| May 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
July 2007 Stats for The Big Picture.
This morning Drudge is linking a report on a news conference held yesterday by Israel's UN Ambassador, Dan Gillerman: "Israel's UN ambassador calls Jimmy Carter 'a bigot'". I'd been invited to attend that news conference, by telephone hookup, and can report on a lot more that Gillerman had to say. From my typed notes (not expected to be verbatim):
Today I believe we are no longer in a clash of civilizations... but in a clash of civilization, singular. In most of the bloodshed within the Muslim world, the vast majority of the victims are Muslim. Every day hundreds of Muslims are slain by their brethren.
What worries me is the eerie silence of the Muslim world. No Muslim leader, secular, religious, or academic, gets up and says, 'What are we doing?'
[On press coverage of this:] When Westerners kill Muslims, it's a crusade. When Jews kill Muslims, it's a massacre. When Muslims kill Muslims, it's the weather channel.
But there is a shot of optimism. I don't know what woke them up. Maybe it was the war in Lebanon in 2006, which most of the Arab nations realized was only a preview of a something coming soon to a theater near you. They realized that the real threat, is Iran, with its ambitions of spreading Shia extremism and terrorism, and generating it all over the world. They came to Annapolis defying Iran, and forming a coalition of the moderates, with a view toward being more pragmatic and realistic regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel has no war with the people of Iran. We respect and admire the history and the people of Iran. We feel the people of Iran were dealt a very raw deal, with the extreme, reactionary leaders of Iran, including a president who denies the Holocaust while preparing the next one.
Iran is a danger to the stability and civilization of the world as we know it.
We have no war with Iran, but Iran has a war with us.
Iran is a thousand miles away from Israel, but it has proxies on our borders. Iran's proxy Hezbollah is on our northern border, and its proxy Hamas is on our Southern border, armed and controlled and trained by Iran. 60 years after its birth, Israel is under real threat from Iran. All Israelis - seven million Jews, Muslims and Christians, are under range of missiles, mainly supplied by Iran.
The world realizes this, and the Muslim world realizes this, and realizes that there is a limit to what Israel will take. Hamas continuously shells Israeli cities and villages and schools, trying to kill and maim Israeli civilians and children. And all this is done with very direct supplies from Iran.
Not only most of the world, but most of the Muslim world, will choose to side against the Iranian extremists.
It is important to bolster and embolden the moderates, while marginalizing extremists. So I am very happy with Abbas' visit to Washington and the support he's getting from Washington.
What would be the ramifications in the event that the majority of Arab nations sided with the US against Iran, and joined us in an effort to halt Iran's sponsorship of extremism and terrorism in the world? Gillerman also stated that "Basically, Syria and Iran, together with Hamas and Hezbollah, are the main axes of terror and evil in the world." If this is correct, the elimination of Iran as the principal driver of extremism and terrorism, could contribute substantially toward cutting the heart out of the global Islamist and extremist movement.
Today Iran is bragging that it has new missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometers:
Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Mostafa Muhammad-Najjar announced on Tuesday that his country had developed a new ballistic missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers, capable of reaching Israel and US Army bases in the Middle East.
If Iran nukes Israel, Israel will have no choice but to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. The results would be devastating to everyone on the planet:
...in clear, concise and chillingly forensic style, Cordesman ["top strategic guru at the Center for Strategic & International Studies"] spells out that the real stakes in the crisis that is building over Iran's nuclear ambitions would certainly include the end of Persian civilization, quite probably the end of Egyptian civilization, and the end of the Oil Age. This would also mean the end of globalization and the extraordinary accretions in world trade and growth and prosperity that are hauling hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians and others out of poverty.
Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons and using them to seek it's often-stated goal of eliminating Israel from the map. The result would be the destruction, not only of Israel, but also of Iran, and of the entire global economy.
