Disturbing news out of Iran this week as the regime-backed newspaper daily Kayhan says Carla Bruni, first lady of France, deserves to die for her views.

Taking a stand for the rights of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 43-year-old mother of two who was sentenced by an Iranian court to death by stoning for adultery, Bruni joined other French celebrities in signing a petition for Ashtiani’s release.

The Iranian regime recently changed Ashtiani’s sentence from stoning to hanging. Her two children–daughter, Farideh, 16, and son, Sajad, 20–have appealed to the international community: ‘Please help end this nightmare and do not let it turn into a reality. Help us save our mother.’

Like many a totalitarian regime before it, Tehran’s use of tried and true tactics–intimidation, brutality, and disappearance of the accused–to gain “convictions” and repress its population is well-documented. That makes these children’s stand on behalf of their mother especially brave.

Last month Iranian authorities put this woman on a state-run TV program to “confess.” According to the UK Guardian, “Speaking shakily in her native Azeri language … Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani told an interviewer that she was an accomplice to the murder of her husband and that she had an extramarital relationship with her husband’s cousin. Her lawyer told the Guardian last night that his client, a 43-year-old mother of two, was tortured for two days before the interview was recorded in Tabriz prison, where she has been held for the past four years.”

The Guardian story continues, “Amnesty International condemned the ’so-called’ confession and said the independence of Iran’s judiciary was ‘tattered’ by the broadcast. ‘This makes a complete mockery of the judiciary system in Iran,’ said Drewery Dyke of Amnesty’s Iran team. ‘Iran is inventing crimes … it is an unacceptable practice that flies in the face of justice.’”

Ashtiani has already received 99 lashes for her alleged “illicit relationship.”

Apparently, fifteen other people in Iran face the prospect of death by stoning. Countless others, including political dissidents whose only “crimes” are holding anti-regime opinions and voicing them, languish in Evin prison and other torture facilities.

Not that adultery should ever be a criminal matter, or that even an accomplice to murder should ever be executed by stoning, but I would not be surprised if the charges against this woman were largely or entirely fabricated and her confession coerced. In her book, “Between Two Worlds: My Life and Captivity in Iran,” released earlier this year, Iranian-American independent journalist Roxana Saberi chronicles her arrest and intimidation into forced confession by the Iranian regime. Saberi, who was eventually released, chronicles in the book her agonized deliberation as to whether to bend to the will of her captors or to take advantage of her limited contact with her parents, who were agitating from the outside, to appeal to the media.

She finally decided, after cooperation (which included falsely denouncing a man she knew as a spy) did not yield her release, to signal her parents to appeal to international media about the false accusations against her. The latter approached worked.

As a journalist, I usually refrain from direct political activism and from signing petitions. But the powerful words of Marina Nemat, an Iranian dissident who was tortured and raped in Tehran’s Evin prison, have convinced me to sign on to this one.

For as long as I could, I avoided writing about the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero. For starters, on a personal level, the subject is uncomfortable. As a writer who has the great privilege of working with moderate Muslim-Americans and heroic moderate Muslims in the middle east and elsewhere, I reject the idea that Islam itself is inherently the problem, since I know first hand that many Muslims–yes, including those who practice their religion–are good citizens, good neighbors, reformers, and heroes.

I also know that in recent decades, at various locations around the world, including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, London, Paris, The Netherlands, Madrid, Bali, Argentina, Mumbai, Egypt, Israel, Sudan, Bangladesh, Texas and right here in New York City–violence has been, and in some of these places is presently being–committed against innocent people–Christians, Jews, moderate Muslims, and others–by Muslim extremists, often in the name of Islam. Indeed, some of my journalistic sources and my friends–including moderate Muslims–have been direct victims of this horror. To bury my head in the sand, and to deny these harsh realities out of political correctness, I will not do.

While I think it is phobic to believe that every Muslim wishes to dominate and harm every non-Muslim, I do not believe it is a phobia, or prejudiced, to recognize that clearly Islam is being used in many places around the world to incite violence, to intimidate and to dominate others. Something toxic is being promulgated by Islamist extremists in many places around the globe, and it is legitimate and vital to ask questions and examine this deadly trend so that the free world can combat it  - without prejudice against a group of people or a religion as a whole.

