News reports out of Iran tell of yet another round of executions: four men and one woman, executed inside the notorious Evin Prison.

This brings the number of Iran’s executions in 2008 to a record high–at least 63 people were reportedly executed in August alone, while 25 were hanged in Tehran on July 25. Iran has decided not to make such events public anymore (as I have discussed in the past) to prevent embarrassment to the regime when the resulting images go around the world. Yet even as these images are shown, right-thinking commentators will jump at the outrage by asking, “How is this so different from Texas?”

Fair question. This is not an attempt to trigger a discussion about the death penalty, its merits and demerits, its justice or injustice. The simple answer is: it is not Texas because in Texas, as in the other states of the Union where the death penalty is in the law-books, there are other things that accompany it. These are: the right to counsel for the accused; habeas corpus; the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair trial; the notion that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. There are stringent rules of evidence. There is a need for witnesses. There is a right of appeal. And there are rights for the convicts, even as they go to their death, that their punishment not be “cruel and unusual.”

In Iran, there is no guarantee of a fair trial. The reliance on circumstantial evidence for conviction is overwhelming. The right to counsel is not guaranteed to suspects. There is no habeas corpus. Torture is rife. The testimony of women is half the value of that of men. Judges are tools of the regime. Crimes punishable by death include blasphemy and homosexuality. Political dissidents are as prone to execution as common criminals. Rights of appeal are not applied. Punishments are cruel and unusual (in the sense of esoteric). In practice, such punishments are quite common.

Fair trial? Not a chance. Is it like Texas? Iranian convicts might wish it were the case…

The “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas announced at a rally in Beirut on Thursday that “all Palestinians should have the right to return home,” rejecting the idea that 400,000 Palestinians living in Lebanon–mostly in refugee camps since 1948, with no citizenship and with such severe legal restrictions on their rights that the word “apartheid” may be viewed as a compliment by comparison–might be “forced” to permanently stay in Lebanon.

We can imagine the kind of response this statement would get from those in the West who wish to see a peace deal between Abbas and Israel at all costs: that he was pandering to the local Palestinian audience; that he was pandering to the Lebanese government, who always wished the Palestinians would go away; that he was merely airing established Palestinian official views, two days after Ehud Olmert allegedly offered him a plan to resettle refugees in Lebanon. That he’s imperfect but that he’s the best we’ve got.

What those who rush to the defense of Abbas forget is the following. If this is the best we can get out of a Palestinian leader; if what may come after him is infinitely worse; if we have to understand his limits and constraints in the public sphere on such a delicate issue; if all of this is reasonable and must be accepted–then it’s not the best we’ve got. It’s that we’ve got nothing at all.

Iran’s defense minister has just announced that Iran is starting production of its own submarines–Iran already has some Russian-supplied submarines–in order to “maintain security in the vital oil shipping route, the Strait of Hormuz waterway.” Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said that Iran’s armed forces “have been the protector of the security of the strategic Strait of Hormuz and regards the security of this waterway as vital for itself and the countries of the region.”

This is bad news. Iran has threatened to close the Straits more than once in recent times. And even if Iran was truly to become the guarantor of security for the flow of oil through the Straits, that would be a bit like Russia becoming the guarantor of security for the flow of oil and gas from the Caspian and Caucasus region to Europe. Ask Georgia how reassuring that is, and you’ll see why Iranian submarines are nothing to feel secure about!

After a perilous journey through the Eastern Mediterranean, the heroic activists of the Free Gaza organization have reached the shores of their promised land–Gaza–and made history, defying Israeli injustice and in the process establishing a vital supply line for the starved and besieged Gazans. At least, according to their own accounts.

For example, if you are to believe veteran activist Jeff Halper, the token Israeli on this ship of fools, this mission is the harbinger of a ferry service between Cyprus and Gaza. Good luck with that! I’d like to know where this business will be registered, where its investment capital will come from, and who’ll do the auditing.

