Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Iran conducts test run of Bushehr Nuclear plant

In addition to bringing the Bushehr plant online, Iran should also
concentrate more of it's military forces in the Bushehr/Kharg Island
region. Considering the outcome of the zionist elections and who is
running things over there now they may use this as an excuse to provoke
an attack. Not only does Iran need this plant as a source of
electricity, but what Iran chooses to do with it's nuclear material is
it's own business, especially in the face of aggression.
Peter Khan Zendran

Iran tests its first nuclear power plant
By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer Nasser Karimi, Associated
Press Writer
1 hr 22 mins ago

BUSHEHR, Iran – Iranian and Russian technicians are conducting a test
run of Iran's first nuclear power plant, officials said Wednesday, a
major step toward launching full operations at the facility, which has
long raised concerns in the U.S. and its allies over Iran's nuclear

At the same time, Iran claimed another advance in its nuclear program:
The number of centrifuges carrying out uranium enrichment had increased
to 6,000, the country's nuclear chief said — up from 5,000 in November.

His announcement was the latest defiance of United Nations' demands that
Tehran suspend its enrichment program because of fears it could be used
to produce material for a warhead. Iran denies it seeks to build a
nuclear bomb, saying its nuclear program aims only to generate

The power plant in the southern port city of Bushehr, built with Russian
help, is meant to be the first in a number of reactors for an energy
program. But the opening of the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor has
long been delayed by construction and supply glitches. The United States
for a time tried to dissuade Russia from helping the project.

It's unclear when the reactor could be switched on.

The tests, which began 10 days ago, "could take between four and seven
month," the nuclear chief, Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, told
reporters at Bushehr. It was not known how long after the tests the
reactor could start up.

The plant, which will run on enriched uranium imported from Russia, has
worried the West because the spent fuel could be turned into plutonium,
a potential material for nuclear warheads.

U.S. concerns over the reactor softened after Iran agreed to return
spent fuel to Russia to ensure Tehran does not reprocess it into
plutonium. Washington largely dropped its opposition to the project and
argued instead that the Russia fuel deal shows that Iran does not need
its own domestic uranium enrichment program. Russia's fuel deliveries to
Iran began in 2007.

Enrichment is a concern because while low-enriched uranium is used as
fuel for a reactor, higher-enriched uranium can be used to build a bomb.
In the enrichment process, uranium gas is pumped through a series of
centrifuges and spun at supersonic speeds to remove impurities.

Aghazadeh announced that 6,000 centrifuges were now operating at Iran's
enrichment facility in the town of Natanz. He said Iran hopes to install
over 50,000 centrifuges there over the next five years. "We are doing
what we need to do in Natanz on the basis of a specific time schedule,"
he told a press conference.

Iran says it intends to use the enriched uranium fuel in its first
domestically made nuclear power plant, in the town of Darkhovin, which
it wants to start operating in 2016. Aghazadeh said any delay in
enrichment will mean a delay in opening Darkhovin.

The tests at Bushehr are a computer run of the equipment to ensure there
are no malfunctions in the future when enriched uranium fuel is
introduced into the reactor. No electricity is produced during the

In the first stage of the test, technicians for the past 10 days have
been loading a "virtual fuel" into the reactor. The virtual fuel
consists of lead, which imitates the density of enriched uranium, said
Iranian nuclear spokesman Mohsen Shirazi.

Once the fuel is fully loaded, "we will check to see how the reactor
will operate," said Russian nuclear agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko, who
was inspecting the process. "This (test) is one of the major elements of
an extensive project," he said.

Kiriyenko said Bushehr witnessed "remarkable progress in recent months"
but that work remains to be done to "speed up the launching of the
site." The Russian-Iranian team was "approaching the final stage" before
the plant becomes operational, he said.

Aghazadeh, who was accompanying Kiriyenko, said the test was going well
and engineers told him they expected no problems.