Which brings me to the Ground Zero mosque controversy. To me, one of the salient issues is, who exactly are the leaders of this project and what values will they impart? While it is vital to uphold freedom of religion, it is another matter if there are grounds for suspicion that this Islamic Center will be used as a house of recruitment for, or justification/incitement of, violence.

Because of the terrible actions of the few, the moderate majority of Muslims must make their position clear: do they support violence against civilians in order to achieve a political or religious objective?

It may seem unfair for people with no criminal history to have to disassociate themselves from actions they had no part in (like the attacks of September 11th and terrorism against innocent people elsewhere) in order to obtain the trust of their fellow Americans to move forward on a project like the proposed Islamic Center. However,  given the frightening nature of terrorism, and the shadowy nature of its architects, this expectation–that peaceful Muslims make their views very clear–is not unreasonable.

Let’s say Jews had committed acts of terrorism against their fellow Americans that claimed 3,000 lives. I can’t imagine hesitating to clearly condemn such atrocity with my whole heart and mind, as a Jewish-American. That is how I speak of the actions, for instance, of Baruch Goldstein, a crazed Jewish-American who went to Hebron and, in a rare but undeniable act of terrorism by a Jew, shot and killed 29 Palestinian civilians in cold blood as they prayed. His cruel, revolting act of terrorism shames and deeply saddens me, and I condemn it.

Regarding the need for peace-loving Muslims to clearly express peaceful values: for no one is this expectation more reasonable than for a group who wishes to build a mosque near Ground Zero. Understanding the trauma that Muslim extremists inflicted there, recognizing the pain of the victims’ families, it seems to me that any sincere member of the clergy would want to reassure the area’s residents that they pose no threat, and unequivocally condemn the evil perpetrated in the name of their religion.

Until this week it was not clear to me who the proposed builders of the mosque were and what they stand for. But their unwillingness to meet with the Governor of New York, David Paterson, to discuss the possibility of moving the proposed center in deference to local sensitivities, and the emergence of tape of the project’s leader, Imam Rauf, speaking in 2005, have swayed me against this project.

In his taped speech, Rauf equivocates a good deal regarding the ethics of suicide bombing, and spouts a lot of nonsense as to the causes of this phenomenon, at one point analogizing it to ordinary suicide due to personal disappointment over not receiving tenure. Sorry, but from a guy who wants to situate a mosque in the place where 3,000 Americans were viciously slaughtered in the name of his religion, that is not good enough.

David Paterson, governor of New York, has emerged as a voice of reason here. While he recognizes the legitimacy in raising questions about this proposed Islamic Center and its leadership, he has also responsibly cautioned that reason, not hysteria, should prevail in this discussion.

The first hint of fall is in the air, and with it, the predictable announcement: mideast peace talks will begin.

In a demonstration of familiar American hubris, President Barack Obama has declared his intention to make peace in the region by creating a Palestinian state on the West Bank within a year.

Not sure where to begin in this analysis. Bottom line is, unless our President is planning to organize a coalition to do something about Iran, or is by some unlikely chance working behind-the-scenes with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to help Israel to do something about it, this strong-arming of a Palestinian state within a year is a bad idea, and could come at no worse time for Israel and for the free world.

Absent a massive action to contain militant Islamist fundamentalism in the middle east and to re-educate and de-brainwash populations, this Palestinian state, should it be established, will be a terror state. It will, to borrow a phrase from George Will’s column this week, constitute a third Islamic Republic (in addition to Iran and Gaza) -  this one contiguous to Israel.

It is a shame that this is the case, but it is. As Will points out, one need look no further than recent history to see the writing on the (Western?) wall. Israel withdrew from Gaza, uprooting thousands of residents in a traumatic move extending even to digging up the graves of Jewish residents and re-burying these people in other territory. What was the result? Instead of becoming less militant in response to Israel’s withdrawal from “occupied” Gaza, Hamas took power in a coup, replacing a comparatively less militant leadership with one entirely devoted to Israel’s destruction.

