A few weeks ago, I was invited to participate a meeting in New York of some of the best known progressive bloggers and writers.  While I was flattered to have received the invitation, I couldn't help wondering, and asking aloud, "Why me?  Why would I belong there?  I hardly write or blog at all!"    The reply?  "Maybe if you come, you'll want to write more."  Right--like there aren't enough bloggers in cyberspace! ;-) 

But I went to the meeting anyway.  And while it's taken a couple of weeks for me to figure out what (if anything) I might have contributed to it, I did come away with the realization that a) I do have at least as much to say about some of the issues going on in the world as most of the other attendees; and b) I needed my own space to say it.

During the past few weeks I've written a couple of articles that have been published on other websites.  (More about those in future blog posts, where I will provide links to them.) While I very much appreciate and welcome these opportunities to write for a larger audience, and hope to continue to do so, I am beginning to realize how useful one's own corner of the web can be, especially at a hospitable "island of sanity in a world of pain" (a memorable quote from the 1966 film "Morgan") like TPM.

The idea of creating a news blog to share my own evolving take on various issues, about which I don't yet have enough to say to warrant a full-fledged article, is something I have given quite a bit of thought  to these past few weeks.  I realize that I also need the discipline of writing more than Profco's hastily dashed off reactions to other people's articles published on Huffington Post, Washinton Post, and Haaretz.

So Profco's blog is now Profco's Politackle Newsroom (PNN).  

Among the regular features you can anticipate seeing on PPN are links to largely underreported news stories and commentaries that are receiving little or little attention in the mainstream media and the blogosphere, and as well as critiques of how some issues and events have been misreported and "spun."  Much of the attention will be directed to news from and about the Middle East, particularly Israel and Iran.  PPN will do what Profco has doing, and more, on a daily basis.  PPN will also feature a much-needed  "RJC Watch," which will monitor the malicious e-mailings of my bete noire, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC). 

In the process of providing links to my work published elsewhere, I shall, of necessity, be breaking through the shell of absolute anonymity I have thus far maintained with regard to Profco. Nevertheless, for the present, PPN will function as a self-contained venue for news and commentary, rather than a vehicle for self-promotion.  PPN's  connection to me as a writer for other news sites, as well as an academic in my offlist life, will pretty much be what it is to any other writer I blog about.  At least that's the plan for now.  (We'll see how it goes.)

If you are a part of what I am sure has been Profco's extremely small audience, I thank you for stopping by and finding out about its transformation to PPN.  I hope that, once I get PPN up and running in the next day or two, you'll find that the next time you drop by, you will have reason to return.  

      The June 1  issue of Newsweek features an extraordinary article by Fareed Zakaria headlined, "What You Know about Iran is Wrong."  What if all of the hitherto operative assumptions and presumed verities of US foreign policy have been wrong? Maybe the Iranians really don't want nuclear weapons.  Maybe Iran's government isn't quite as repressive as it is generally made out to be:  while Iran may not be a democracy, Zakaria says, it is not a dictatorship:  "The regime jails opponents, closes down magazines and tolerates few challenges to its authority. But neither is it a monolithic dictatorship. It might be best described as an oligarchy, with considerable debate and dissent within the elites. Even the so-called Supreme Leader has a constituency, the Assembly of Experts, who selected him and whom he has to keep happy."

     The holocaust-denying, map-wiping, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Zakaria notes, is not a particularly powerful (or popular!) man. "Ahmadinejad is widely seen as the 'mad mullah' who runs the country, but he is not the unquestioned chief executive and is actually a thorn in the side of the clerical establishment. He is a layman with no family connections to major ayatollahs--which makes him a rare figure in the ruling class. He was not initially the favored candidate of the Supreme Leader in the 2005 election. Even now the mullahs clearly dislike him, and he, in turn, does things deliberately designed to undermine their authority."

     As someone who has written academically about the use of religious language in both Israel and Iran in general, and the Israeli use of the Amalek archetype in particular I myself was particularly taken with this comment by Zakaria: 

"One of Netanyahu's advisers said of Iran, 'Think Amalek.' The Bible says that the Amalekitesman and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.' Now, were the president of Iranreligious text that gave divine sanction for the annihilation of an entire race, they would be called, well, messianic."

       Not messianic, Fareed--genocidal.  Maybe your editor thought that was going a bit too far, but that IS the message of the Amalek analogy.  The odd thing is that the command to obliterate Amalek is always framed in terms of Amalek's genocidal intentions, for which there is no evidence in the biblical text.

Although the Book of Genesis refers to the existence of Amalekites even in the time of the patriarch Abraham (Genesis 14:1-12), the eponymous ancestor of the Amalekites  is Abraham's great-great grandson, according to the genealogy of the Esau tribes in Genesis (Genesis 36:12). Two passages in the Bible deal with the source of eternal enmity between the descendants of Amalek and the Israelites fleeing their enslavement in Egypt.  During an unexplained and apparently unprovoked attack by the Amalekites on the Israelite camp at Rephidim, Moses enables the Israelites to prevail by holding up the rod of God.   God then tells Moses to write out a document as a reminder that He "will utterly blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven, whereupon Moses declares, "The Lord will be at war with Amalek throughout the ages" (Ex. 17:8-13).

   

          Another biblical passage concerning Amalek is found in a retrospective account of the Israelite sojourn in the desert that Moses delivered to the Israelites before he died, as they prepared to enter Canaan and conquer it.  Moses instructs the Israelites:

Remember what Amalek did to you when you left Egypt--how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in the rear.  Therefore, when the Lord your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a heritage, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.  Do not forget! (Deut. 25:17-19). 

Who is wiping whom off the map here?

        
         Israelis have been coming up with the direst predictions about an  Iranian bomb being only a year or two away for the past 15 years (the "Iranian threat" made its debut at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee a/k/a AIPAC Policy Conference, 1994 at which it has become a regular feature), a decade before Ahmadinejad was even elected,  Zakaria points out that Iran's two Supreme leaders since the 1979 Islamic revolution --first Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and the present Supreme leader Ali Khamenei--have repeatedly declared nuclear weapons un-Islamic:

The country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral. In a subsequent sermon, he declared that "developing, producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam." Last year Khamenei reiterated all these points after meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Now, of course, they could all be lying. But it seems odd for a regime that derives its legitimacy from its fidelity to Islam to declare constantly that these weapons are un-Islamic if it intends to develop them.