The reality, however, looks somewhat different: the anticipated deliverance of Gaza at the hand of a few dozen remnants of the 1960’s generation failed to materialize. According to a Ynet news report

A Gaza activist told Ynet Saturday that local residents were disappointed by the small quantities of food brought in by two boats carrying international leftist activists.

“Many people thought these boats will make a significant contribution to break the siege, not only politically but also in terms of bringing in goods, equipment, food, and medicine,” he said. “However, once it turned out these boats contain too little food and mostly activists . . . some people left the beach disappointed.”

No surprise there. As Israeli officials said, humanitarian aid can go through the regular crossings by land. This stunt was not about rescue and deliverance: it was about the romantic self-aggrandizement of a few radical chic buffoons and a propaganda stunt by their puppet masters–the not-so-innocent International Solidarity Movement. Israel acted wisely in letting them through and denying them the much hoped for moment on live camera–being boarded by Israeli naval forces.

But the story is not over. Israel would do well to consider taking action against the Free Gaza operation. Jeff Halper is not exactly Richard Branson, so his promise of a direct service between Larnaca and Gaza City might be just one radical’s ruminations. Regardless, Israel should ponder the likelihood of more provocations–and perhaps, sooner or later, the inevitable attempt to use the Free Gaza folks to smuggle into Gaza not just a group of revolutionary tourists, but far more dangerous stuff.

The IMF’s assessments of Iran’s economy have arrived. They offer an interesting snapshot of the Iranian economy and a glimpse into the effectiveness of international and U.S. sanctions. Basically, the report boils down to this:

1. “UN and U.S. sanctions against certain Iranian institutions have created difficulties for trade financing and payments, discouraged foreign investment, and adversely affected the profitability of the targeted financial institutions.”

2. The overall economic situation is not bad, however, and could vastly improve through a number of economic reforms.

3. Its current strength is related to high oil prices and a significant reduction of the price of crude would adversely affect Iran’s internal situation.

4. Several structural problems remain, which prevent the system from performing better–chiefly high inflation.

So, according to the IMF, if

prices for Iranian crude remain at $85-$90 per barrel, reforms advance unevenly, double-digit inflation persists, and oil production stagnates . . . Iran’s growth potential would dwindle, a budget deficit most likely requiring CBI financing would emerge, and the economy’s vulnerability to a possible fall in oil prices would increase.

There is a lesson to be learned in this assessment: short of finding the magic wand necessary to reduce oil prices below $85 a barrel, the West can only increase pressure on Iran by smart sanctions that will make the other problems more acute. Otherwise, we can only rely on Iran’s governmental incompetence in managing its own economy–not exactly a strong strategy, despite Ahmadinejad’s record to date.

Writing in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal Europe, Ron Asmus made a number of very sensible suggestions for NATO on how to calibrate its response to Russia in the wake of the crisis in the Caucasus. Clearly, NATO is neither the EU nor the UN, so it cannot start ordering its member states to impose visa restrictions, or freeze foreign assets, or the like. But it could have adopted a number of measures that would have signalled to Russia–in the words of NATO Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer–that the Georgia issue is not “business as usual.”

Asmus identifies two strategic imperatives:

The Alliance must take steps to reassure those members fearing Russian pressure that NATO’s mutual-defense commitments are credible and real. And ministers must consider speeding up enlargement plans to lock in stability in the Balkans and bring in Ukraine and the southern Caucasus.

Clearly, as he goes on to say, these steps must include strong statements and go beyond the rhetoric straight into the realm of practical and meaningful action:

The Alliance should . . . reassure current members who feel threatened by Russia’s move and, above all, Moscow’s rationale for action. Since the Alliance began enlarging a decade ago, it has not conducted any defense planning against a possible Russian military threat to new members in Central and Eastern Europe or the Baltic states. We have unilaterally refrained from such steps partly as a confidence-building step toward Russia. New members have complained bitterly about this. It is why the Alliance is seen by many in the region as hollow. It is time to take this step as a prudent part of Alliance defense planning.