Then there is Israel’s other recent withdrawal - from Lebanon. Following a 2006 war provoked by Hezbollah, Israel occupied land in southern Lebanon and tried to rout out the Shiite terrorist group and Iranian proxy Hezbollah. After the international community protested, due to concern about civilian casualties to the Lebanese (among whom Hezbollah terrorists had intentionally ensconced themselves to cause those casualties), Israel withdrew, leaving a power vacuum into which Hezbollah ensconced itself more firmly than ever. Since then, Iran’s terrorist henchmen have taken to importing rockets and Scud missiles from Iran via Syria. They now have Scuds that can easily reach the hearts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Hate to say it, but the most telling cautionary tale for what the world can expect if Israel relinquishes the West Bank so a Palestinian state can be formed in the near future is the story of the Gaza greenhouses.

In August 2005, Israel undertook the Gaza withdrawal. The Israel Defense Forces, at the request of the the Palestinian Authority, destroyed the settlers’ homes.  They left behind the synagogues in hopes the Palestinians would respect them (mistake). They also left behind, intact, $14 million worth of elaborate, high-tech greenhouses that Israelis had constructed for food production. Miracles of modern electronics and irrigation, these greenhouses might have provided a vital source of food and employment for Gaza’s Palestinian residents. In fact, philanthropists including Bill Gates and former World Bank President James Wolfensohn bought the greenhouses for the Gazan Palestinians, so that they would have a fresh start and work opportunities.

Within hours of the end of Israeli “occupation” of Gaza, Gazan residents had looted the greenhouses. Within weeks they had trashed them, and by September (two months following withdrawal) they were destroyed, their infrastructure converted for use as arms smuggling tunnels. 

It is tragic and painful to acknowledge these facts, but failure to acknowledge them (and most mainstream media ignored the fate of the greenhouses) is foolish hubris. Having been to the West Bank firsthand, I can say I have met Palestinians who I believe would be ready to accept a two-state solution. But until the United States takes on a leadership role in defeating militant Islam in the region, and supporting the genuine moderates, any independent Palestinian state is likely to be seized and governed by radicals. That is the reality of what has happened in Gaza; that is what has happened in Lebanon. And it will be what happens in Palestine so long as radical Islam carries the day in the region.

That said, I am dubious this state will be shoehorned into existence in the next year, because I find it difficult to believe President Obama and others in the U.S. government truly fail to grasp these realities. Then again, American hubris is legendary for good reason. And when a U.S. President wants to add “mideast peace broker” to his resume, the default move is to put the screws to Israel. (After all, as any attorney worth his salt will admit, it’s easier to get movement in a dispute by  pressing the more reasonable party). In the case of the middle east, however, the dysfunction is so deep on the side of the less reasonable party that pressing Israel will only worsen the problem. Reform is desperately needed in the Muslim world. But the world will not get there by appeasing forces of intolerance and calling it peace.

Today former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told FOX News that Israel has until the weekend to launch a military strike on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant - or else the humanitarian risk of an attack becomes too great.

Not sure what to make of this troubling, and alarming, assessment. I interviewed Ambassador Bolton last winter, and he struck me as a straight shooter, no pun intended. But given the high stakes of geopolitics, statements - especially those delivered by good diplomats - are never offered up without careful consideration, and much goes on to prompt them that is unknown to the public.

Bolton, of course, is not part of Obama’s administration, but served under President Bush. So his statement is a personal one and does not in any way–in any official way–represent the Obama White House.

If working as a journalist on middle east and international issues has taught me anything, it’s that people often project conspiracy theories–or at least elaborate theories of behind-the-scenes planning–where they don’t exist.

That said, I’ve got to wonder.

Bolton’s assessment hinges on the planned delivery, starting this upcoming Saturday, by a Russian company, of nuclear fuel into Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Bolton warns that, after delivery of this fuel, an attack on the Bushehr plant could trigger radiation that Israel wants to avoid. “So” the piece paraphrases, “unless the Israelis act immediately to shut down the facility, it will be too late.”

“Once it’s close to the reactor … the risk is when the reactor is attacked, there will be a release of radiation into the air,” Bolton told FoxNews.com. “It’s most unlikely they would act militarily after fuel rods are loaded.”

