Fireworks at Opening of UN General Assembly

The United Nations General Assembly opened in New York Wednesday with eye-opening speeches from leaders of three of the world's most controversial nations. United States president Barack Obama set the meeting abuzz with his first speech to the UN.

The governing body made of 192 nations is likely to be one of Obama's largest focuses in dealing with the numerous foreign policy challenges he and his administration face. He also faces a daunting task in regaining the trust of the body after it was largely undermined under recent US presidencies, including George W. Bush's administration, which sidestepped the UN and its advice when it invaded Iraq in March 2003.

Obama's standout talking point was when he pitched the Assembly on a different America under his presidency. "We have re-engaged the United Nations," he said, going on to lay out the importance of working together, as well as the policy changes he has already implemented nine months into his first year as president.

He also called out nations, though not by name, that he said have showed "reflexive anti-Americanism" in dealing with some of the more serious issues brought to the Assembly in recent years.

This proved to be a fitting starting point for two speakers who followed Obama: Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi, who spoke directly after Obama, and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Gadhafi (at left) made his first appearance at the annual meeting forty years into his reign as leader of Libya, but also as president of the African Union, which has been pressured recently to take control of several crises across the African continent.

He was allotted 15 minutes to speak, but went for 90 in a speech that urged the Security Council to adopt an African seat, but also strayed to hit on subjects ranging from the Taliban, to Iraq, an Israeli-Palestinian state, and the H1N1 virus. He also at one point said the Security Council should be renamed the "Terror Council" because of the power the veto nations have over the Council. He also tore up paper he represented as the UN Charter, which drew criticism from other leaders, including UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Despite his wide-ranging criticisms of the western world's "agenda" and his displeasure with the UN bodies in general, he did offer a glimmer of approval for Obama when he said he wished the new president would have a lengthy presidency.

Possibly the most important speech of the day, however, was made by Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his first major speech to the UN and first on US soil since his controversial election in June.

Ahmadinejad defended his presidency and called the election, rocked by massive protests after allegations of fraud, an homage to the people and "fully democratic." In classic Ahmadinejad fashion, he also delivered backhanded attacks on Israel and the United States, eventually prompting walkouts by several western diplomats, including a handful from the US and Canada.

The Security Council did break ground in dealing with one of its long-standing issues: dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. The five nations with veto power - China, Russia, Britain, France, and the United States, with Germany also signing on - issued a statement threatening further sanctions should Iran not cooperate in talks regarding its nuclear program, the two former being important because of their prior reluctance to take a major stance on Iran's nuclear ambitions because of trade agreements.

The nations set an October 1 meeting deadline by which Iran can decide whether or not to attend a meeting to begin negotiations regarding its nuclear program. UK Foreign Minister David Miliband read the statement, threatening harsh sanctions should Iran not comply. Ahmadinejad has acknowledged he will consider letting his nuclear scientists meet with western scientists to discuss the state's nuclear situation.

While the meeting's importance has diminished in recent years and been mostly a place for disgruntled leaders to voice their opinions or other leaders to push their agendas, Wednesday's meeting laid out many of the glaring problems facing the UN both internally and on the international scale.

It also sets quite the stage for Thursday and Friday's G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, where the organization will again meet to tackle the issues facing the global economy and financial institutions.

The two meetings are major steps in the Obama Administration's intent to improve foreign relations and to better coordinate on a global level with other nations to attack the global economic crisis as well as Afghanistan, Iraq, and other flash-point areas such as Somalia and Myanmar, where organized multi-national efforts are either under way or being discussed to stabilize the respective state governments.

Why Iran's Election Gives Israel The Nuclear Upper Hand

The United States has for years been both a mediator and flash point for international conflict, especially in the Middle East. Now, it could be stuck between two bitter enemies' nuclear posturing. It appears that Israel could be using the United States as leverage in its war of words with Iran, which could all be led back to US-Israeli relations and a dubious Iran election.

The smoldering conflict between Israel and Iran over both nations' nuclear programs was stoked Monday when Israel's Defense Minister (at right) said that "no option should be removed from the table" regarding his nation's stance on engaging a nuclear Iran. He did, however, concede that diplomatic steps would be ideal and the first option in addressing Iran's actions in its nuclear development, which Israel says is a grave threat.

The remarks came on the visit of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Israel in order to help work towards a more peaceful Middle East and just a day after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Iran's nuclear ambitions "futile."