 
      If they don't want bombs, what DO the Iranians want? Well, they might actually want a civilian nuclear program, which is what they say that they do.  Zakaria points out, "Following a civilian nuclear strategy has big benefits. The country would remain within international law, simply asserting its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a position that has much support across the world."  Of course, there's nothing illegal about that, and no reason for sanctions against Iran.   Or perhaps Iran wants to expand its regional influence.  It's a huge country--the largest in the Middle East--with a long history of being a major player, from ancient times until the 19th century, when, in the humiliating Treaties of Gulistan in  1813 and Turkmenchai in 1828, Iran not only lost the Caucasus to Russia but lost its great power status.    There seems to be something very odd about a view of history that suggests that Israelis are entitled to reclaim the empire of David and Solomon (1000 BCE), but that countries like Iran aren't permitted to "meddle" in the affairs of their neighbors, such as Iraq and the new Muslim states of Central Asia and the Caucasus, which, until 200 years ago, were an integral part of their empire--while everyone else can.  But Zakaria points out that "if Tehran's aim is to expand its regional influence, it doesn't need a bomb to do so.
  
      "Iranians aren't suicidal," Zakara writes. And in the climate of a new US president who might treat Iran with some respect--something that has been sorely lacking in US-Iranian relations for the past thirty years,  Iran might be ready to deal. He concludes, "We can't know if a deal is possible since we've never tried to negotiate one."

      One of my correspondents suggests that "Zakaria wouldn't stick his neck out like this if he didn't have some sort of backing or approval" and or if there was no basis for his analysis. Is a major shift in US policy towards Iran is underway.  While this may seem like a longshot, considering Dennis Ross's designation as keeper of the flame of anti-Iranian rhetoric, and in light of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's boast to the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) that Obama had accepted Netanyahu's position on Iran.

     Still, it is not impossible that a genuine debate is going on within the Obama administration about how to deal with Iran, Netanyahu's boast notwithstanding.  Nor would it be the first time the Israelis have tried to limit the freedom of action of an ally by bragging about their close connections and cooperation.  (The Israelis did it to the Shah of Iran in the early 1970s, in an effort to undermine his outreach to Egypt and other Arab states.)   The declaration by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman that Israel won't take any action against Iran without informing the US is, in reality, a double-edged sword; its objective is less concerned with curbing Israeli freedom of action with restraints imposed on the U.S. than it is a matter of implicating the US in any reckless moves the Israelis choose to make. 

       The real battle ahead  isn't between Iran and Israel; it's between the staunch pro-Israel supporters in Congress and the President's determination to forge a new foreign policy towards Iran.  While the prospects of Iran becoming a staunch ally of the US seem dim, Iranian cooperation is essential in the US extricating itself from its self-dug morass on Iran's eastern and western borders.  The first step toward rapprochement is changing the shrill tone of the press that shapes public opinion.  It seems hard to believe that Zakaria (and Newsweek) would float this sort of analysis in some quixotic quest to alter US public opinion towards a viewpoint with no supporters in the White House.

From the Iranian side, all of Ahmadinejad's challengers in the Iranian presidential election, just a few weeks away, have indicated their willingness to enter into talks with the U.S.  Mohsen Rezaei, Ahmadinejad's conservative challenger, Mohsen Rezaei, has told the AP that "he

seeks a step-by-step "reciprocal change" plan to end the diplomatic estrangement with the United States since shortly after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. He proposed starting with non-confrontational issues such as setting up a committee to protect the Persian Gulf ecosystem or a three-way committee with Pakistan to fight drug trafficking. Later, the two nations could move toward the key impasses such the scope of Iran's nuclear program."  .Reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi is adamant about Iran's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the NPT, of which it is a signatory, but has said that if elected, "his policy would be to work to provide 'guarantees' that Tehran's nuclear activities would never divert to non-peaceful aims. Another reformist, Mehdi Karrubi, once dubbed "the Al Gore of Iran," has accused Ahmadinejad of mishandling the nuclear issue, isolating Iran, and has declared that reducing tensions with the West is his priority, 

        Will  "Everything You Know About Iran is Wrong"  succeed in undermining the hitherto "received wisdom"  of the mainstream media?  Does it lay out the operative assumptions of a new US policy toward Iran?  If so, this would indeed be a remarkable shift in American foreign policy perceptions.  It won't  happen easily or overnight--there are forces at work (and I am not being conspiratorial here) that have a vested interest in keeping current perceptions what they are.  I fully expect Zakaria to be excoriated and eviscerated--or worse, ignored.  Fortunately (hopefully!) he has the stature and clout to withstand it.

No sooner is it announced that two former AIPAC lobbyists, Steven Rosen and Kenneth Weissman, aren't going to be prosecuted for espionage for transmitting classified documents to an Israeli operative,  than a "classified report" is allegedly leaked to Jerusalem that reveals who is in charge of  U.S. policy towards Iran and what the US timetable is.

Or perhaps not.

Haaretz has published a story on it website by correspondent Barak Ravid under the headline "U.S. Puts October deadline on Iran Talks."   It's a case study in spin.

U.S. puts October deadline on Iran talks

The United States has set October as its target for completing the first round of talks with Iran on its nuclear program, according to confidential reports sent to Jerusalem.

While the  headline claims that the US has a fall "deadline" for coming to terms with Iran,  the article itself says that there is an October "target date" for the completion of a "first stage" of talks about its nuclear program.  There's a big difference between a target date and a deadline.  Furthermore, the "target date" is for the first stage of what is anticipated as one of several in a longer process of rapprochement in which other stages are anticipated.

Next, this puzzling paragraph:

Several days ago, Jerusalem received a classified notice reporting on a meeting between a senior European official and the special U.S. envoy on Iran, Dennis Ross. The telegram stated that Ross said this autumn, probably October, was the target date for concluding the first round of talks.  

