With Iraq under Saddam, sanctions made everything worse, and argably made Saddam even more powerful while killing many of his people. Some experts think Iran is feeling the pressure of financial sanctions, though. Remember many Iranians are young and globalized; many like their western goods too.

Iran is more likely to go the way of North Korea and accept a deal. Like with N Korea, the world will just have to wait until Iran has enough leverage to get what it wants. Diplomacy is slow, often tedious process, but it is better than, say, the policy the United States held for Iraq. Personally, I would rather have a proto-nuclear state than a failed state whose conflict could spill out of its borders and breed international terrorism. Experts view the Iran threat as somewhat hyped-up too.

By the way, the Iranian capture of 15 British soldiers off of its coast has to be one of the dumbest political moves its made in recent history. The capture is unwarranted and stupid anyways. The UK is a UNSC power with ties to all the other great powers; Iran is not. Now the UK may join the US in having harshly negative feelings for Iran, only worsening the diplomatic measures on several fronts.

US has plans on attacking Iran, nukes and all

The BBC reports on US plans to attack Iran. The question is whether the excuse would be Iran's nuclear program or its Iraq meddling (thus its scapegoat status to the Bush White House's foreign policy rhetoric).

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

If bombing Iran equals persuasion in the US government's book, then we're in bigger trouble. No doubt an attack would only inflame anti-US sentiment in Iran, the Muslim world in general, and, well the world as a whole. Iran is probably looking for a similar deal to the North Korean one. The North Koreans are even more dangerous, say experts.

[Article continues:]

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

Two Triggers
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.
...
The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.

Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.
...
Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.

Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

Iraq is already displeased over the seeming proxy war between the United States and Iran being fought there.

Iranian, as well as American, politics will play a major role in how this all comes out. Both the presidents of the US and Iran, Bush and Ahmadinejad, are not doing so well politically; at home and abroad. Funny enough, their political slumps are for the same reasons: the economy and foreign policy. Ahmadinejad's antagonistic, provocative nuke policy and Bush's cowboy, take-no-prisoners Iraq and 'war on terror' policies has kept each respective ruler busy — too busy to notice their country's economy is going down the tubes.

The Bush administration has already shown its defiance of Congress time and time again. Nonetheless, I doubt the US government has the nerve or power to launch a synchronized, large scale, super attack on Iran. To destroy all its nuclear facilities — many of which are secret and unknown and those known are hard to reach (e.g. in a mountain) — the US would need to kill countless thousands and use bunker-buster missiles, which are nuclear themselves. Overall, it is out of the question.

Assuming the BBC has 'learned' right, the United States' potential Iran attack plan is ludicrous. If attacking is the US's idea of persuasion, we are all in for a bumpy ride.

technorati tags: bush, ahmadinejad, politics, iran+nukes, US+attack+iran, war+on+terror, united+States, iran+nuclear+program, iraq, mahmoud+ahmadinejad, george+w+bush, bbc, congress, news

Drama over Iran: Ahmadinejad counters Bush

There is ample buzz over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's interview with ABC News (about time for the US media to do something like this). He basically says that Iran is not the evil demon killing people in Iraq, and that, for peace's sake, the US should leave Iraq. It goes without saying I strongly dislike Ahmadinejad — his ideology, cavalier actions, amazingly off-target beliefs, etc. — but there is no reason Iran would want an instable Iraq, for the same reasons China does not want North Korea to messily collapse.

In an exclusive interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refused to address accusations that his country was supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq, saying instead that Iran asked for peace and was against conflict of any kind.

Ahmadinejad skirted questions about weapons smuggling and stressed instead that the key to establishing peace in Iraq was for Americans, and all other foreigners, to leave.

Read the interview in its entirety here.

On the American political front...

For a long time now, Bush admininstration officials have been promising reporters proof that the Iranian government is supplying deadly weaponry to Iraqi militants.

The administration finally unveiled its case this weekend, first in coordinated and anonymous leaks to a trusting New York Times reporter, then in an extraordinarily secretive military briefing at which no one would speak on the record, journalists weren't allowed to photograph the so-called evidence, and nothing even remotely like proof of direct Iranian government involvement was presented.

The result: The White House got the headlines it wanted.

And before you know it, the White House will be attacking the media for criticizing the Bush administration's poor actions. Remember: the mainstream American media was extremely hawkish in the lead up to the Iraq war, even The New York Times (thanks to the irresponsible reporting of one Judith Miller). In addition, after 9/11 criticism of the White House was at an effective stop as the 'patriotism' flowed through the veins of each and every American wanting to get their revenge on the evil terrorists that killed thousands of innocents — by, in turn, killing thousands of Middle Eastern civilians. It was, and still is, a sad time for the US news media. The Bush administration always needs a scapegoat it seems.