On the front page of the Calendar section in today's LA Times is an article unlike any I have ever seen that paper - or any MSM newspaper - publish before. It is a passionate, brilliantly-written piece by Tim Rutten in his Regarding Media column. Every sentence of it calls on MSM, and all of us, to defend our freedoms, and our way of life, against the murderers who want to destroy them.
Rutten recounts how 19 years ago, "the Iranian revolution's spiritual leader," Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, called for the assassination of Salmon Rushdie.
Rushdie survived by spending the better part of the next decade in what amounted to an "author's protection program" maintained by the British government. Several of his translators, however, were killed or wounded.
When news of knighthood spread last weekend, the flames of fanaticism rekindled. An Iranian group offered $150,000 to anyone who would murder the novelist. Effigies of the queen and the writer were burned in riots across Pakistan. That country's religious affairs minister initially said that conferring such an honor on Rushdie justified sending suicide bombers to Britain, then - under pressure - he modified his statement to say it would cause suicide bombers to travel there. Pakistan's national assembly unanimously condemned Rushdie's knighthood and said it reflected "contempt" for Islam and Muhammad. Various high-ranking Iranian clerics called for the writers' death and renewed their insistence that Khomeini's fatwa still is in force. Riots spread to India's Muslim communities.
Friday, the Voice of America reported that Pakistani "lawmakers passed a second resolution calling on British Prime Minister Tony Blair to apologize 'to the Muslim world' " and that, "on Thursday, a hard-line Pakistani cleric awarded terrorist leader Osama bin Laden the religious title and honorific 'saifulla,' or sword of Islam, to protest Britain's decision."
If you're wondering why you haven't been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, it's because there haven't been any. And, in that great silence, is a great scandal.
It's breathtaking to read this in an MSM paper. The LA Times headline-writers backed him up, with a large-print headline all the way across the top of the inside page the article jumps to, saying, "Silence is unacceptable in face of violent intolerance and bigotry."
As a blogger, and a Pajamas Media blogger, I'm proud to say that Rutten takes inspiration in part from a Pajamas Media post by Flemming Rose, the editor who courageously published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed:
...one analyst who saw that clearly was Flemming Rose...
...In a column posted on the L.A.-based Pajamas Media website late this week, Rose began by reminding readers of legal scholar Ronald Dworkin's admonition that "the only right you don't have in a democracy is the right not to be offended,"...
Rutten continues:
...what is the societal cost of silence among those who have not simply the moral obligation but also the ability to speak - like American commentators and editorial writers?
What masquerades as tolerance and cultural sensitivity among many U.S. journalists is really a kind of soft bigotry, an unspoken assumption that Muslim societies will naturally repress great writers and murder honest journalists, and that to insist otherwise is somehow intolerant or insensitive.
Lost in the self-righteous haze that masks this expedient sentiment is a critical point once made by the late American philosopher Richard Rorty, who was fond of pointing out that "some ideas, like some people, are just no damn good" and that no amount of faux tolerance or misplaced fellow feeling excuses the rest of us from our obligation to oppose such ideas and such people.
If Western and, particularly American, commentators refuse to speak up when their obligations are so clear, the fanatics will win and the terrible silence they so fervently desire will descend over vast stretches of our world - a silence in which the only permissible sounds are the prayers of the killers and the cries of their victims.
Rutten and the LA Times have shown courage, insight, and leadership. It appears likely that other MSM papers will take note - and that those MSM papers that don't, will be left behind, in this great movement of our time to defend our freedoms and our way of life.
These ads were run by the ADL earlier this month in the NY Times. Sample text (to help people using search engines find this post): "700 HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS DETAINED and TORTURED last year in ZIMBABWE. And BRITISH ACADEMICS are boycotting ISRAEL?"
"An Israeli website uses child's words to teach Iranians about the Holocaust -- and it's working:"
The website was designed to convince the people of Iran that the Holocaust happened. By the museum's estimation, it is working.
In the two weeks after its Jan. 27 launch, more than 10,000 people logged on in Iran and hundreds of e-mails flooded in, thanking the museum for providing information that some Iranians found difficult, if not impossible, to access in their country.