A report? A notice?  A telegram?  A telegram about a report?  A classified telegram about a report?  A telegram about a classified report?  This is the journalistic equivalent of those Russian mamushka nesting dolls....a story about a telegram about a report about a meeting.


Several days ago, Ross visited Egypt and several Persian Gulf countries for talks on Iran's nuclear program. Washington has not informed Israel of its plans. So far, Israel has heard about developments between the U.S. and Iran secondhand, via European sources.

Hmmm...an interesting challenge to accusation/boast that Israeli sympathizers are running US foreign policy.

Reading on:

A political source in Jerusalem said information received so far suggests that the Americans are interested in dialogue with Iran in the near future and plan to hold four to five months of talks.

A "political source in Jerusalem" could be anyone from President Peres to a taxi driver.  This is hardly news.

Why is this story a case study in spin?

Any one sentence, taken out of context, might appear to have enormous ramifications about a definitive decision or shift in U.S. policy concerning Iran.  Taken together, however, they reveal little except some self-important smoke and mirrors polished off with a jingoistic headline.  What all too often, happens, unfortunately, is that a single sentence will become its own story:  "Haaretz reports that [insert selected sentence here].  It is clearly intended to do diplomatic mischief while saying nothing of substance at all.

All in all, it is a rather silly story that is much ado about nothing.  Nevertheless, it has already been picked up and disseminated across the internet, particularly the blogosphere, both under the current headline or what appears to have been its earlier caption: "US Report:  First Round of Iran Talks by October."  It appears on the Lebanese Hezbollah news site Al Manar  and the Iran Labour News Agency. (ILNA leave out the second sentence of the Haaretz story, which indirectly quotes Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman as telling his German counterpart that  Iran must not be allowed to continue stalling for time on its nuclear program.    Particularly hilarious is the right wing, pro-settler  Israel National News rewrite, which not only claims ominously that  "the hourglass will run out in October" (I think of Judy Garland as Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz:)  but gives it the headline "US Quietly Sets Deadline for Iran."  So quietly that WE HAVE TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW!

The main reason it is not yet in the US and European MSM probably has to do with timing: no doubt it will be ubiquitous tomorrow.  Or perhaps the story might actually be recognized for what it is:  not news at all, but rather a yawn, useful only as a case study in spin.

The former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, has admitted to a conservative talk show host that Republicans would find themselves with a real dilemma if  President Obama were to propose Solicitor General Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor, of the Second Judicial Court of Appeals for a seat on the Supreme Court.   ""You have to admit Elena Kagan is a brilliant woman," said the Utah Republican to Scott Hennen. "She is a brilliant lawyer. If he picks her, it is a real dilemma for people. And she will undoubtedly say that she will abide by the rule of law."  In other words, Kagan and Sotomayor are qualified, but they are liberal.

But what if Obama were to consider nominating a staunch conservative?  How thrilled would Hatch and his henchmen be?   

We could find out.

 What if the Obama team outFOXed their Republican naysayers by  "leaking" their "consideration" of the name of a conservative constitutional  lawyer? [gasp!] A REAL conservative, who has been highly critical of the Bush administration's arrogation of executive power, who openly called for Bush's and Cheney's impeachment, ridiculed the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and sharply criticized Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez?  And yes, even criticized President Obama recently for being too soft on the architects of Bush administration torture policies?

Someone like Bruce Fein?
 

Bruce Fein, a 1972 graduate of Harvard Law School, served as associate deputy attorney general  and as general counsel to the FCC during the Reagan adminsitration.  He wrote an extensive 30-page critique of  Times vs. Sullivan, the USSC ruling that freed the media from much of its liability under American libel laws (misattributed to John Roberts during his nomination hearings for the post of Chief Justice). In 1987, Fein served as minority party research director of the committee that investigated the Iran Contra scandal.  He is the author of numerous articles on constitutional issues, and he is highly respected as an authority on civil liberties. 

Republicans would either have to say that a) Fein is a terrific choice because he is conservative.  They would thereby have to accept Fein's criticisms of the Bush/Cheney administration, which would then render attacks on other constitutional lawyers who opposed Bush's policies moot.  b) Alternatively, the Republicans could keep up their naysaying, opposing a staunchly conservative constitutionalist, and, in the course of attacking Fein, bring his many criticisms of the Bush White House to light in the process of denigrating him.

While I doubt that Obama would actually end up nominating Fein as a USSC justice (Fein was a founder of the American Freedom Agenda with Bob Barr and Richard Viguerie, and addressed Ron Paul's Sept. 2, 2008 "Rally for the Republic"), floating the possibility of nominating him would give wider prominence to Fein's outspoken criticisms of Bush's interventionist foreign policy and his exoriation of the Bush/Cheney anti-terror policies, including wiretapping and detention of terror suspects. Fein recently criticized President Obama for not prosecuting the Bush administration officials who wrote the memos justifying torture during interrogations.  If Hatch has a "dilemma" opposing Kagan and Sotomayor, what box would a whisper that Fein is being considered for nomination to the USSC put him in? How would Eric Cantor, Michael Steele and Sarah Palin react?   What would Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have to say if they couldn't attack a potential nominee for being "too liberal"?

This could dramatically change the dynamics of the discussions of all subsequent nominees for retiring justice David Souter's seat and and those of any other SC justices that may become available during Obama's presidency.    

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/03/specter-wont-back-public_n_195325.html

So Arlen Specter, newly incarnated as a Democrat but vowing not to vote like one, has declared he is against a public health insurance option, the Employee Free Choice act, President Obama's budget and perhaps his Supreme Court nominees as well.   Meanwhile, Specter is gloating over having pulled a fast one by having gotten the President to pledge to campaign for him when he runs for re-election as Senator from Pennsylvania.  After initially denying that any such pledge was made, despite the President's declaration he would campaign for and fundraise for Specter if asked to do so, Press Secty. Robert Gibbs, asked whether Obama would support Specter (against a real Democrat) in the Pennsylvania primary, gritted his teeth, grinned and said, "Full support is full support." 