Asmus goes further and suggests that NATO should move “toward fast-track enlargement” changing the benchmarks for membership in order to accommodate countries in the Caucasus like Georgia and Azerbaijan:

We need to embrace them quickly in spite of their imperfections. That means granting them so-called Membership Action Plans and moving toward fast-track enlargement. We should not give up our goal of pushing for democratic reform in these countries. But let’s first help make them safe.

These are all eminently sound and wise suggestions. But little of this wise advice made it into the final NATO statement and shopping list of actions the Alliance will now undertake as a response to Russia. As the Journal’s editors point out today, the final statement is what Russia calls it:

‘”Empty words.” That’s how Moscow glibly dismissed NATO’s criticism yesterday of Russia’s continued occupation of Georgia. The Russians may be bullies, but like all bullies they know weakness when they see it.

No fast track to membership, no military aid, no concrete sanctions against Moscow. The only thing the final statement of the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting said yesterday was this:

The Alliance is considering seriously the implications of Russia’s actions for the NATO-Russia relationship. In 2002, we established the NATO-Russia Council, a framework for discussions with Russia, including on issues that divide the Alliance and Russia. We have determined that we cannot continue with business as usual. We call on Moscow to demonstrate–both in word and deed–its continued commitment to the principles upon which we agreed to base our relationship.

Given what Moscow has been busy doing in Georgia in the last two weeks, it is hard to gauge what NATO foreign ministers mean by “continued commitment.” If the Georgia incursion means anything, it is the confirmation of a pattern in Russia’s behavior that emerged quite some time ago. Woe to an alliance that cannot stand behind the principles it was established to defend.

According to Gerhard Schroeder, it’s clearly Georgia:

The hostilities undoubtedly have their historic causes, as well, and the conflict has had several historic precursors. But the moment that triggered the current armed hostilities was the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. This should not be glossed over.

Clearly it should not. To say that Georgia invaded South Ossetia is a bit like saying that the United States invaded Rhode Island or that Germany invaded Frankfurt. I blogged earlier today about the new “useful idiots” and their defense of evil in the world–picking on the Guardian columnist Seumas Milne as a perfect example. But in fairness to Schroeder, at least the former German Chancellor is being amply rewarded for his effort. How’s your Russian, Mr. Schroeder? Your explanation sounds like it came straight out of a Russian script . . .

Speaking of useful idiots, last week activist website The Struggle published an appeal in defense of Iran and against a military attack on the Islamic Republic, signed by 150 Jewish activists, intellectuals and other such types–including the ever-mobilized Noam Chomsky, Uri Davis, Moshe Machover, Avi Shlaim and Antony Loewenstein.

The communiqué, the organizational affiliations of some of its signatories, and the comments included require little additional comment beyond what’s been said in the past about these “Good” Jews and their morbid obsession with victimhood. I’d just like to note here that among the signatories there is one Professor Bertell Ollman. Ollman, in the pages of Tikkun, published in 2005 a “Letter of Resignation from the Jewish People.” In it, he said that he “was appalled to finish my life with my umbilical cord still tied to a people with whom I can no longer identify.” So how come he’s now signing himself as a Jew?

Iran’s air force commander announced on Sunday that its fighter jets have now an increased range–they can fly 3,000 kilometers without refueling. If true, it’s possible that Iran would be able to strike Israeli targets (a mere 1,000 kilometers away) and report back to base. It is hard to evaluate Iran’s air force capability, since its procurements are rather opaque, and military supplies come from countries such as China, Russia, and North Korea–not exactly the most transparent ones. Reporting back to base is also a secondary matter in a culture that glorifies martyrdom. If planes could carry a deadly payload of non-conventional weapons, why should Iran’s air force commander worry too much about their returning to Iran after a successful strike? Nevertheless, such boastful claims have been dismissed by military experts, who noted the difference between merely flying such a length and carrying out a successful military operation while doing so.