From an analysis piece in today's Washington Post:
...yesterday's vote signaled peril for the Democratic congressional leadership as well. Despite deep Republican discontent with the course of the war, Democrats were unable to persuade more than 17 members of the president's party to register that dissatisfaction with their votes. If Democratic leaders could not build a broader bipartisan coalition for a symbolic vote, it may prove much harder to attract Republican support for proposals to limit Bush's options in Iraq.
Many Democratic strategists remain allergic to repeating the finale of the Vietnam War, when Congress voted to cut funds for the South Vietnamese government and the nation fell to the North in 1975. For years afterward, Democrats have struggled to shed the image of being soft on defense, which is why they were so eager to bring along more Republicans yesterday.
...Administration allies warned about the precedent beyond Bush as well. "If Congress proceeds to throttle the president's strategy, then it will seriously undercut the ability of future presidents to do what they need to do to protect the nation in a time of war," said James Phillips, a foreign policy scholar at the Heritage Foundation. "It's a mistake to think you can effectively run a war by committee."
The Dems' plan seems to be that if they cut funds to our troops, our troops will get killed, leading to our army being forced to flee Iraq - defeated not by the enemies of freedom and democracy -- all of whom are on the run from us in Iraq -- but instead, defeated by a back-stabbing Democrat party -- a party that may destroy its own political future in the process.
Our troops have fought, and over 3000 of them have died, to accomplish a mission. For the Democrats to sabotage that mission, would be unforgivable. If the Dems thought that their actions in Vietnam harmed their own party, actions such as these, if taken in Iraq, could destroy it.
Update 2-17-07: The Senate Republicans today moved to continue debate on a bill similar to the one passed by Congress yesterday. (This bill condemns the troop surge, and is considered a precursor to a move by Dems to take funding away from our troops, even while they are in harm's way.) Democrats voted to halt debate and move to a vote on the bill. This action by Republicans is seen as having blocked passage of the bill. The Republicans stood for real support for our troops -- not lip service, but the real support of providing the funds our troops need for their mission. Every single Democrat voted to cut off debate and vote. These Democrats have risked disgracing themselves in the eyes of our military and their families, by their threats to cut off funding support to American troops who are in harm's way. The Dems must turn away from this path, that is so full of danger to our troops, to our nation, and to the Democratic party itself.
GWB:
“I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated I.E.D.’s that have harmed our troops,” Mr. Bush said, using the abbreviation for improvised explosive device. “And I’d like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of the government. But my point is, what’s worse, them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and its happening?”
From the Terrorism Awareness Project at the David Horowitz Freedom Center - a new Flash video documentary: The Islamic Mein Kampf, on The Nazi Roots of Jihad:
From David's Blog:
Click on the links to our new flash video The Islamic Mein Kampf and see our latest weapon in the war on terror. We are sending this today via email to 850,000 plus individuals. We are sending it into the mail boxes of the entire liberal arts faculties at Duke University, Brandeis, Georgia Tech, Berkeley, and other schools. We are putting full page ads -- "What Every American Needs To Know About Jihad" -- in college papers across the country. We have put up a new website at www.terrorismawareness.org with information about our new movement and about the terrorist threat. We are distributing pamphlets about the Nazi Roots of Palestinian Nationalism. Please help us spread the word by emailing our flash video to your email lists and joining our campaign.
See the video - it's excellent.
Last Friday the UN officially condemned Holocaust denial without reservation:
UN Assembly condemns Holocaust denial by consensus; Iran disassociates itself
26 January 2007 - The United Nations General Assembly today condemned without reservation any denial of the Holocaust, with only Iran publicly disassociating itself from the consensus resolution which was immediately hailed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
The Assembly, noting that the resolution was adopted on the eve of the UN-designated annual International Day of Commemoration for Holocaust victims, who also included not only Jews but also Roma, Sinti, homosexuals and other groups, called on all its 192 Member States "unreservedly to reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end."