Meanwhile, Specter told host David Gregory, "I did not say that I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that."

How is President Obama going to keep his word about campaigning for this fork-tongued  Republican at heart, who clearly is determined to embarass the President at every opportunity?
 

Here's a suggested campaign speech for Obama to give at Specter rallies:

Citizens of Pennsylvania--

Last May, when Senator Arlen Specter announced he was changing his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, he was welcomed by me and by the Democrats in the Senate.  I pledged to campaign for him and fundraise for him, and so here I am. 

I believe the Democratic party owes it to Senator Specter to be as supportive of him as he has been of the Democratic party.  In the past year and a half, Senator Specter has voted with the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee _____ (insert number here) times and with those Democrats in the Senate who have been supportive of me keeping my own campaign promises ______ (insert number here) times.  Adding those two numbers together, it is clear that the Democrats of Pennsyvania owe Senator Specter _____ (insert amount of total), and, in fulfillment of my pledge to him, I am here to make sure he gets them.

Senator Spector would be the first to agree that you cannot put a price tag on the kind of party loyalty he has shown since becoming a Democrat.  When he said that he would not be a loyal Democrat, he meant it.  He has kept his word, I have kept now mine."

The best part of this speech is that President Obama would probably only have to give it once.

 


 


        

Iran Convicts US Journalist of Spying, Ali Akbar Dareini, AP, April 18, 2009:

The case of the 10 Iranian Jewish "spies for Israel" arrested in 1999 against whom charges were pursued (originally 13 were arrested, but  3 were acquitted) may be a useful guide as to how the case of Roxana Saberi, the Iranian-American journalist who has been living in Iran, will unfold now that she has actually been sentenced.  First, as a spy she could have been sentenced to execution under Iranian law, but, like the 10 Iranian Jews, she was not.   Second, the Iranian Jews were arrested as Iranian hardliners tried to thwart the progress that Khatami had  made in improving relations with the US in 1998.   A similar struggle over the relationship with the US is taking place in Iran now, in response to the Obama overtures.

So what might happen next? Convicted in July  2000 after a highly publicized trial,  by September the sentences for all ten of  the convicted Jewish spies, some for as long as 13 years, had been quietly reduced by 2-6 years.  (Note:  All but one of the alleged spies reportedly confessed, and, according to a report published in  the Jerusalem Post on Aug. 9. 2000, the Israeli govt. admitted that they had, in fact, been spying for Israel!)    Two had completed their reduced sentences by 2001, three were pardoned by Khamenei in Oct. 2002, and the last were freed by April 2003.

My guess is that, now that she has been sentenced, Saberi will probably be released soon after the Iranian election, whether the winner is Ahmadinejad, Mousavi or any of the other candidates.  (However, an Israeli military strike against Iran, particularly if it is condoned or is only mildly rebuked, could change this.) 

 BTW, based upon past results, I leave room for the possibility that Iran's next president may be a total surprise to the US and global media, and perhaps even to Iranians.  In 1997, conservative Ayatollah Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri seemed to have the election sewn up, with the solid support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei--Khatami came out of nowhere.  In 2005, Ahmadinejad's election also came  a surprise, even to members of his own party and faction.

On Saturday, March 21, M.J. Rosenberg asked in his TPM blog whether Israel had intentionally subverted Obama's message.
 

Yesterday when the New York Times inexplicably gave Shimon Peres' threatening and insulting message to Iran equal play with President Obama;s, I thought it might be no coincidence.

Peres, who is an uberhawk on Iran, suddenly sends "greetings" to the Iran people urging them to rise up against their government at the same moment that Obama respectfully addressed the "Islamic Republic of Iran" with the most conciliatory US message in decades. Coincidence? Maybe.

And in an expanded version written shortly afterward for his Israel Policy Forum blog, writes that, while Israel was given advance notice of President Obama's Nowruz greeting, the White House was "furious" that Peres had interjected Israel into Obama's overture to Iran.  According to one story on the NY Times website yesterday by Helene Cooper and David Sanger:

"The Israeli government also sent a New Year's message to the Iranian people on Friday, although administration officials and Israeli officials insisted that the gestures were not part of a coordinated plan. "I know we notified allies about our message last evening," the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said, but he added that he did not know if Israel had also notified the United States ahead of time. Some experts said the fact that the American message was sent on the same day as Israel's had the potential to dilute the effect of Mr. Obama's message, by linking it to Israel, whose government has been much more hostile toward Iran."

Gibbs does not sound particularly furious to me. I wish he did, and I also wish I knew the experts who dared to actual suggest the "potential to dilute the effect" of Peres' message and why they are not being quoted in their own names.  The chilling effect of the Chas Freeman brouhaha perhaps?  If only Dennis Ross would have been subject to the same scrutiny! 

I've been monitoring this saga as it unfolds, and have very little doubt that Shimon Peres' subversion of Obama's Nowruz message was as deliberate as it was destructive.  It is also obvious that Peres' surprise address to Iranians to overthrow their elected leaders while blessing them for the new year was no sooner done than said. 

It's remarkable how fast AP (which seems to have its own hawkish foreign policy towards Iran--its version of the Obama Nowruz video was interspersed with footage of ground to air missiles taking off and scenes of Khamenei and Ahmadinjad) got the Peres story, and how quickly so many US news sources, including the NY Times, Forbes, were both able and all too willing to lump Obama's video message with that  of Peres!   Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency actually made Peres' Nowruz broadcast the main subject of the article and Obama's video greeting the also-ran.

This morning's Haaretz has an article by Barak Ravid touting the close coordination of Israeli and U.S. policymakers.  Headlined "U.S. plan for Iran: Talks alongside sanctions," it opening (verbatim!) is truly bizarre, breathtaking in its audacity, and very disturbing.  It may also help to explain the recent Nowruz battle of messages:
 

Senior U.S. officials are preparing to present President Barack Obama with a plan for dialogue with Iran on its nuclear program, including increased international sanctions against Tehran alongside dialogue.

Top Israeli and U.S. officials have been holding meetings on Iran.