Tensions between Israel and Iran have escalated in recent years as Israel, thought throughout the international system to possess a nuclear weapon, has repeatedly drawn (and returned) threats from Iran, which says its nuclear program is purely for energy purposes. However, many nations believe Iran has goals of producing a nuclear weapon.

In 2005 at a conference in Asia called World Without Zionism, Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "disgraceful stain" that "must be wiped off the map," according to a translation published by the New York Times. And this past April, Ahmadinejad triggered a walkout by UN members at a racism conference where he disputed the Holocaust.

Earlier this month, Israel sent two missile-capable war ships and a submarine through the Suez Canal as a posturing statement to Iran that it had the capability to reach the nation with its weaponry if needed.

The United States has a decades-long partnership with Israel, which has included supplying its military with weapons, which some say may extend to the nuclear category. The partnership has helped Israel remain strong in a region dominated by Muslims and strife with animosity towards the Zionist state.

That partnership had become somewhat strained within the past year as US President Barack Obama repeatedly called for dialogue with Iran regarding its nuclear program. Israel wanted its strongest ally to have no part in talks with its most bitter enemy. And in a roundabout way, Israel appears to have gotten its wish.

June 12 brought elections to Iran, which in turn brought massive waves of turmoil to the nation when widespread rumors of vote rigging led to major uprisings by Ahmadinejad's opposition supporters. A massive crackdown, including possible human rights violations, quickly soured what appeared to be a relationship between the US and Iran that could have at the very least led to the first conversation between the two nations in years. Only a week later, Iran's longtime nuclear chief stepped down from office.

With a possibly corrupt government seated in Iran, the last thing the United States would want to do is engage in talks with the Iranian government, not wanting to legitimise the government if the election were in fact rigged. It appears as though Israel noticed this, and has seized the opportunity to nuzzle up to its powerful western ally.

The United States is now in a tough spot as Israel pushes the envelope for a firm stance against Iran and its nuclear program. The US wants to ensure that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon with its nuclear program, but does not want to anger other Middle Eastern nations it has been working to rebuild relationships with after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It also wants to leave the door open the tiniest bit for a possibility of future talks with Iran, which now appear to not be coming any time soon. And at the same time, it does not want to alienate its strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel, by refuting that nation's stance on Iran.

Israel appears to know it has some wiggle room to push the envelope with the new US administration in addressing Iran, and looks to be acting swiftly, knowing that wiggle room could soon be reduced to naught. The rest of the week should be fairly telling as to how far Israel's own new government will go on the subject, as two major US advisers will be in Israel later this week.

It looks as though Israel will continue its stern offense in dealing with Iran, which is likely to issue a similarly strong response, and that the United States will again be searching for a safe spot in between.

And So The Adage Goes...

There is an American saying that goes something along the lines of: "If you keep telling yourself something, soon enough, you're going to believe it."

It appears as though the Iranian government has picked up on it.

Its latest scheme in attempting to legitimize itself has done anything but. In fact, to nearly every outside nation, it must seem almost as if the Iranian government is yelling out to the rest of the world that it is both illegitimate and very afraid.

In the week or so that followed the June 12 election, one could not necessarily discern as to whether President Ahmadinejad had been fairly elected or not. Sure, things looked a bit dodgy as waves of green flowed through the streets of Tehran emitting a voice that pleaded with the outside world to pay attention to what it called a fixed election. But still, there was no solid proof that any wrongdoing had been afoot.

But the protests grew larger, and the world upped the sound level of the opposition supporters to hear their deafening roar at full volume. That is, until the Iranian government hit the mute button and began to feed in its own voice to the world's ears.

Journalists were banned from the streets. Most foreigners were expelled from the country. The internet was shut down and mobile texting restricted. People were arrested if they were thought to have a whiff of rebellion about them or a grain of stone residue on their fingers. They were shot and beaten, and forbidden to assemble lest they risk the aforementioned…or worse.

A gag order to the utmost extent.

So with the voice of the opposition quelled, the government was free to speak. And at today's weekly prayer service, it did. The Guardian Council, the team of senior officials who presided over the so-called investigation into the presidential election, claimed "the reviews showed that the election was the healthiest since the revolution [of 1979]," and that "there were no major violations," something that has already reportedly been proven wrong.

Then, senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami (at right) blamed foreign journalists for instigating the protests, and asked the government to "strongly and cruelly" punish the co-conspirators of the protests, the United States and Israel.

Not that Iran had any sort of prior opinion on the United States and Israel.