Yesterday, David Hazony commented on an interview that former Italian president Francesco Cossiga gave to the Italian daily Il Corriere Della Sera. In the interview, Cossiga dropped a political bomb–something he is fond of doing–by saying that the Bologna train station massacre of 1980 was not the doing of neo-Fascist terrorists, but the accidental explosion of two explosive laden suitcases that Palestinian couriers were taking through Italy. He went on to explain that there existed an agreement between Italy’s government and Palestinian groups which allowed Palestinians to roam free with arms and impunity across the Italian peninsula in exchange for a guarantee that Palestinians would not carry out any attack inside Italy.

One correction is in order about David’s posting: first, Cossiga was indeed President when the Achille Lauro hijacking took place–he had been in office for four months by then. However, Italy’s president has a largely ceremonial role and Cossiga had no direct role in the ensuing events–including the one played by Italian forces at the Sicilian air base of Sigonella, where terrorist Abu Abbas was taken away from the hands of American forces and ceremoniously allowed to escape by the Italian government. The real culprit in the affair was then-Prime Bettino Craxi (now deceased), leader of the Italian Socialists and a longtime friend of the PLO. He was the one to blame for letting Abbas slip; he was responsible for one of the worst bilateral crises in the history of Italian-American relations. Cossiga has his faults, but that’s not one of them.

Back at the Guardian’s Comment is Free, Alan Johnson offers a brilliant reading of the Caucasus crisis:

‘Finlandisation is back. During the cold war the term described those states which had a formal independence but existed in barely disguised servitude to Moscow. Finland, Jean-Francois Revel noted in his 1983 book, How Democracies Perish, “preserved the inviolability of its territory, what was left of it, and the right to live privately in a non-totalitarian society” but was forbidden to accept Marshall Plan aid, join the EEC or sign trade agreements with Europe. It took its orders from Moscow in foreign policy

This is the fate Putin (and some in the west) now seek to impose on Georgia. And now, as then, Russia hopes to impose Finlandisation by a mix of hard and soft power.

Hard power, needless to say, is offered by Russia’s military, though, as Stuart Koehl explained at the Weekly Standard, there’s more than meets the eye.

Soft power is supplied, just like during the Soviet era, by “useful idiots” intent on defending Russia’s mischief in the name of a number of seemingly benign causes - peace, justice, dignity and so on.

Johnson has one particular such apologist in mind - Seumas Milne, the former comment editor of the Guardian (and currently a regular Guardian columnist) for writing one such apology for Russian adventurism. One must give Milne credit for being coherent and consistent in his writing, at least. It is tempting to say that his apology is genuine, the fruit of his devotion to defending anyone who hates America and the Western way of life. He is not just defending Russia - something that may have to do with his nostalgia for Communism. He is intent on advocating an alternative world order that will ‘resist’ not just American hegemony as he sees it, but also the spread of global capitalism and free market economy. Which is why Milne seamlessly moves from defending Russia’s aggressive imperialism, to a defense of Iran’s regime, to an impassioned paean for Hugo Chavez’ “left-wing nationalism,” and support for Hamas.

Throughout these arguments there is a common thread that unites the seemingly different players: of Chavez, Milne said that

his oil-rich government has not only spearheaded a challenge to US domination and free-market dogma that has swept through the continent. It has also led the first serious attempt since the collapse of the Soviet Union to create a social alternative to the neoliberal uniformity imposed across the globe.

Of Iran:

Iran and its allies now offer the only effective challenge to US domination of the Middle East and its resources. It’s hardly surprising that the US is alarmed by the increased influence of an avowedly anti-imperialist state sitting astride a sea of oil, now making common cause with other radical, independent regimes in Latin America.

In his defense (or eulogy?!) of communism Milne hopes for a comeback much in the same vein:

With the new imperialism now being resisted in both the Muslim world and Latin America, growing international demands for social justice and ever greater doubts about whether the environmental crisis can be solved within the existing economic system, the pressure for political and social alternatives will increase.

And as for Hamas, oh well, they are the “resistance.” Need one say more?