The unofficial dialogue between Washington and Tehran, bitter enemies since the Islamic Revolution toppled American ally Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979, will begin within two weeks, even before Obama approves the plan:

Before Obama approves the plan?  While I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, IMHO you don't have to be one to be deeply troubled by the idea of "top  Israeli and U.S... officials holding meetings on Iran," coming up with a "plan" to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue, and beginning a so-called "dialogue" with Iran before President Obama even approves of the plan.

Not surprisingly, Ravid writes that "The senior U.S. official leading the American rapprochement with Iran is Dennis Ross."  During a recent visit to Washington, Israeli Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, "informed the U.S. what Israel thinks about dialogue with Iran."

Like Ross didn't already know what Israel thinks about U.S. dialogue with Iran:

1.  Start so-called dialogue quickly--and don't waste the president's time getting his input.

2.  End so-called quickly--and make sure it is unsuccessful.  Iranians are preparing for elections.  Hold out the threat that success will benefit Ahmadinejad, but don't wait for the elections to take place in June because another Hiroshima/holocaust is imminent,

3. Turn every opportunity into a danger by making sure that the conditions for any talks are unacceptable to Iran, and the outcome of these efforts at rapprochement are in Israel's interest, rather than Iran's.

4.  When meretricious excuse for real rapprochement is met with Iranian indifference or outright hostility, give Israel the green light to start dropping bombs.  

Ravid also writes:

In talks with the American officials, Israel has learned that the U.S. is planning to conduct a "parallel" approach - beginning a dialogue with Iran, while working with Russia, China, Germany, France and Britain to formulate new sanctions against Iran.

Surprise! surprise!

Furthermore:

The U.S. will coordinate its efforts with Israel and with moderate Arab states as well.

Who are we talking about here--Jordan? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?  Does that mean we can expect King Abdullah or Hosni Mubarak to upstage President Obama's next moves toward Iran with contrary messages to whatever the President is saying, and then claiming his as their own?  Or is it just Israelis who get to do that? 

Finally, Ravid's concluding sentence is priceless:

Obama said in a video message that the U.S. "administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community."

President Shimon Peres also recorded a similar message that will be aired online and on Israel Radio in Farsi.

A "similar message"?  George Orwell must be rolling over in his grave, not knowing whether to laugh or cry.

BTW, it is extraordinary how quickly Iranian neutral and somewhat negative responses to President Obama's Nowruz overture got aired, and yet Minister of Foreign Affairs Manouchehr Mottaki's postive response has been ignored:

Concerning US President Barack Obama's message to Iranians on the occasion of Nowroz, Mottaki said," We are glad that Nowroz has been a source for friendship and we are pleased that Nowroz message is a message for coexistence, peace and friendship for the whole world." About Iran's participation in the Hague meeting on Afghanistan, Mottaki said that Iran has played a positive and constructive role in the past meetings to help establishment of stability and security in Afghanistan adding that Iran has always been part of solution in Afghanistan.

Didn't see it?  It doesn't meet the AP story line.
 



 

     

  

According to Reuters and to Haaretz correspondent Barak Ravid, Israeli Military Intelligence Chief  Amos Yadlin announced at the weekly Israeli cabinet meeting on Sunday that "Iran has crossed the technological threshold" in its quest for nuclear arms. "Arrival at military nuclear capability is a matter of strategy," Yadlin said. "Iran is accumulating hundreds of kilograms of enriched uranium at a low level and hopes to utilize the dialogue with the West in order to gain time, which is required in order to achieve the capability to manufacture a nuclear bomb."

In 1994, Israeli intelligence sources issued dire predictions that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in five to eight years.  By 1996 the estimate was down to 4 years, according to Israel's then-Prime Minister (and now President) Shimon Peres, and pressure was beginning to build for a joint US-Israeli military strike against Iran. In early 1998 the estimated time, according to Israeli "experts" until Iran possessed nuclear weapons capability was down to as few as 18 months, although a news report in December of 1998 said that Israeli intelligence and security officials had reduced their expectation of Iran's development of nuclear capability from 5-7 years to 2-3 years.  Iranians repeatedly denied wanting as well as seeking nuclear weapons and accused the US of hypocrisy for ignoring Israel's 200 nuclear weapons. 

Meanwhile, in March, 1998, International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman David Kyd confirmed that "the IAEA has not detected any suspicious nuclear activities being carried out" in Iran which violated the NPT or any other laws governing non-proliferation. The IAEA team had inspected the research center at Isfahan and the experimental reactor at the University of Tehran four times in the last year. The two reactors under construction at Bushehr were not inspected because no form of nuclear fuel has been transferred there yet. Kyd also insisted that the "IAEA [has] never detected any sort of suspicious activity in Iran."  In August, after the US House of Representatives voted to cut funding for the International Atomic Energy Agency by the exact amount of aid with which the IAEA was provding Iran for the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant on grounds that the Bushehr project could help Iran's nuclear weapons program, Kyd said, "This action cannot influence this agency's general policies...All the member states of this agency are satisfied with the peaceful nuclear cooperation between the agency and Iran and the agency will support any peaceful use of nuclear energy in the world."

On Sept. 28, 1999, at the annual meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Gholam Reza Aqazadeh, head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, called for Israel to put its nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards. The next day, Haaretz reported that Iran approached Israel through the United Kingdom to discuss nuclear proposals, such as not striking first, not arming missiles with nuclear warheads, and restricting long-range missiles. However,  Israel refused to respond to the proposals, in part because doing so could acknowledge the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons.

Israel's denial of its own clandestine nuclear weapons program dates back to the 1960's.

Israel had completed the development stage of its first nuclear weapon by 1966-67. CIA reports distributed in early 1967 indicated that Israel had produced all the necessary components to allow it to assemble a nuclear bomb in 6-8 weeks  According to Avner Cohen, in his 1998 book  Israel and the Bomb, Israel refused to admit to having a nuclear weapons program, insisting it was sufficient for it to assert, "it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East."

When Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban and Ambassador to the U.S. Yitzhak Rabin  met with U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk in October 1968, Rusk explained the U.S. position that Israel's development of nuclear weapons would "confront us with [the] question of whether we were serious about NPT, which we are," as well as raise the question, in the context of the Cold War, of what the Soviet Union might do to provide Arab countries with access to nuclear weapons.   While Rusk and the State Dept. attempted to link the sale of U.S. F-4 Phantom jets to an agreement to sign the NPT, CIA Director Richard Helms privately briefed President Lyndon Johnson and told him that Israel's nuclear capability would preclude its signing as a non-nuclear weapon state.

 Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Warnke began a series of negotiations on Oct. 30,with then-Israeli Ambassador Yitzchak Rabin.  Although he had not provided with the CIA assessments of Israel's nuclear weapons program, Warnke suspected that Israel had the capability of producing a nuclear bomb and quite possibly had already done so.  He proposed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that linked Israel's signature on the NPT not only to the sale of the Phantoms but to the transformation of the U.S. into Israel's main arms supplier, a role that until then had been filled by France.     

As reconstructed and recounted by Avner Cohen,  Warnke met with Rabin on Nov. 12, and  attempted to clarify what Israel meant by "Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the area."   Rabin replied that it meant, "We would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons."

 "What do you mean by 'introduce'?" Warnke asked.

 "What is your definition of nuclear weapons?" Rabin responded.

 Warnke said the question he was asking had two parts:  the definition of what was or was not a "nuclear weapon" and the definition of what was or was not "introducing" nuclear weapons.  "If there are components available that could be assembled to make a nuclear weapon-although part A may be in one room and part B may be in another room-then that is a nuclear weapon," Warnke declared.

 General Mordechai Hod, who had accompanied Rabin to his Warnke, asked whether there was any accepted usage of the word "introduction" in international law.   Warnke admitted there was not.   Rabin and Hod then focused on testing as the hallmark of any operational weapons system.  The five nuclear-weapons states had all tested nuclear weapons, and since Israel had not conducted any nuclear tests, it was abiding by its pledge not to have introduced nuclear weapons to the region.  Warnke defined "introduction" in terms of physical presence.

But  Rabin insisted that, since the purpose of nuclear weapons was to deter, their presence would have to be publicly acknowledged in order to make a case that they had been introduced, since an unacknowledged nuclear had no deterrence value.  Rabin further argued that "notoriety and pretesting" were both necessary in order to meet the Israeli definition of  "introduction."  When Warnke asked him whether, "In your view, an unadvertised, untested nuclear device is not a nuclear weapon," Rabin responded affirmatively. Warnke disagreed, but the Phantom deal went through despite the definitional disagreement.  A moratorium on discussion of Israel's nuclear program has remained in place, with "opacity" the rule in international discussion, and silence in the domestic sphere.   A moratorium on discussion of Israel's nuclear program has remained in place ever since, with "opacity" the rule in international discussions, and silence in Israel itself.

In June 2006, I asked  Cohen, "While Iran is being derided for its clandestine nuclear research, if the politics were different, couldn't that secrecy also be considered "ambiguity" or "opacity" from an Iranian point of view (a notion which Israel clearly is unwilling to admit or permit)?"

He responded, "Yes, I agree with you that it is a great irony that there is a great deal of resemblance in the mode of opacity - via secrecy, concealment, ambiguity, double talk and denial - between the way Iran is pursuing its nuclear program today and the way Israel was pursuing its own program in the 1960s.  In fact, I would not be surprised if some Iranian policy makers and nuclear technocrats have deliberately decided to try to adopt or mimic the Israeli model of nuclear opacity, IF the world would permit them to pursue that mode."

Cohen continued, "If this line of thinking is correct, it means that Iran's nuclear program would not aimed at a test of a nuclear device, nor towards declaring Iran as a nuclear-armed state. Instead, while most likely maintaining a secret weaponziation program (but without testing), Iran would continue to insist publicly on its right to enrich uranium. Over time, while remaining within the NPT, Iran would be seeking to acquire a perception and reputation (by ways of leaks, rumors, double talk, etc) that they have actually built a 'secret' nuclear arsenal or at least secretly accumulated a sufficient amount of weapons-grade fissile material."

"It may well be," Cohen had to agree, "that some Iranians have come to believe that by mimicking the Israeli model, as much as they could, they would get all the prestige and deterrence effects they need but without leaving the NPT, let alone without testing or declaring such a bomb. Let the question of the Iranian bomb remain opaque, just like Israel. This would mimic the way Shimon Peres for decades used to talk about 'deterrence by way of uncertainty.' Let the world guess. In fact, the world is already guessing now where Iran is in its nuclear pursuit. Some say that Iran is as far as five to 10 years away from producing the bomb, while others, including some mavens in Israel, are fearful that if Iran has been closely imitating Israel it may well already have the bomb. What a remarkable irony indeed."

Cohen mused, "If Iran indeed follows the Israeli model of nuclear opacity, this would put Israel in a great dilemma of its own. Should Israel call the bluff over Iranian opacity, and in doing so expose its own opacity, or should Israel prefer to acquiesce, just as the world had acquiesced over its own two generations ago?"

Thus far, Israel is responding by doing what it has done for the past 15 years:  doing everything it can subvert improved relations between the  U.S. and Iran, on the one hand, and, on the other, threatening to attack Iran to destroy its suspected weapons sites if the U.S. does not.
  
 

MI chief: Iran has crossed 'technological threshold' in quest for nukes

Military Intellience chief Amos Yadlin said Sunday at the weekly cabinet meeting that "Iran has crossed the technological threshold" in its quest for nuclear arms.

"Arrival at military nuclear capability is a matter of strategy," Yadlin said. "Iran is accumulating hundreds of kilograms of enriched uranium at a low level and hopes to utilize the dialogue with the West in order to gain time, which is required in order to achieve the capability to manufacture a nuclear bomb."

Yadlin stressed that the American government's new approach of dialogue with Iran is being treated with caution in the Middle East.