Even more, in an interview with CNN, Iran's Ambassador to Mexico claimed that the death of Neda, who has become the face of the Iran protests after her death was witnessed by millions across the globe, was perpetrated by the CIA or terrorists.

And to top things off, Khatami said during the same prayer service today that the protesters were "at war with God" ("moharem" in Persian), and that they should be punished cruelly and without mercy. And under Islamic law, the punishment for moharem?

Death.

The usual reaction for one who has been pushed into a corner by fear is to fight to the last gasping breath; to spout off accusations against the enemy in a last-ditch effort to be heard - which appears to be exactly what Iran's government is doing. The international community is strengthening its stance against the government in wake of the human rights violations that have been both reported and witnessed in the past weeks.

Sure, there is a possibility that Ahmadinejad did win the elections. But even if that were true, the actions of the government towards its opposition, as well as the international community, has no one believing the stories for a moment.

So to the government of Iran: go ahead and keep telling yourself that whatever you say is true, because soon enough you'll believe it.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely anyone else will.

In Iran, Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is, in his mind, playing his cards exactly right.

He has largely managed to keep himself out of the limelight amidst the turmoil in Iran, letting others do the talking for him. His most important mouthpiece and supporter has been Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has been an outspoken critic of protesters and staunch supporter of the election results since they were first announced more than a week ago.

When Ahmadinejad addressed his supporters last week, he blasted protesters and purported their actions as a laughable attempt to legitimize themselves and the politicians they supported. On Friday, Khamenei acted similarly. Two men who have used their mouths to express their satisfaction with the election that gave Ahmadinejad another term. Yet two men who are under ever-increasing scrutiny for being tight-lipped about an election that looks more and more like it was indeed rigged.

For Khamenei, democracy is a loose word. After all, he, as Supreme Leader of Iran, is the actual ruler of the nation. As Supreme Leader, he is the figurative Pope - the nation's divine governmental connection to Allah. And while he will hear appeals for a new vote, and even concede a "recount", he really has all the wiggle room he wants. His word is Allah's in a nation that is 98 percent Muslim. There is only one check of his power: Iran's Assembly of Experts.

Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is the head of the Assembly of Experts, and the only man in Iran who can convince the Assembly to select or de-seat a Supreme Leader. He is also an ex-two term President and speaker of Parliament, as well as an outspoken critic of both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, who defeated him in a runoff in the 2005 presidential election.

Late last week, Khamenei ordered five members of Rafsanjani's family arrested. He threatened "revolutionary" protesters with force from the Basij militia and Revolutionary Guard, and had other people with political ties to chief opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi arrested, including several members of his election staff.

Meanwhile, Iran's own government-run press outlet, Press TV, reported election discrepancies in at least 50 cities where more than 100 percent turnout rate was recorded. Statements said up to 3 million votes could be false or misrepresented, which still would not alter election results in any major fashion. But it seems as though those 3 million could just be the tip of the iceberg. After all, when the government-controlled press is reporting major discrepancies, something is likely afoot.

Protesters continued to march in Tehran and other cities across Iran over the weekend, often times silently, "V" signs held high in the air. Yet the Basij, Revolutionary Guard, and riot Police still showed up in full force with electric batons and automatic rifles. It is estimated that at least 20 people have died and at least 100 have been injured during protests, most as a result of the harassment from these government-backing militias. A shocking video was posted on YouTube over the weekend of a young girl, called "Neda" who was reportedly shot and killed by Basij militia. Another report in the Wall Street Journal documented the story of a family who lost their only son, shot down on his way back from drama class in Tehran.

The dead have become icons to a culture who honors those killed in duty of their nation or religion, and the opposition supporters have made Neda and others martyrs of their revolution.

Shia Muslim culture mourns their dead on the third, seventh, and fortieth days since their passing. Tuesday is the third day since at least ten protesters were killed at the hands of the militia, and people are expected to once again gather to mourn. In the 1979 revolution, fortieth days often brought the largest conflicts. Mousavi has urged his supporters to honor the dead and keep their memories, as well as hopes for a fair election, alive.

The Guardian Council's return on the inquiry demanded by opposition leaders is expected sometime this week. However, one would be naive to believe there will be any change to the announced election results. If the election was rigged, there is no turning back now for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. They have already spoken, and their voices have resounded throughout the world's political and social arenas.

While protesters have struggled to gather to make their voices heard due to the crackdown on public gatherings in favor of the opposition, it is the actions of those oppressing their voices that speaks the loudest. With every round fired and every drop of blood shed, Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and their supporters who have lauded their own victory so hastily since June 12, dig themselves further into a hole of doubt.