"Today was one of the most important days for the Iranian nation,"
Aghazadeh said. "We are approaching full exploitation of this plant."

In Israel, Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said, "Iranians are
showing again that they are making progress in their nuclear race."

"This should be understood as very bad news for the whole of the
international community," Palmor said, calling for "immediate and very
determined steps in order to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear

The Bushehr reactor was meant to start up in 2008, and some 700 Iranian
engineers were trained in Russia over four years to operate the plant.

The Bushehr project dates backs to 1974, when Iran's U.S.-backed Shah
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi signed an agreement to build the reactor with the
German company Siemens. The company withdrew from the project after the
1979 Islamic revolution toppled the shah. In 1992, Iran signed an
agreement with Russia to complete the project and work began on it in

Russia says there is no evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons
and has joined China in weakening Western-backed sanctions in the U.N.
Security Council, arguing that punishing Tehran too harshly for its
nuclear activities would be counterproductive.

The U.N. Security Council has passed three sets of sanctions against
Iran over uranium enrichment and is considering further measures.


Associated Press Writer Matti Friedman contributed to this report from

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The
information contained in the AP News report may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written
authority of The Associated Press.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Reviewing "Mongol"

Recently I sat on a film review of sergei bodrov’s new film “Mongol” and was asked to sit on a review panel of it. Being billed as the untold story of Genghis Khan I expected it to be an accurate docudrama. Instead, I found it to be more similar to a modern day “eastern” as there were quite a few historical inaccuracies in this movie.
For those not familiar with the “eastern” genre think of the “western” genre, only replace the cowboys and indians with cossacks and khans and you got an “eastern” for you. The reason this genre is not well known in the west is because most “easterns” are confined to the realm of Opera and theatre, and few Russian films make to the west. Most disturbing about this film was I was invited to be on the panel when “Mongol” was being shown as a teaching tool at a university where some friends of mine were teaching, and I was asked to speak when one of the professors found out I was a descendant of Ogodei after I pointed out some of the mistakes to him, and some visitors from Kazakhstan, that was when they asked me to speak there.
Basically, what is not accurate are the dates and events in the life of Genghis Khan which are portrayed in the movie. The abduction of Borte took place in 1183 and her rescue in 1184, not 1186 as the movie states. Nor did the battle of Dalan Balzhut occur that year as the movie states, but in 1187. Other than the cause of that battle, some of the followers of Jamukha defecting to Temujin, the future Genghis Khan, and the fight scenes, the story of that battle is inaccurate. The aftermath of that battle in the film, where Temujin is taken as a prisoner, sold into slavery, is based on conjecture. While a gap in the life of Genghis Khan from 1187 to 1192 exists, what is known is that Temujin spent most of it as a vassal of Wang-Khan, the Keriat ruler, the exact details are not known and bodrov uses artistic liscence and conjecture here. Most obvious to those who know the history of Genghis Khan is that by 1186 it shows Genghis having no children, when in fact Ogodei, the third son of Genghis Khan and his heir, was born in 1186.
Another battle inaccuracy is showing the battle of Koyitan in the year 1196, when in fact it happened in the year 1201. They even get the cause of that battle and it’s events wrong. That battle was caused by Jamukha’s election as Gurkhan of the Mongols. Jamukha attacked Temujin, and both fought. Temujin’s victory was gained with the help of Shamans who created lightning, ensuring victory for Temujin. After the battle Temujin allowed Jamukha to escape, not like in the film where Jamukha is captured. Once again, bodrov uses artistic liscence to confuse the facts.
What bodrov is more focused on is giving the audience what they expect from any film about the Mongols. That is gratitous violence, primitive settings, and excellent background music, which Mongol delievers on. What bodrov does not go into is why the Mongol’s behaved the way they do, and overall his film is full of wasted potential and shows the same retardian behavior, ie that of people from eastern Europe who waste their talents and wrongly hold back and who are the same type of people who coined the terms “mongoloid” and “moron” to describe those in society they considered defective. Where bodrov could have written about how a people who were shunned by others and who had to fight for survival and acceptance, he instead gave us a modern day eastern. Overall, ”Mongol” is full of wasted potential.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