"The moderate Arab states think this will come at their cost and will be used for negative purposes by Iran and Syria, who are dragging out time with the appearance of talks but are continuing to arm themselves and to support terrorism," Yadlin said. "The extremist axis hopes the U.S. will change its stance, but they suspect that it is a step that will only advance the formulation of a more efficient coalition against them."

Meanwhile, Iranian media reported on Sunday that Iran has test-fired a new air-to-surface missile, in the Islamic Republic's latest display of its military capability.

The missile test was carried out despite the offer by the administration of new U.S. President Barack Obama to engage Iran in direct talks if it "unclenches its fist".

Iran's Fars News Agency said the domestically produced missile had a range of 110 km (70 miles) and was designed for use by military aircraft against naval targets.

"Now these jet fighters have acquired a new capability in confronting threats," the semi-official news agency said. Iran's Press TV initially said a long-range missile had been tested, but later also used Fars' way of describing it.

Iran often stages war games or tests weapons to show its determination to counter any attack by foes including Israel and the United States, which accuse the Islamic Republic of seeking to develop nuclear bombs. Tehran denies the charge.

The U.S. State Department declined to comment on the Iranian press reports.

A top Iranian military commander last week said that Iranian missiles could now reach Israeli nuclear sites. Iran has often said it has missiles able to reach Israel but had not previously mentioned such specific targets.
***

Last week, President Obama said that the US was prepared to engage with Iran if the Iranians first "unclenched their fist."  Are the Iranians the only one with their fists clenched whenever the prospect for rapprochement between the US and Iran appears as a pinpoint on the distant horizon?  Or is US insistence that the Iranians relax their tense stance vis a vis as a precondition to talks just another way of repeating the "same old, same old" mantra of promising the US whatever it wants as a precondition for negotiations, rather than as an outcome of negotiations?  "

In the same news item, Susan Rice, the Obama administration's UN ambassador, "Dialogue and diplomacy must go hand in hand with a very firm message from the United States and the international community that Iran needs to meet its obligations as defined by the Security Council and its continued refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase." Hard to tell Susan from Condy so far...

"What President Obama's Letter to Iran Should Really Say" suggests a different approach to Iran:  recognizing the things that Iran has done of which the US can, and should, approve, and using this recognition as a springboard to a more positive relationship.     While not going quite so far as "apologizing" to Iran, it suggests that President Obama begin his approach to Iran by recognizing Iranian concerns and grievances. 

Yes, the approach outlined in this letter leaves the real areas of disagreement for a later stage in the process of achieving rapprochement, but in what areas of diplomacy (other than Iran) don't we do this?   (Israelis aren't required to give up their nuclear program as a precondition of peace talks with the Palestinians, are they?)  Do we always start with the toughest and most divisive issues and end up at those upon which it is easiest to agree?    

It could--and should--be worth trying:

What President Obama's Letter to Iran Should Really Say

By Marsha B. Cohen, AlterNet
Posted on February 4, 2009, Printed on February 4, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/125098/

The Obama administration is denying reports that a response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter of congratulations, or one to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is being drafted by the State Dept.   When such a letter is finally written, this is what it ought to say... 

Dear President Ahmadinejad: 

Thank you for your kind note of congratulations of November 6.  I am sure you recognize that I was not free to respond to it in any substantive way until I had actually assumed the office of President of the United States just over two weeks ago.  

It is indeed my hope that there will be genuine change in the relations between Iran and the US.  In contrast to the approaches of my predecessors during the past three decades, I believe that talks or negotiations will be most fruitful if they address the concerns of Iran's leaders and the threats felt by the Iranian people, not just our own. You and I both ought to begin by recognizing that some Iranian interests, as well as some American objectives, will be far better served by communication and dialogue than by confrontation.   

First, the American people need to recognize and share your concern about the future of Afghanistan.  Iranians were threatened by developments in Afghanistan long before Americans were. Nearly two and half million Afghans fled the horrors and hardships of the 1979 Soviet occupation of their country and the ensuing civil war by crossing into Iran and taking refuge there.   Over a decade ago, the Taliban murdered seven Iranian diplomats and threatened to attack your cities.  We are overdue in expressing our appreciation of Iran's quiet but cooperative assistance during the early stages of the Operation Enduring Freedom.  Branding Iran as part of an "axis of evil" two months later was unfair and unwise, as well as hurtful to the Iranian people. 

We share your determination to put a stop to the activities of Afghan drug smugglers who finance the acquisition of weapons by the Taliban at the expense of the health and well being of eleven million Iranians.  Their activities both compound the drug problem that plagues Iran and also expands the global spread of AIDS.  You do not wish these scourges to undermine your society and neither do we.  

Iran and the U.S. share environmental concerns.  While we have emphasized -- and perhaps even overemphasized -- your country's quest for nuclear technology, we have said nothing about Iran's efforts to reduce the harm to the global commons that results from over-reliance on hydrocarbon fuels.  Our own Department of Energy website acknowledges that the ancient Persians were the first to develop windmills, but we have said nothing about the twenty first century wind technology that Iran has been developing, utilizing and sharing with its neighbors.  Your great, ancient and beautiful city of Shiraz is in the process of being linked to your nation's electrical grid by means of solar technology.  You are undertaking new hydroelectric projects to reduce your dependence on oil and gas, in an effort to reduce the pollution in your cities.  Iran's commitment to developing alternative energy sources is both clear and commendable.  

Instead of incessantly using the term "meddling" to describe Iran's active involvement in regional affairs, we need to recognize the hospitality of the Iranian people in opening their borders to refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq for the past two decades.   In the mid-1980s, when Iran was engaged in a war with Iraq in which 300,000 Iranians would die, Iran took in 300,000 Iraqi refugees, two thirds of them Iraqi citizens who spoke no Farsi, at a time when hundreds of thousands of Iranians were being uprooted and displaced. Iran received no international assistance as it provided food and shelter to 2.3 million Afghan refugees.  I say these things not as concessions, but simply to acknowledge the facts.  