And it will be the words that they have spoken forever engraved on their headstones should the actions of the people turn that hole into a political grave.

Twittering Iran Protests Could Revolutionize The Mindset Of A Generation

If you asked nearly any American under the age of 30 two weeks ago what they thought of Iran, it's unlikely you would have heard anything positive in response.

You might have heard about Iran's nuclear enrichment being a major threat to the security of the United States. Others probably would have told you about an ultra-conservative Muslim nation run by old men who hate everything America stands for. Some probably would have even brought terrorism into the conversation.

Few would have mentioned anything about a democratic process. Not many would have brought up a world-class scientific community whose universities breed some of the best math and science minds of anywhere in the world. And it's very likely that none would have brought up the fact that 70 percent of Iran's population was under the age of 30.

But after protests that have swept the country and galvanized a nation in one of its first showings of outright emotion for the world to see, those opinions could soon change. (PHOTO: BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images)

I am 21 years old; born in 1988, nine years after the topple of Iran's western-supported government in favor of an Islamic Republic, and at the end of a brutal war with Iraq in which it is estimated between 500,000 and 1 million people lost their lives.

By the time I was old enough to realize the world outside of my immediate sight, all I knew of the Middle East was Saddam Hussein's failed attempt to invade Kuwait, civil war in Afghanistan, and whatever George Clooney and Marky Mark showed me in "Three Kings."

Then came George W. Bush, who proclaimed Iran as part of the so-called "Axis of Evil", hellbent to destroy America and its allies because "they hate our freedom."

But after witnessing the outpouring support for presidential reform candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi in the days leading up to last Friday's election, and more importantly, the reaction to the announced results by the candidates' supporters, it is clear to me that these people "hating our freedom" could not be further from the truth.

The truth is, they envy our freedom. They crave it. They are willing to die for it.

Democracy is by no means the only nor is it the best form of government, nor should it be imposed on any nation, but it is what Iranians were supposed to be partaking in Friday. Democracy means a presidential election by the people, for the people. Americans had the Bush/Gore vote controversy of 2000, but where were the hundreds of thousands of Gore supporters marching on the National Mall in Washington D.C., demanding a recount? They weren't. No Americans were incensed enough to make a statement that their vote did not reflect the will of the majority.

After standing Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won Friday's election with a near-unfathomable 63 percent of the vote, another controversy ensued. Mousavi's supporters felt Ahmadinejad had cheated; that he had stripped them of their dearest rights in a nation still strife with social inequality: the right to vote in a fair election. The right to manifest their voice in a physical presence. The right to democracy. And the right to a reformed Islamic movement that reflected the progressive mindset of hundreds of thousands of voters across the nation.

After the news broke, Iran's government acted quickly to shut down foreign news channels, mobile text messaging, and social networking sites. But Twitter remained, and it has been that 70 percent, many of whom are Mousavi supporters, who have taken to the Internet to make sure their voices are not silenced again.

The hashtag #iranelection has been flooded with "tweets" from Iranians in Tehran and other cities as protesters gathered in masses to voice their dissatisfaction with what they call a rigged election. A steady mass of updates regarding meetings, protest sites, photos, and video from those Iranians has combined with a "Twittersphere" of other users worldwide to establish a go-to place for accurate, real-time news on developments in Iran. Worldwide, the Twitter community denounced American news channels for a lack of coverage, indicting CNN with the hashtag #cnnfail.

It appears as though the Twitter community has learned from its mistakes in reporting the Mumbai terrorist attacks of November 2008, when rumors ran rampant and false information spread like wildfire. A community of fact-checkers and a demand that information be sourced has kept the information coming in on Twitter on point and up-to-date.

But perhaps the most important facet of the Twitter universe reporting the Iranian protests has been the cohesiveness of the community. From Tehran to Toronto, Hamadan to Hamburg, Sananda to San Francisco, people have connected and found commonality in humanity - sharing the stories not just of a group people adament to be heard, but of an emotion that transcends race, location, and culture.

Monday, people shared IP addresses to keep people in Iran online and reporting. They shared videos with blogs like the Huffington Post, where a liveblog of events in Iran was constantly being updated with information via Twitter. And late Monday, after it became apparent the Iranian government was monitoring Twitter and possibly cracking down on those sending information to the outside world, people across the globe changed their location and time zone to Tehran in order to confuse authorities and keep those in Tehran safe from the government-supporting Basiji militia.