Iran claims the Bushehr plant is for peaceful nuclear energy (it clams this about all its nuclear plants, even those the IAEA has finally concluded are for bomb-making).

Whatever is immediately being built at Bushehr, the delivery of this nuclear material paves the way for a second front in Iran’s efforts to attain a nuclear weapon, according to Bolton.

“What this does is give Iran a second route to nuclear weapons in addition to enriched uranium,” Bolton said. “It’s a very, very huge victory for Iran.”

Bolton mentions that, if the Israelis were planning a strike in the next week, they would not be talking about it.

I would further speculate that if he had any information the Israelis were planning the strike in the next week, neither would Mr. Bolton.

It’s impossible to know what is going on here. Bolton may be delivering his assessment, straight and direct. But I wonder if perhaps something a little different is going on. Mr. Bolton could be a back channel, a messenger of sorts, to the Iranian regime - and to Moscow. Heaven knows, he’s the last person anyone would overtly accuse of carrying a message from President Obama.

Whether his words were prompted by anything other than his own desire to speak up, they do send a message: the United States is well aware of Russia’s double-dealing in supplying Iran with nuclear fuel even as Moscow takes baby steps towards imposing sanctions on Tehran.

Ilan Berman, former consultant to the CIA and Defense Department and an expert on regional security in the mideast, Central Asia, and Russia, has written that the actual “red line” Israeli officials have made clear to the Russians would precipitate the use of military force against Tehran’s facilities would be Russia’s delivery of the S-300 air defense system.

According to Berman “Given the sophistication of the S-300, its deployment by the Islamic Republic would dramatically increase the difficulty of targeting and successfully neutralizing Iranian nuclear facilities.”

I see nothing in the FOX article or online about Russia planning to deliver this air defense system. In actuality, according to Berman, Russia has held off on delivering this air defense system to Iran, despite having struck a deal with Tehran in 2007 to do so.

Moscow’s double-dealing, according to Berman, has much to do with Russia’s currently undemocratic nature: a good portion of the governing powers in Russia are corrupt, money-hungry, and therefore–because of the nature of Russia’s internal political structure–less accountable to the Russian people, less concerned with long-term security and stability, and more concerned with short-term economic profits and strategic influence.

Indeed, Russia’s dealings with Tehran have benefited Russia’s “vast energy sector” and its “arms sector.” In particular, according to Berman, “concern about Iran’s nuclear program has led to a surge in investment in arms and defense in the middle east.”

And guess who is supplying both Iran, and the countries that are scared of Iran, with weapons? You guessed it. Russia. (Note to American leftists inclined to accuse the U.S. of war profiteering: at least when American corporations profit from war, they pick a side.)

So perhaps–just speculation–Bolton’s striking statement is a kind of warning to Russia about the real red line.

(I had just posted a piece on The Huffington Post reporting on my experiences as a passenger on Jet Blue flight #1052  from Pittsburgh to JFK - the scene of Slater’s rant - and his escape down the plane’s emergency chute).

Naturally I was interested in what another flight attendant might think about the whole incident.

“I love it!” the flight attendant, who I’ll call Andie, gushed when I asked for her take on Slater’s rant-and-escape (She asked to remain anonymous out of concern her employer would not want her to speak to the media).

Returning my call between flights, she noted that she understands the need for some punishment due to Slater’s releasing of the emergency chute, which she said costs the airline many “thousands of dollars to put back.”

However she noted she and fellow flight attendants, who were dishing about the incident yesterday, have fantasized about quitting in some similarly flamboyant way.

“We were like, ‘Who wouldn’t want to have done that?’ We’re constantly joking about how we’d quit. Everybody, all the flight attendants” she knows “think he’s a hero and we feel sorry for him because he does not have union representation.”

(Jet Blue airlines, according to Andie, is not a union shop).

Andie explained that, much as  the job has certain benefits (job security “if you are union” as well as some free and inexpensive travel - a plus for singles like herself who like to jet-set), dealing with customers who dole out degradation can be a major downer.

“Most people are really nice,” Andie said. “But every once in a while there’s someone who takes advantage of the fact that we can’t say anything back” during an altercation.