For too long, we Americans have been the loudest voice in the room, excoriating Iran for the things we disagree about, while we have remained silent about Iran's efforts, achievements, or its contributions to regional stability.  Your interests and ours do not, and will not, always coincide, nor will we always view the challenges facing the world from the same perspective.  Nonetheless, Iranians and Americans need to speak with one another, to share ideas, to work together on issues about which we already agree in principle, and to learn from one another on those with which we are in accord in practice.  We can then, with mutual respect, build upon the relationship we have created to approach the more difficult issues -- those that have locked our relationship into a confrontational dynamic for the past 30 years.          

Thank you for your good wishes.  
 

Most sincerely, 

Barack Hussein Obama

President, United States of America  

Dr. Marsha B. Cohen teaches International Relations of the Middle East and North Africa at Florida International University's School of International and Public Affairs in Miami, FL.

© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/125098/

 

 

      

There has yet to be a more prophetic assessment of what the Bush administration would wreak on the American people than this pre-inauguration spoof in anticipation of George W. Bush's first address as President of the United States.  Rereading it in retrospect, it is terrifying how spot on the Onion's satirical predictions, published on Jan. 17, 2001, have turned out have been.  (Keep in mind this was written pre-9/11, back when the US federal budget had a huge surplus that infuriated Republicans.)
Mainstream media pundits, read and weep!


WASHINGTON, DC-Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind
us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons  technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would
necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

Wall Street responded strongly to the Bush speech, with the Dow Jones industrial fluctuating wildly before closing at an 18-month low. The NASDAQ composite index, rattled by a gloomy outlook for tech stocks in 2001, also fell sharply, losing 4.4 percent of its total value between 3 p.m. and the closing bell.

Asked for comment about the cooling technology sector, Bush said: "That's hardly my area of expertise."

Turning to the subject of the environment, Bush said he will do whatever it takes to undo the tremendous damage not done by the Clinton Administration to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He assured citizens that he will follow through on his campaign promise to open the 1.5 million acre refuge's coastal plain to oil drilling. As a sign of his commitment to bringing about a change in the environment, he pointed to his choice of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. Norton, Bush noted, has "extensive experience" fighting environmental causes, working as a lobbyist for lead-paint manufacturers and as an attorney for loggers and miners, in addition to suing the EPA to overturn clean-air standards.

Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman's right to give birth."
"Soon, with John Ashcroft's help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic," Bush said. "We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies."

Continued Bush: "John Ashcroft will be invaluable in healing the terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state."

The speech was met with overwhelming approval from Republican leaders. "Finally, the horrific misrule of the Democrats has been brought to a close," House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL) told reporters. "Under Bush, we can all look forward to military aggression, deregulation of dangerous, greedy industries, and the defunding of vital domestic social-service programs upon which millions depend. Mercifully, we can now say goodbye to the awful nightmare that was Clinton's America."

"For years, I tirelessly preached the message that Clinton must be stopped," conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said. "And yet, in 1996, the American public failed to heed my urgent warnings, re-electing Clinton despite the fact that the nation was prosperous and at peace under his regime. But now, thank God, that's all done with. Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up."

An overwhelming 49.9 percent of Americans responded enthusiastically to the Bush speech.
 ************************************************************************************************************

Multiple choice math question: 

Organization X invests $10 million with Bernard Madoff, which, due to his brilliant investing strategy, grows (he says) to $100 million.  Madoff  tanks and loses it all.  How much of the principal* of its investment did Organization X actually lose?  

a) $100 million
b) $10 million
c) $6 million* ($10 million plus/minus whatever the principal would have earned if legitimately  invested in the stockmarket. (Most IRAs, 401Ks, stock portfolios are down an average of about 40% at the moment.)

Answer:  C

I just read an interesting article in Haaretz that points out that most victims affected by the debacle initially reported their Madoff losses as being whatever they thought their portfolios were worth at the time Madoff's scheme was revealed.   Those amounts were far in excess of the initial investments, whose owners were misled into believing their investments had grown exponentially thanks to the phoney gains Madoff had reported to them.

Furthermore, if the Madoff investors had put their money into the stock market or mutual funds like the rest of us rather than giving it to Madoff to invest, their portfolios would also have lost an average of about 40% from their  highs before the 2008 economic crash.  Of course the hypothetical "$6 million" investments are gone forever, while those made by us not-so-clever or well-connected shmendricks, to whom Madoff wouldn't have given a second glance, may someday rebound, if not to their historic highs, to somewhere above their nadirs.   The damage to individuals, institutions and organizations is very real, even when not inflated by imaginary gains.

The low figure of Answer C, by the way, does not take into account the supposed "interest" that investors, including philanthropic funds, non-profit organizations and foundations, received as payouts during the years the funds were invested with Madoff. The payouts received would have to be deducted from the $6 million loss to accurately assess the damage.

This doesn't excuse Madoff's thievery nor his vile strategy of deliberately targetting non-profit organizations and foundations because they were happy with the alleged interest they received from him, while inclined to leave the principal in place.  It just puts it into perspective some questions that should be asked with regard to how the actual dollars and sense, or lack thereof, should, in point of fact, be calculated not only in the Madoff scandal, but in assessing the meltdown of the economy has a whole and what it will cost to address the problems this meltdown has brought about.

Which got me thinking about the general financial meltdown and the bailout of the big banks being foisted upon U.S. taxpayers...

Here's are a few more interrelated multiple choice math problems:

X lends Y $10.  Y promises that he will pay X back $100. If Y doesn't pay X back anything at all, X has lost:

a) $10
b) $100

X's insurance company agrees to reimburse him  for his financial loss.  The insurance company should reimburse X:

a) $10
b) $100

Taxpayers are told that X's insurance company (IC) has so many customers like X, who they can't afford to reimburse, that they will go bankrupt.  Taxpayers should provide IC with a bailout equivalent to:

a) $10   x the number of customers who have made $10 loans
b) $100 x the number of customers who have made $10 loans expecting to get back $100
c) An amount equal to or between a) and b) PLUS additional  millions or perhaps even billions, to cover IC salaries, expenses, bonuses, exective meetings (including massages--"aye, there's the rub!") to decide how much of a bailout they need.

Gives an entirely new meaning to "no pain, no gain," doesn't it?