To my viewers from nigger racket brown university

Do you reall ythink I am stupid, or think I don't know when you are checking me out here or online elsewhere? Yes, I track all your visits and save them. I know what the fuck you are all about, your dirty secrets and the fucked up shit you pull. The more you mess with me, the more you hurt yourselves. I know about your meddling in World affairs, how you use threats, intimidation, promises, and spying on people. I also know your days are numbered and you got yours coming.
Peter Z

Sunday, February 08, 2009

Iran targeted by cfr

What many people do not realize is that Iran does not at this time have
the respources to become heavily involved in Afghanistan, Tajikstan, and
Pakistan to replace america or the EU. Furthermore, the cfr borrows
heavily on Chapter 8 of my first book, "Victimization of the Farsi,
Arab, Turanian, and Central and Western Asian Peoples" where I made
similar statements for the region back in 2003-4. That is the same book
I did time in 2004 for publishing and again in 2008 for putting 3 brown
pigs in the hospital when i went to retrieve the copy of that book from
the watson institute. If you doubt this the 3 cfr members who read that
book are tom biersteker, barry posen, and dick holbrooke, and we all
know what the last named is doing in that region.
Peter Khan Zendran

Iran and the Future of Afghanistan
Authors: Greg Bruno, Staff Writer
Lionel Beehner

Updated: February 6, 2009

Cross-Border Ties
Mutual Interests and Missed Opportunities
A Change in Tactic
The United States, Iran, and the Future of Afghanistan


In crafting a new approach to the war in Afghanistan, U.S. military and
political leaders say Iran-once dubbed a member of the "axis of evil" by
former President George W. Bush-could play a key role. Despite ongoing
concerns over Iran's nuclear program and allegations of arming militants
in the region, Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in the
region, says Washington and Iran could coalesce around stabilizing
Afghanistan. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
echoed the sentiment (PDF) in late January 2009. NATO partners, too,
have sought to include Iran in Afghan strategy decisions. German
lawmakers have called for the creation of a "contact group" of nations
to chart a new regional course. "Such an initiative, that would include
Iran, would benefit if it came to direct talks between Washington and
Tehran," Andreas Schockenhoff, vice chairman of Germany's Christian
Democratic Party, said in a statement reported by German media.

Yet bringing Iran into the fold, and judging Tehran's willingness to do
so, is complicated by Iran's historic relationship to its eastern
neighbor. For one, Iran is accused of supplying weapons to Taliban
rebels operating along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Allegations have
been tempered in recent months, but experts nonetheless see a number of
reasons why a strengthened Taliban would serve Iran's interests,
particularly in keeping U.S. forces off balance. "It is true that Iran
was helping the Taliban out," possibly by supplying weapons and
training, says Elizabeth Rubin, an Afghan expert. But, she adds, "in the
big picture the Iranians do not want the Taliban back."

Cross-Border Ties
Iran has close linguistic and cultural ties to Afghanistan, particularly
with Tajiks, Persian-speaking Afghans in Herat Province, and the Hazara,
a Shiite minority residing in central and northern Afghanistan. Iranian
influence in this region runs deep; the city of Herat served as the
capital of the Persian empire in the early fifteenth century, and
remained a center of Iranian power and culture until it was taken by
Dost Mohammed Khan in 1863 and made a de facto Afghan border state. In
modern times, Tehran's role has often aligned with U.S. interests. Iran
opened its borders to millions of Afghan refugees during the war against
the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Later in the 1990s it worked with various
mujahadeen groups, including the Northern Alliance of Tajik, Uzbek, and
Hazara militias, to undermine Soviet influence and later Taliban rule.
After the Taliban took power in 1996, Iran's supreme leader denounced
the group as an affront to Islam, and the killing of eleven Iranian
diplomats and truck drivers in 1998 almost triggered a military