Most altercations between flight attendants and passengers occur when flight attendants are doing their jobs, trying to minimize safety risk to passengers, Andie stressed.

“Most of the arguments happen for things that are for their own safety,” she said. “Sometimes pilots hit the brakes hard and people go flying. [In aviation history] passengers have, like, hit ceilings and broken their necks during severe turbulence.  That’s one of the reasons for the seat belts. Most of the time people get mad over stuff that’s for their own good.”

She empathizes with Slater, she says, because “it’s hard to get treated like s— every day.”

In her career, the worst abuse she’s experienced happened recently.

“I was slapped across the face by a lady,” Andie said.  “The captain said stay seated. I told her, ‘Please just have a seat.’ She was drunk. She got arrested but nothing really happened to her. I inquired but … my airline just told me not to worry about it.”

She says other shoddy passenger behavior includes fliers who, rather than drop their trash into the bags flight attendants are carrying through the aisles, simply toss trash onto the floor so that flight attendants have to pick it up off the ground.

Following September 11th,  she says she noticed an improvement in fliers’ attitudes towards flight attendants - for a while.

“Then it goes back to normal,” she sighed.

“Every day–some of the stuff people do to us. Training cannot prepare you. No one can train you for–’Omigod this woman just slapped me’ or in that guy’s case, ‘This woman just bonked me on the head with the bin door and won’t even say she’s sorry.’ There’s no manual for what some crazy passenger’s going to do to you today.”

For instance, one day recently “two brothers got in a fistfight in first class and all the flight attendants were women. So what do we do? It’s always something.”

She says she would actually appreciate some professional development training in dealing with interpersonal conflict situations.

Asked if there is anything she would like the flying public to be aware of, Andie said, “It could be our third, fourth flight [in a row]. We’re tired. You have to have a lot of endurance to do this job.”

The funny thing is, I was seated on this flight yesterday - JetBlue #1052, Pittsburgh to JFK - next to a lady who was scared to fly. At the outset, she pulled out a rosary and started praying (that’s not unusual, especially on a flight from Pittsburgh, which is a heavily Catholic city).

As we ascended, the turbulence was a bit more intense than typical, but nothing to be alarmed over. She was crossing herself and fidgeting, so I told her, “There’s nothing to worry about. I’ve been flying multiple times a month all my life and this is normal.”

She thanked me, and we got to talking a bit. I told her the same thing– “it’s totally normal”– when we heard the bump of the wheels coming down prior to landing.

It was when we stood up to disembark - in those annoying moments when everyone is waiting to be released from the metal can we’ve been packed in together - that Steven Slater commandeered the p.a. system and issued his rant. I didn’t take notes so the following is not exact, but a paraphrase: “F— you! F— all of you! I’m f—— through with this! I’VE HAD IT! I’ve been doing this for 28 f—— years and I can’t take it anymore. And for the f—–  a—–who told me to f— off: f— you! That’s it! I’m done! F— you all!”

At that point the older Catholic lady looked back at me and crossed herself, and I told her, “No, that is not normal.”

College students sitting nearby were laughing. One of them mentioned that a flight attendant had been bleeding and speculated that that might be “the guy” who’d just engaged in the rant.

I missed Slater’s inflation of the emergency chute, and didn’t know until I woke up this morning about his racing home to Belle Harbor, Queens in his silver Jeep Wrangler and hopping into bed with his boyfriend (leave it to the great New York Post to get those wonderful details).

Overall, it got me to thinking: in a way it’s a shame things like this don’t happen more often. Let me explain: in an age when, for good reason, authorities are constantly on the alert for terrorists and mass shooters, when any highway altercation, we are warned, can escalate into a gunfight, when eighty-year-old women are forced the relinquish their knitting needles and nursing mothers their bottles of milk at airport screening because of dread of legitimate–and vicious–acts of brutality, we all must restrain ourselves and behave obediently. Current mores leave no room, no outlet, for the venting of frustrations, or for freewheeling, spontaneous behavior of any kind.