So let’s get back to Georgia - yet another US puppet for Milne, who dubs the country (and much of the EU as well) “former Soviet territory” in order to explain that Russia is just breaking the capitalist pro-American encirclement to reclaim its own:

Over the past decade, Nato’s relentless eastward expansion has brought the western military alliance hard up against Russia’s borders and deep into former Soviet territory. American military bases have spread across eastern Europe and central Asia, as the US has helped install one anti-Russian client government after another through a series of colour-coded revolutions. Now the Bush administration is preparing to site a missile defence system in eastern Europe transparently targeted at Russia.

Anyone who understands anything about military matters would know that ten interceptors in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic are anything but “transparently targeted at Russia” and its several thousands nuclear warheads. The only transparent thing about this sentence is how faithful it is to the original found in the Russian. But what comes next is even worse:

As long as Georgia proper’s independence is respected - best protected by opting for neutrality - that should be no bad thing. Unipolar domination of the world has squeezed the space for genuine self-determination and the return of some counterweight has to be welcome.

That is what unites Venezuela, Iran, Russia and Hamas - or Hezbollah, China, and Zimbabwe - they could become, at least in Milne’s aspirations, an effective counterweight to the West.

It is not clear how forcing neutrality on Georgia - as Johnson aptly noted, Finlandization is exactly what Milne seems to have in mind - squares with Georgian self-determination. What if the Georgians want to be part of NATO, friends of the Americans, and offer their territory to bypass the Russian stranglehold on energy supplies from Central Asia to Europe? It is clear that Milne, like others, willingly offers himself to be the mouthpiece of any radical, crazy, authoritarian, violent, extremist, brutal and ruthless dictator or terrorist, as long as their brutality is directed at the West and their friends. Not only is Finlandization back, as Johnson writes, but also Lenin’s “useful idiots.”

The shamelessness of the UN is no secret, but even its bureaucrats should have the good sense not to get caught on camera. Click here to view UNIFIL’s peacekeepers saluting the passing coffins of Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorists returned to Beirut as part of the prisoner swap with Israel. Notice they seem also to be saluting the image of virgin-bound Imad Mughniya - the mastermind of the U.S. Marines barracks suicide bombing that cost the lives of 241 soldiers in 1983.

If we needed confirmation that UNFIL’s implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 is worse than ineffective, we now have it. The only questions left are: how long until the next war? And will peacekeepers clear the way for the advancing armies or will they provide, as in the past, cover and excuses for the people they are now saluting?

Back at the Guardian’s comment is free, Inayat Bunglawala writes the usual “in defense of Iran” piece. This he does cleverly, insinuating that we should be skeptical about all this Iran talk and focus instead on the “real” threat:

The one thing I do know, however, is that over the years a number of our UK-based newspapers have been more than willing to play up the threat of alleged Iranian weapons while downplaying the danger of the very real Israeli ones.

Clearly, Bunglawala must have missed an article by yet another journalist–the Guardian’s Ian Black–who on Thursday of last week wrote a news analysis headlined “Arabs fear fallout from nuclear conflict.” The main message was that ‘Nervous Arab states fear a war in the Gulf but a nuclear-armed Iran is an even greater concern.’ Clearly, in the Gulf the ‘danger of the very real’ Israeli bombs does not keep many people awake at night. It has not done so among any of the moderate regional powers who recognize, albeit grudgingly, that Israel as a status quo power has the bomb to deter its enemies, not to blow everyone up in the attempt to export Zionism to the Gulf. Iran, on the other hand, is a revolutionary power whose ambitions are to change the face of the region. The bomb would greatly enhance the country’s power to disrupt the existing order.

And one need not befriend spies to know that something is up in Iran. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s reports on Iran are a treasure trove of information about why we need to worry about Iran’s nuclear program, as the last report by IAEA Director General, Dr Mohammad El Baradei, shows very clearly and worryingly.

So why is Bunglawala writing this column, when the IAEA says such incriminating things? It is hard to figure, and we can only guess. One thing is known: Bunglawala is the assistant-secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, a Sunni Muslim organization with a long record of flirting with radicalism–more on the credentials of both MCB and Bunglawala can be found here, here, and here.