A regional contact group “that would include Iran would benefit if it
came to direct talks between Washington and Tehran.” -- Andreas
Schockenhoff, Vice Chairman, German Christian Democratic Party
Iran's influence, however, has not always been welcomed by some local
Afghans. CFR Senior Fellow Ray Takeyh writes in his book, Hidden Iran:
Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, that "fiercely independent
Afghan tribes have historically resisted Persian encroachment and have
jealously guarded their rights." But Iranian cultural and economic
expansion continues apace. Iranian radio broadcasts fill the airwaves,
Iran-funded road and building projects are under way, a new teacher
training center is planned for Kabul, and a Herat-Khaf rail link
(Pajhwok) is being constructed to connect Afghanistan and Iran by train.
Iran has also offered humanitarian aid to Kabul in the form of fuel and
transport-as much as $500 million since 2001, according to the U.S.
Congressional Research Service. CFR's Rubin, who has spent years as a
journalist in Afghanistan, says Shiite Afghans are better off
financially than most of their counterparts because of aid from Tehran.

Mutual Interests and Missed Opportunities
Iran has important domestic interests in seeing a stable Afghanistan
rise on its eastern flank. Four percent of Iran's total exports in 2006
(PDF), according to the most recent data available, went to Afghanistan,
accounting for more than $503 million in revenue. Iran is also building
roads and expanding its industrial base inside Afghanistan's western
border. But arguably the most pressing concern for Iran is gaining the
upper hand in Afghanistan's booming drug trade. Iran serves as the major
transport hub for opiates produced by its neighbor, and the UN Office of
Drugs and Crime estimates that Iran has as many as 1.7 million opiate

Following the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September
11, 2001, Iran showed a willingness to facilitate U.S. efforts in
Afghanistan, including drug interdiction programs. Tehran worked with
Western countries as part of the Six-Plus-Two framework on Afghanistan
and also at the Bonn Conference to cobble together a post-Taliban system
of government. Tehran also normalized relations with the Afghan
government of President Hamid Karzai, and "deported hundreds" (National
Interest) of al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders who had sought refuge in Iran,
according to two senior U.S. officials involved in regional policy at
the time.

One of them, Hillary Mann Leverett, who served as director for Iran and
Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council in the George W.
Bush administration, told Congress in November 2007 that Iran's
cooperation with the United States on al-Qaeda, Iraq, and especially
Afghanistan after 9/11 was largely positive (PDF). In each case, she
said, "Iran hoped and anticipated that tactical cooperation with the
United States would lead to a genuine strategic opening between our two
countries." But by May 2003-sixteen months after Bush's "axis of evil"
declaration during his January 2002 State of the Union speech-channels
of communication with Iran had closed. Mann Leverett now believes failed
talks over the years have increased the mistrust between Washington and
Tehran to nearly unworkable levels. Discussing limited tactical issues
like Afghanistan, she says, must be part of a broader comprehensive
strategy where everything--from U.S. nuclear concerns to Iranian
frustration with security and sanctions--is on the table.

A Change in Tactic
Soured diplomatic relations were followed by claims of Iranian support
to Islamic militants, first in Iraq, and then in Afghanistan. Defense
Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in June 2007 that "given the
quantities that we're seeing, it is difficult to believe that it's
associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it's taking place
without the knowledge of the Iranian government." U.S. officials say
that Iranian-made weapons, including Tehran's signature roadside
bomb-the explosively formed penetrator (EFP)-as well as AK-47s, C-4
plastic explosives, and mortars have been found in Afghanistan and used
by Taliban-led insurgents. They are concerned because Taliban forces
increasingly use more sophisticated weaponry and mimic the style of
suicide attacks popular among insurgents in Iraq. Iran also stands
accused of offering sanctuary to opponents of the Afghan government and
violating Afghan airspace. Iranian officials deny the charges.