The allegations that Iran is promoting Iraqi violence to a great extend are questionable. Even if Iran is, and that is a good possibility, the White House is most certainly blowing it out of proportion in able to blame someone for the problems in Iraq. Now that they've somewhat admitted that Iraq is not going too well, they need someone to blame besides Congress, Democrats, and the media. Iran is mostly posturing — on Iraq and their nuclear program (more on that later). Iran has too much to loose.

Iraqis already fed up with the US v. Iran fighting (political or physical), and their using Iraq as a proxy.

Cheney has repeatedly warned Iran not to 'meddle' in Iraqi affairs; the Iraq Study Group, and other rational voices, have said even though Iran is not perfect it's best for everyone the US work with them on Iraq.

There has been plenty of talk on attacking Iran also, of course it is next to impossible the Bush administration would try to pull a preemptive stunt like that, especially without the support of even their hawkish base.

Update: Good blog post on Iran here.

technorati tags: iraq, iran, bush, ahmadinejad, white+house, news+media, politics

Presidential predicaments (and my solutions)

US President Bush rebuffed by Senate panel (Washington Post) over his Iraq plan. Of course, it is not too much of a big deal — the Congressional resolutions against Bush's troop surge being nonbinding and all. What was the Democrats’ win supposed to accomplish again? The president has also been asked to stop being an idiot, like that's going to happen. Makes State of the Union speech less important than last year's... and more boring. (Slate seemed to be the only mainstream news site to have much on the State of the Union, with three articles by three column heavyweights. Obviously the SOTU news was on A1 of every major American newspaper, but still it seemed like a bigger overall deal last year. Consequently, Slate has a massive amount of coverage of the Scooter Libby trial. Speaking of the Libby trial, that is also not shining too positive of a light upon the Bush administration, nor are Bush's repeated assertions that he is 'the decider' (Slate) (now the "decision-maker" too) on basically everything not least Iraq. Way to be bipartisan, Dubya! Actually, he may have actually helped with bipartisanship in America: now both Democrats and Republicans are turning against him. Lastly be sure to check out Vice President Cheney's CNN interview and Bush's lackluster SOTU speech (Daily Kos) in full. Also see the speech topic-by-topic.

My advice for Bush: well, you already doing really bad on all angles of politics, so I'd say try to change the US's image abroad, but, unlike what you have been already doing, change it so that others see the US in a more positive light, not a negative one; also pay attention to the Constitution, believe it or not it is your friend; listen to the right people on Iraq and other areas of foreign policy; stop injecting religion — fundamentalist or otherwise — into government; practice what you preach and be bipartisan, on the other hand stop making the Executive branch the only one — in your mind — with any power and say in the United States government; worse comes to worse ask your dad for help, though he was not by any means a great president he was a hell of a lot better than you; you have two years left (yeah I'm counting down), make the most of them by actually doing good.

Israeli President Katsav indicted for rape, asked to step down by PM Olmert — who himself is having plenty of problems — and is on temporary leave (IHT).

My advice for Katsav: step down and make the most of the rest of your dwindling political career; also remember rape is bad and there's probably something in the Torah against that (no kidding).

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not doing so well; he is facing resistance from multiple areas of the government. There is also opposition by (New York Times) other powerful figures in Iranian politics largely over Ahmadinejad's handling of Iran's nuclear program and the UN sanctions (BBC News) imposed as a result of Iran's defiance of the international community. He is in political trouble also over the economy. Wait, governments are supposed to help the economy? That is one thing Bush and Ahmadinejad have in common: forgetting about crucial domestic issues.

My advice to Ahmadinejad: you may have a lot of oil, but that does not mean you cannot be roughed up; remember what Bush did to Iraq; go along with democratic reform contrary to your hardliner position; don't use your nukes, or better yet stop developing them — nuclear power is fine, nuclear weapons are not; the Holocaust did happen by the way.

What could possibly be damaging to the ruling conservative French political party UMP's star candidate for the presidency, current Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, is something certainly not new to the United States: spying with political motives. Yes, apparently the xenophobic, often racist Sarkozy, protégé of current French President Jacques Chraic, has used the secret police to spy on an adviser of his left-leaning political rival and frontrunner Socialist candidate for the presidency, Segolene Royal, who has also run into some political trouble, though minor, over a gaffe (Bloomberg) over Qubec. He is now not surprisingly experiencing dissent from (The Times) both within and outside of his party over that spying. The French presidential election will be in April.

My advice for Sarkozy: stop being a xenophobe against Muslims and others, that doesn't help anything; lose to Royal and I'll be happy.
My advice for Royal: don't mess this one up.


Song currently stuck in my head: "The Crane Wife 3" by The Decemberists.
I am feeling much better! Ironically, it was being out in cold weather that cured my cold...

technorati tags: bush, iraq, iran, israel, katsav, sarkozy, royal, politics, news, current, france, iraq, state+of+the+union, bush, cheney, ahmadinejad