Bush presidency comes to an end. It brought unprecedented gains in oil conglomerates and finally defeated any hopes for peace in the Middle East to the Far approaches. News agencies can barely count the corpses of another collision or suicide and have long refused to explain who against whom and why shoot - Turkish army, the Israeli army, Pakistani police, police Myanmar, the Chinese army, Kurdish, Sunni, Shiite, army the Mahdi, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Taliban, Mujahideen, Pakistan's opposition, the opposition in Myanmar, Tibetan monks, Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, etc., etc. - from the eastern Mediterranean to leave Tibet bloodshed correspondents without reports and we headlines rather be "in the Middle East today nobody was killed," but I will not wait any longer.
The only islands of peace seem as always fictional "states" of the Gulf - heavenly realms of sheikhs, but lives in a small part of the Islamic community, but complete enough that a significant proportion of "community" of Bush. The other two islands however are Syria and Iran, which the White House hawks have long been raised at gunpoint. Leaving aside all other arguments - as spillage of Iraq could bring record profits of oil tycoons from the U.S. and Europe and the world's population tripling unquestioningly accepted and quadrupling the price of fuel and not five years, a possible "strike" against Iran seems sure step towards the day when we call gold "yellow oil".
Bush and his entourage will not attend the elections and virtually no inhibitions to defeat Iran. Aggression against Iran can be a wonderful parting gift from the "liberator of Baghdad" to Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, BP, Shell and Royal Dach smaller petropiratcheta. A gift that will further shift the balance of money and control five percent to the richest and hopeless would push the ninety-five percent of the hopes for a life without fierce uncertainty for daily bread.
Next year, however, America will have a new president. It is logical that many people expected that this scenario does not suit them (and we can just say "people" with enough statistical approximation), are associated with the name of Barack Obama - the only candidate from the preliminary competition, which voted against the war in Iraq . These expectations have recently expressed in an open letter to Obama group known and established American scholars, journalists, writers and activists. Among the motley group of signatories see the names of Professor Noam Chomsky, Michael Albert of ZNet, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Father David Whitten Smith, professors from different universities and colleges in the U.S. veteran intelligence specialists in the Middle East, representatives of organizations for peace, research the Holocaust and many others.
"We are deeply concerned about the materials that appear in the press over the past few weeks suggesting that the Bush administration to take military attack against Iran and that this might give the green light to such an attack by Israel or other hostilities as imposing a blockade on Iran.
We welcome your item sreshtiu war with Iraq in 2002. We are also hopeful of your earlier statements, the emphasis on diplomacy rather than military action against Iran. Today you have the opportunity to prevent a repetition of the tragic war in Iraq. We hope that you will use this case "the letter said.
This letter is not simply appeal to "anti-war" Senator Obama. Now a presidential candidate, Obama said in May that "thanks to the policies of George Bush, Iran is the biggest threat to the United States, Israel and the Middle East for a generation" and continued with an ambiguous conclusion that Iran is not so greater threat as the Soviet Union during the Cold War.