No one who would engage in deliberate violence against another person is doing so because of petty frustrations; obviously, something deeper is askew in such an individual. But what about the rest of us? The “normal” decent people who feel fed up with the lack of civility, the many little humiliations, of everyday life? People who would never dream of doing anything violent, and who–because of the actions of a few truly evil people–are prevented from expressing normal frustrations, normal anger, out of (often justified) fear that someone might “go crazy,” show up packing a gun, etc.? Sometimes we need to get in someone’s face and tell that jerk to f— off.  Likewise, sometimes people just need to get out of a situation, to take an escape, when doing so does not harm anyone else.

Sometimes, in other words, people need to rip off their masks of social nicety and express feelings that are normal.

I did not feel in any way threatened by Steven Slater’s rant, and I didn’t take it personally. I was not insulted by it, but amused. I’d rather hear a flight attendant relate to me as a human being “F— you all” than be on the receiving end of phony, passive aggressive politeness. So “F— you, too, Steven Slater, you lucky Motherf—–! Hope you get a book deal out of this!

All that said, I’m glad Slater wasn’t the pilot.

From The Huffington Post
by HEATHER ROBINSON

Following last week’s passage of the toughest round of E. U. sanctions yet against the Iranian regime, German human rights activists who have promoted tougher sanctions against Tehran say that while the latest round are progress, Germany should do better.

Specifically, members of Stop the Bomb, a Berlin-based coalition of activists and intellectuals dedicated to preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, say that while these sanctions are important, they are not strong enough to truly isolate the regime.

“I think we need a second round, and more pressure on the regime,” says Ulrike Becker, founding member of Stop the Bomb.

Also, Becker and other members of Stop the Bomb expressed dismay this week at the decision of a German member of Parliament to travel to Tehran to discuss the Iranian nuclear program and criticize Israel, saying these actions undermine international cooperation to isolate the Iranian regime.

Dr. Rainer Stinner, foreign policy speaker of the Free Democratic Party (FDP) in the German Parliament, traveled this week to Tehran, where according to Iranian media he spoke of the “right” of all nations to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

The visit, which Stop the Bomb activists say they believe could not have taken place without the German government’s knowledge, demonstrates Germany’s unwillingness to break with the Iranian regime - while that regime uses dialogue as a stalling tactic to continue its development of nuclear weapons, according to Michael Spaney, director of Stop the Bomb in Berlin.

“This travel of the foreign policy speaker of the liberals - this is the wrong signal,” Spaney said.

Instead of further isolating and pressuring the “illegitimate and criminal” regime in Iran, such a visit is strengthening to the regime diplomatically - and undermines cooperative E.U., U.N. and U.S. efforts to finally get serious about isolating Tehran, according to Spaney.

Spaney believes Stinner’s visit is being used by the Iranian regime media for propagandistic purposes.

“It’s being used for the regime’s propaganda as a success of still upholding dialogue and being in negotiations with the West.”

Spaney says members of the Iranian opposition, mostly young people seeking their freedom, generally support the recent E.U. sanctions, which are directed against Iran’s elite, including the Revolutionary Guard.

“The opposition are welcoming the sanctions from the European Union, the U.N. and the U.S.” says Spaney.

Saba Farzan, a German, Iranian-born journalist who lives in Berlin and tells me she is in contact with members of Iran’s opposition who have escaped to Europe, issued a public letter on Facebook condemning Stinner for traveling to Tehran at this time.

“The … dialogue with this regime is fortunately over now - actually it never really existed,” Farzan wrote. “This week Iran’s largest trade partner, the European Union, has passed finally very tough sanctions. Traveling now to Iran and playing little Chamberlain is extremely dangerous and shows a lack of analytic expertise.”

Stinner responded to Farzan’s open letter with an open letter on his own Facebook page, “Who denies talking, accepts shooting. I’m an independent parliamentarian and I draw conclusions on my own. I don’t rely on the Iranian propaganda, not on propaganda from elsewhere, and I don’t exclusively rely on your opinion.”

Other members of the German government, including Dr. Nikoline Hansen, a local FDP leader in Berlin, have criticized Stinner’s trip on human rights grounds as dialogue with a totalitarian regime and on economic grounds as potentially jeopardizing Germany’s relationship with trading partner Israel.