Some have been reluctant to call the massive protests in Iran a revolution. However, at least one revolution is already underway - a revolution of minds and viewpoints. A Pew study done in February indicated 65 percent of Twitter users were aged 18-34. It is that demographic that has become fluent in the language of the Internet and its possibilities, and it is largely that demographic that is stoking the fire of the Iranian Twitter Revolution.

Now, it could be that demographic, through experiences such as the Iranian protests, that sparks the dialogue that world leaders have failed to successfully engage in for so long.

And it could bring together a more understanding world of tomorrow.

Unrest And Uncertainty In Iran

Protesters have taken to the streets in Iran to voice their opinions that Friday's elections were rigged in favor of standing president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Many of the protesters are supporters of Ahmadinejad's largest competitor - former Iranian Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

The protesters claim the election results, which gave Ahamdinejad 62.63 percent of the vote and Mousavi only 33.75 percent, are highly tailored, or even reversed in value. An 85 percent turnout was reported, with many believing that Mousavi would win the election if such a number came out to vote.

Ahmadinejad's largest base of support comes from the rural and lower-class areas of Iran, where people champion his traditional, conservative style. But Mousavi was expected to win a vast majority of the younger vote in a nation where 70 percent of the population is under the age of 30.

Reports came in Friday of crackdowns on Mousavi supporters at the polls, as well as claims of arrests that barred voters from voting. Friday evening, Mousavi claimed victory after his poll-watchers reported an overwhelming response from voters in favor of the ex-Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, Ahmadinejad claimed victory just hours later, which were supported when numbers were released and backed up by a message from the Ministry of Interior.

Those numbers sparked outrage from opposition supporters, and those supporters appear to have a valid argument. Mousavi reportedly lost his home city of Tabriz, and Mehdi Kahroubi, another refrom candidate, lost his home state of Lorestan. Both seem highly unlikely according to voter analysis. But perhaps the most surprising number is Ahamdenijad's near 63 percent of the overall vote, which would make him the most popular president in Iran's history, another unlikely occurance.

Both Mousavi and Kharoubi have declared the election void and want the vote annulled by the Council of Guardians. Mousavi, who has reportedly been placed under house arrest, has also called on his supporters and other supporters of the opposition to continue protests peacefully. And while some protests have been peaceful, many have turned into clashes with police. In Tehran, protesters burned tires, garbage bins, and took to the street in opposition of the riot gear-clad police, who say they are "protecting the vote of the people." Police responded with heavy doses of pepper spray, billy clubs, and riot shields, according to sources in Tehran.

However, the so-called "vote of the people" could be anything but. Protesters are clearly outraged at the election results, but have not gone so far as to declare a revolution against the government. They say the protests are to reform the Islamic Revolution that has been a mainstay of Iranian politics for the last 30 years.

It is unclear what will come next. News out of the nation has been difficult to come by, as the government shut off mobile text messaging Friday, as well as nearly all social networking sites and international foreign news channels. Two Dutch reporters were ordered to be expelled from the country after they were arrested, and there are reports that all foreign media, including the BBC, were being kicked out. However, the social media site Twitter has avoided being blocked, and much of the news being reported is coming through via "tweets" from foreign correspondents and Iranian citizens.

Foreign governments, including the United States and several European Union members, have expressed their doubts with the legitimacy of the election results. This comes as a major blow to US president Barack Obama, whose hopes of engaging Iran in a political dialogue now seem to be slipping away. If he were to engage Iran's newly-elected government, he would lose a great deal of credibility by speaking with a government whose own credibility is now greatly in doubt.

There is speculation that the election results could spark a "Green Revolution", the color worn by Mousavi's supporters, in what some say could resemble the 1979 Islamic Revoultion that ousted the western-supported shah of Iran. That revolution was supported by a large student population, and the large number of youth supporters for Mousavi is drawing similar comparisons.

It seems as though much of what happens next will lie in Mousavi's hands. His supporters are extremely loyal to him, and though he has called for peaceful protests, a lack of real action on his behalf would likely lose him a great deal of support, and render him useless in Iran's future political arena. However, he must be careful in his actions, as the standing government obviously has a great deal of control over the nation. Word on Mousavi's next move could be coming late Sunday, as he is reported to be giving a speech in Tehran's Freedom Square.

Should Mousavi choose to act and continue to encourage protests while also pursuing actions diplomatically, there is a real possibility of revolution in Iran. If the allegations of vote doctoring are true, and the number of Mousavi and fellow opposition supporters are what they are reported to be, the will of those people could overcome the will of Ahmadenijad.