Welcoming the measure, which was introduced by the United States on behalf of 103 co-sponsors, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement voicing "his strong desire to see this fundamental principle respected both in rhetoric and in practice."
"By this action today, the General Assembly reaffirms its condemnation of the Holocaust as a crime against humanity," said the body's president, Sheikha Haya Al Khalifa of Bahrain.
Today the Association for World Education and the World Union for Progressive Judaism called on the UN to condemn Iranian President Ahmadinajed for actions contrary to this resolution - and also called on the UN to bring Ahmadinajed to trial for continued "direct and public incitement to commit genocide," which is "punishable" under the UN Charter and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The text of the appeal to the UN has been forwarded to this site by one of its authors, Mr. David Littman (emphasis in original):
ASSOCIATION FOR WORLD EDUCATION
WORLD UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM
United Nations-Geneva / Monday, 29 January 2007 (9:00am)
Call for Firm Action Today to Condemn President Mahmoud Ahmadinajed
Urgent Appeal to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon / High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour / President of the Human Rights Council Ambassador Luis Alfonso De Alba
We welcome the GA's Resolution by consensus - co-sponsored by 103 States - which condemned, without reservation, any denial of the Holocaust, and the Secretary-General's "strong desire to see this fundamental principle respected both in rhetoric and in practice." Speaking before the vote, Iran's representative "fully dissociated himself from today's entire hypocritical exercise," alleging: "Its main sponsors had sought to present the text under 'mischievous' intent to pursue narrow political interests and misuse the Assembly."
On the 2nd International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust, we call on Member States of the United Nations to act decisively now by invoking the UN Charter and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - in order to bring President Mahmoud Ahmadinajed to trial before the International Criminal Court, and Iran before the UN Security Council. The reiterated call by Iran's president for Israel's elimination is "inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" (UN Charter, Chapter I, Article 2:4). And Article III (c) of the Genocide Convention is clear: "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide" ( … ) "shall be punishable." Its Article IV states that: "Persons committing Genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals." At a Teheran Conference on 26th October 2005 Iranian President Ahmadinajed called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." He also announced that: "very soon the stain of this disgrace will be purged from the centre of the Islamic world." And he ominously warned all peacemakers: "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." In his 5th December 2005 speech to the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Mecca, he proclaimed that the major problem in the Islamic world was "the presence of the Zionist occupation in the heart of the Islamic region," even predicting that its "judicious removal will pave the way to the appearance of Islam's power in the successful management of global matters." Last week he repeated his threatening scenario for the rapid demise of the State of Israel.
In a TV speech on 14th December 2005, he had referred to the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews as a fabrication: "They have created a myth in the name of the Holocaust and consider it above God, religion and the prophets." On 5th January 2006, Iran's state-controlled TV screened a discussion on "the myth of the gas chambers" and "the truth of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Before the 2006 1st International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust, Ahmadinajed announced a special "Holocaust 'Myth' Conference" in Teheran, which took place last month in defiance of world public opinion. In his 8th January 2007 letter to Human Rights Council President Luis Alfonso De Alba, Iran's Ambassador Alireza Moayeri stressed that: "The international conference on the Holocaust, held in Teheran, has been an academic event, to examine and investigate the facts about a historical claim without any prejudice or judgment (...) This is a legitimate question that: while there are serious opposing ideas over the issue, in particular on the number of perished, among scholars around the world, why an artificial red line has to taboo[sic] the entire issue of the Holocaust, preventing to bridge this gap, in total contradiction of article 19 of the UDHR and article 19 of the ICCPR."
We strongly urge the Secretary-General, the Human Rights High Commissioner and Council President, and all UN Member States, to take heed of the Iranian president's 'thinking' - in particular that ideological parallel between the clear reference in his 26th October 2005 speech to a 'Jihad ideology': "the struggle [Jihad] between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels", and to Hitler's words in Mein Kampf (My Struggle), describing the 'true Aryans' pitted against non-Aryans! Are the horrors of the 20th century's Nazi "final solution" to be repeated in the 21st - while the international community merely notes 'with concern' this gathering storm?