On his Facebook page Stinner cited, as a rationale for his trip, the desire to promote cooperation with Tehran in discussing problems including drugs, crime and refugees in Afghanistan.

This rationale makes no sense, according to Spaney.

“I don’t know what he is thinking, [with] this assumption that Iran’s government has the same interest in Afghanistan as the Western world,” said Spaney. “As we know from Wikileaks and other sources, Iran is supplying the Taliban and responsible for the deaths of NATO soldiers and German soldiers in Afghanistan.”

I was unaware that apparently, after the war Japanese Emperor Hirohito - who had led Japan in its fanatical quest for domination - acknowledged that, as Japan had been fanatically opposed to surrender, in the big picture, the use of these terrible bombs probably saved lives–Japanese as well as American.

After the war, Winston Churchill, who had helped Roosevelt and Truman in leading the allies to victory, worked to prevent nuclear proliferation - the thought of which he dreaded. No civilized person can view the introduction of nuclear weapons into existence - and warfare - as anything but tragic.

It is also important to remember the unthinkably ghastly effects of the use of nuclear weapons and remember Churchill’s efforts to prevent proliferation.

Finally, in an age of revisionism, it is important to be clear on what actually happened prior to use of the first atomic weapons, and learn about why Truman made the decision he did.  Truman’s decision probably saved countless lives - American, Japanese, and those of many other nationalities. Counter-intuitive though it may seem, Truman made his decision in order to save lives, not take them.

In a discussion of such import, moral relativism has no place. It is important to understand: nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue regimes is unacceptable. Tragic as it may be for any nation to develop and hold nuclear weapons, there is simply no comparison between possession of nuclear weapons by stable democracies that would never use them for purposes of expansion, domination, or genocidal fanaticism - and possession of them by fanatical, totalitarian regimes. It is vital to carefully assess the historical record, and to employ common sense in this discussion.

Today I interviewed Saba Farzan, an Iranian-German journalist who tells me she is in contact with Iranian opposition leaders who recently managed to escape Iran for Europe. She says the opposition leaders with whom she has spoken favor these tough sanctions.

“The target of these sanctions is the Revolutionary Guard,” she said, referring to the elite military unit created to protect the mullahs, “not the Iranian middle class.”

Farzan, who has written for the Wall Street Journal, says she believes dialogue and engagement are not going to be useful tools in dealing with this totalitarian regime. Iranian-born, she says she would vastly prefer to see a military option avoided, and the best hope for that is crippling sanctions that bankrupt the regime. She thinks sanctions do have a chance - if enough countries come on board.

“I favor tough sanctions on the Iranian regime,” she said. “We need them to run out of money.”

She believes further dialogue and engagement will only strengthen the regime and undermine any chance of the sanctions succeeding.  She and other German-Iranians have joined with Stop the Bomb, a Berlin-based human rights organization dedicated to preventing Tehran from attaining nuclear capability, in lobbying for tough sanctions and zero tolerance for engaging the regime. This week, she joined Stop the Bomb in condemning a German politician, Dr. Rainer Stinner, foreign policy speaker of the German Freedom Democratic Party (FDP) for traveling to Iran.

“There is nothing left to say to this regime; we talked for 7 years and the results are exactly zero,” says Farzan. “This [Iranian] regime is not capable of answering urgent questions the international community has. This regime is repressing its own population. This regime has an awful human rights record. Dr. Stinner’s explanation [for traveling to meet with Iranian leaders] is he wants to have dialogue about how Iran is trying to stabilize Afghanistan. This is nonsense. Iran is not interested in a stable Afghanistan. Or in a stable Iraq. Iran is training Taliban fighters and they are killing our soldiers in Afghanistan. The solution is not to travel and talk to a regime that is killing our [German] soldiers and those of our international allies.”

Says Stop the Bomb spokesman Jonathan Weckerle, “Instead of further isolating and pressuring the illegitimate and criminal regime in Iran, such a visit will strengthen the regime diplomatically and flatter it as a partner for dialogue.”

Apparently one Iranian bank may still be doing business in Germany. I plan to look into this issue.

More to come.