So perhaps it is what manages to unite Sunni and Shia radicals across their otherwise great sectarian divide, namely the hatred for Israel. After all, if there is anything to be learned from today’s sad headlines, it is that a Sunni pro-Western Lebanese prime minister has proclaimed today a national holiday to celebrate the release of a child murderer; that a “moderate” and “secular” Palestinian President has offered this “hero” his most heartfelt congratulations, while his fundamentalist Hamas nemesis, Gaza’s Prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, expressed similar joy. All rushing to celebrate, congratulate, applaud, and exalt a Shiite, Iranian-backed Hezbollah leader–Hassan Nasrallah. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

A few weeks before being elected Prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, then acting PM, gave an interview to Ha’aretz where he outlined his vision for Israel’s future under his premiership. In light of today’s exchange of child murderer Samir Kuntar for the bodies of two slain Israeli soldiers, two things stand out. Asked about whether a leader must “give a personal example to his nation,” he said “most definitely.”

Asked about what the future held for Israel, he added,

It will be a country with less external violence and more personal security. A country that is dealing more effectively with the social ills . . . It will be a country that is fun to live in.

How fun will it be tonight in Israel? and what example has Mr. Olmert set for his nation?

Just Journalism has released a report on the British news coverage of Israel’s 60th anniversary. Unsurprisingly, the report shows a marked bias against Israel, especially among the left-leaning media. The Guardian and the BBC for example had the biggest amount of coverage (the Guardian alone had eight op-eds on the subject) and the least friendly (66% of the Guardian coverage was negative, 27% was neutral and only 7% was positive). There are many important data and much insightful analysis in the report, and I recommend reading the entire thing.

Commenting on his support for the prisoner swap between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel’s minister for infrastructure, Benyamin Ben Eliezer, reportedly declared that “When I voted in favor, standing before my eyes was the suffering of the families . . . We want every mother to know that Israel will do its utmost in order to return her son when he is in the guard.” These are noble words, but one gets the impression that Minister Ben Eliezer, alongside his colleagues who supported the deal, focused too much on the families of Israel’s two prisoners in Lebanon (who are presumed dead) and forgot the family of a third prisoner, Gilad Shalit, who is most likely still alive and in Gaza. Will this deal make it easier for the Shalit family? Will it make it more likely for him to come home alive? Hard to fathom. As Bret Stephens says today in the Wall Street Journal,

But whatever happens, Israel has once again demonstrated to its enemies that their strategy of taking hostages works. Worse, it works even when those hostages are killed. If Regev and Goldwasser are dead, the situation of Cpl. Shalit - and any other Israeli who might be taken alive by Hezbollah or its ilk - becomes infinitely more precarious.

For this, Shalit and his family must thank Ben Eliezer and the Israeli government. Had the two Israeli soldiers been alive, this would have been an understandable dilemma - and a deal which would not necessarily jeopardise Shalit’s life. But as it may turn out, Israel capitulated for a bag of bones. It is the perfect recipe to get some more.

According to news reports, Israel is on the verge of finalizing a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah, the implementation of which is anticipated to take place next Wednesday. As Haaretz reports,

[o]ne possible obstacle to the cabinet’s approval is the terms of the current deal, which go against promises the state made to Arad’s family when it redeemed Elhanan Tenenbaum in 2004 - not to release Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar without also obtaining substantive information about Arad’s fate.

To keep its word to Arad’s family, this government now has three options:  the first would be to keep the promise and, in the wake of Hezbollah’s vague report on Arad’s fate, call the whole thing off. The second would be to explain to the Arad family that the imperatives of state demand the return of Israel’s captive soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, dead or alive, even if the cost is breaking a promise made four years ago to the Arad family. Then of course, there is the third option - stick to the deal with Hezbollah and challenge the meaning of the word “substantive,” thereby pretending that this government kept all its commitments.

The first choice might consign Regev and Goldwasser - or their remains - to the same fate of Arad. The second choice would give those two families a peace of mind which this very same act might forever deny to the Arad family. And the third course of action would be spin.

Which course of action do you think Olmert will embrace? I suspect playing with words will be it.