The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran's "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" ( by the elimination of a Member State, i.e. "politicide" ) requires FIRM ACTION TODAY. As was stressed over the years: any "Contracting Party" may invoke article 8 of the post-Holocaust Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (approved on 9th December 1948, the day before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and "call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such actions…for the prevention and suppression of…any of the acts enumerated in article III." Iran's defiance of the 1945 UN Charter is another reason for all persons and UN bodies to ACT NOW.
René Wadlow (Main Representative of AWE) / David G. Littman (Representative of AWE & WUPJ)
"U.S. names Iranian bank as weapons proliferator:"
The Treasury Department on Tuesday named Iran's state-owned Bank Sepah as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, and banned all transactions between it and U.S. businesses.
"Bank Sepah is the financial linchpin of Iran's missile procurement network and has actively assisted Iran's pursuit of missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction," said Stuart Levey, Treasury's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.
In addition to prohibiting transactions with Bank Sepah, a major commercial Iranian bank, Treasury said any assets that it may have under U.S. jurisdiction are frozen.
Increasingly Iran is being seen as a center of the global war radical jihadists are waging against the West. In fact, it was recently reported that Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said that Iran, in opposition to the U.S. and Britain, will win World War III:
As later recounted to the New York Times by an Annan aide, Ahmadinezhad told Annan that though Britain and the United States had won the last world war, Iran would win the next. “It wasn’t the tone and the content that stunned us,” the aide told the Times. “It was the fact that he talked like he meant it and believed it.” After all, Annan and his colleagues hadn’t realized there would be a next world war.
In the eyes of the Ahmadinezhad and his supporters, however, that war has already begun. In their way of thinking, radical Islamists have already brought the collapse of one superpower (the Soviet Union, which they believe fell because of the Afghan war) and are on route to victory in Europe. America is next.
Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
"Iran smog 'kills 3,600 in month':"
Air pollution is estimated to have killed nearly 10,000 people in Tehran over a one-year period, including 3,600 in a month, Iranian officials say.
The nerve of this guy, continually insulting and threatening Western nations with death. He just won't shut up. Yesterday he was saying:
Any power that is close to God will survive while the powers who are far from God will disappear like the pharaohs," he said Wednesday, according to Iranian news agencies.
"Today, it is the United States, Britain and the Zionist regime which are doomed to disappear as they have moved far away from the teachings of God," he said in a speech in the western town of Javanroud.
"It is a divine promise."
Ahmadinejad's comments were the latest salvo by the deeply religious president against the West and Israel. He has repeatedly predicted that Israel is doomed to disappear.
Notice the references to "God" and "a divine promise." Islam is not the same as all the other religions. No other religion has leaders that threaten nations with death in the name of their religion.
This illustrates again how Islam is not only a religion, but also a political ideology, that, according to Islamic leaders, requires its followers to attack those of other religions, and to destroy non-Islamic states.
But to continue.
Yesterday Ahmadinejad also said:
...the Iranian nation will continue in its nuclear path powerfully and will celebrate a nuclear victory soon.
Not exactly the language of peace, coming from a guy who threatens other nations with destruction.
And on top of all this, today Ahmadinejad added taunts to his threats:
"Some so-called superpowers have gathered together and they think that they can control the whole world. I'm telling them: Open your eyes, today, the world no longer thinks your decisions have any value.
"By God's grace, the enemies have not been able to do anything (against Iran) as yet and they will not be able to do anything in the future too," he said.
Is that Ahmadinejad's plan? To rely on it that we won't do anything to stop him from carrying out his own loud and dangerous threats?
The guy is cruising for a bruising.
Report: "The Pentagon is planning a major buildup of Naval forces in and around the Persian Gulf as a warning to Iran".
This is what is needed.
The buildup, which would included a ago second aircraft carrier to the one already there is being proposed as a response to what US officials view as increasingly provocative acts by Iran, David Martin reported on CBS EVENING NEWS.
Recent Iranian naval exercises in the Persian Gulf, support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its nuclear enrichment program which US intelligence believes is designed to produce a bomb." CBS added, "Military officers say the buildup would take place after the first of the year, not to actually attack Iran but to discourage its leaders from spreading their Shiite revolution."
It would be great to see such action being taken to contain and control the madman, Ahmadinejad.
David Zucker has a new video that cautions against repeating the mistake of Neville Chamberlain, who made an agreement with another madman - an agreement which inadvertently set the stage for the 50,000,000 dead in World War II.
Time announces it has an "exclusive interview" with Ahmadinejad, who it calls a "Person of the Year Candidate" - and, at least in the excerpt it has posted on the web today, doesn't question him about his threatening to wipe a U.N. member nation, Israel, off the map; or about his denial of the Holocaust; or about his threats of death to other Western nations including the U.S.
Here's their question about the Holocaust denial conference Ahmadinejad staged:
You've just held a conference questioning the Holocaust. Why not hold a peace conference instead? You could invite the Israelis and Palestinians to talk about peace, instead of what happened 60 years ago.
They didn't get on his case for denying the historical facts. They gave him a pass. They just used the topic of a conference as an intro to the wimpy, "why not hold a peace conference" question. A peace conference? Are they kidding? After he's threatened repeatedly all year to wipe Israel off the map and to bring death to Western nations?
Time Magazine accepts it that Ahmadinejad says one thing to them, and another thing in his speeches abroad. They didn't get in his face about this recent quote of his:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned Western leaders to follow the path of God or "vanish from the face of the earth".
"These oppressive countries are angry with us ... a nation that on the other side of the globe has risen up and proved the shallowness of their power," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the northern town of Ramsar, the semi-official news agency Mehr reported Wednesday.
"They are angry with our nation. But we tell them 'so be it and die from this anger'. Rest assured that if you do not respond to the divine call, you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth," he said.
Ahmadinejad is threatening us with death, and Time is lobbing softball questions at him. Why don't they want to "speak truth to power" to Ahmadinejad? This, despite the fact that Iran has been caught arming militias that are killing U.S. troops.
Surely, this is a low point in the magazine's history.
With 43 percent of Iran's gasoline imported, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows that a comprehensive gasoline embargo could cause social unrest that could undermine his regime. In response, he recently announced a three-part crash program for energy independence.
One tenet of the plan is massive expansion of the country's refining capacity. While no refinery has been built in the United States in decades, Iran's refinery infrastructure is undergoing one of the world's fastest expansions, including the construction of two large new refineries.
A second pillar is to secure imports of refined products from Venezuela, one of Iran's staunchest allies against the West.
The third, and most innovative, part of the plan is to convert Iran's vehicles to run on natural gas rather than gasoline within five years. Iran has the world's second-largest natural-gas reserve after Russia - 16 percent of the world's total - which guarantees an uninterrupted supply of cheap transportation fuel for decades. The cost of conversion of both the cars and refueling stations is heavily subsidized by the government.
The conversion of cars is simple, particularly in a country where unemployment surpasses 10 percent and labor is cheap. All that is needed is a minor engine adaptation and the installation of a gas cylinder in the trunk of the car. More than 105 conversion centers have already been built.
A shift from petroleum to natural gas will save Iran between $3 billion and $8 billion per year on gasoline imports. It will also leave refineries free to produce a greater proportion of essential non-gasoline petroleum products like jet fuel, which will keep Iran's air force and commercial airlines intact, and diesel to power its army and navy.
Iran is working to have an economy that doesn't rely on other nations. And this is an indication that it is preparing for war:
Ahmadinejad's gas revolution is a clear sign that Iran is preparing itself for the possibility of war and is developing a comprehensive economic warfare strategy to supplement its military and diplomatic initiatives.
Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