Experts say a strengthened Taliban would benefit Tehran in a number of
ways. Peter Tomsen, former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, told
in 2006 that a weakened Afghan state lessens the likelihood it can
become a U.S. ally against Iran. By maintaining a certain level of
instability, he said, "it keeps us tied down. After all, we have air
bases in Afghanistan where we could mount attacks on Iran." Some
analysts call it "managed chaos," a strategy they say is similar to the
one Iran employs in Iraq. Others see abetting the Taliban as a means to
boost Iran's leverage at a time when it is under pressure to end its
uranium-enrichment program. Despite Iran's Shiite brand of Islam, Tehran
has thrown its support behind majority Sunni groups in Iraq and
elsewhere. As Takeyh writes in his book, "[F]or Tehran the issue in
Afghanistan has not been ideological conformity but stability."

“If they can get to the moderates … then there is a lot of room for
cooperation, especially if it is not pitched as a U.S. plan but a
regional one.” -- Elizabeth Rubin, CFR Press Fellow
But experts disagree on whether the Iranian government is directly
involved. Some have refuted Gates' remarks and say the weapons could
have been smuggled into Afghanistan via various third-party channels.
Others suggest they are being supplied by hard-line components within
the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (the Mashhad-based Fourth Corps is
responsible for projecting Iranian power in Afghanistan (PDF)), which
has a separate agenda from the Iranian foreign ministry, which in turn
has a separate agenda from Iran's business community. "We're talking
about rogue elements," Col. Christopher Langton, a senior fellow at the
London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, told
in 2006, "maybe even cross-border organizational criminal groupings." He
said that arms factories in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province make
copies of the weapons made in Iran.

The United States, Iran, and the Future of Afghanistan
Suggestions persist that Iran might have a positive role to play in
stabilizing its war-ravaged neighbor, where in early 2009 violence was
spiking and Taliban fighters were gaining strength. U.S., NATO, and UN
officials have all noted Tehran's support of the government in Kabul. A
number of experts stress that Iran wants stability and prosperity on its
eastern doorstep for commercial and trade reasons. Yet Iranian actions
continue to raise doubts about Tehran's intent. The January 2009
deportation of Afghan refugees by Iran was just the latest in what
Afghan officials in Kabul see as a string of "broken promises" (RFE/RL).
An estimated 1 million UN-registered refugees remain in Iran. A U.S.
State Department spokesman, meanwhile, expressed "great concern" with
Iran's February 2009 launch of a satellite that he said "could possibly
lead to the development of a ballistic missile system."

More broadly, experts question whether the issue of Afghanistan can
serve as a bridge to broader negotiations for Washington and Tehran.
CFR's Rubin says there is a whole moderate wing of Iranian lawmakers
that hope it can: "If they can get to the moderates, and I believe the
Iranian ambassador in Afghanistan is one of the moderates, then there is
a lot of room for cooperation, especially if it is not pitched as a U.S.
plan but a regional one." Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, notes in an October 2008
policy paper (PDF) that "Afghanistan presents even more fertile ground
for U.S.-Iranian cooperation" than the issue of stability in Iraq. And
writing in The New York Review of Books, a trio of Iran experts suggests
the Obama administration should, unlike its predecessor, treat
negotiations over Afghanistan and Iraq border security--vital concerns
for Iran--as inseparable from the nuclear issue.

But cooperation over Afghanistan--not to mention the nuclear problem or
even Iraq--is far from a foregone conclusion. Barnett R. Rubin, an
Afghan expert and director of studies at New York University's Center
for International Cooperation, writes that reaching a consensus on
Afghanistan is colored by the historic "animus" between Washington and
Tehran, which began with the 1953 CIA-led coup in Iran and was cemented
by the Iranian revolution of 1979. Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations and a former envoy to Kabul, says that
Iran still sees Afghanistan as a "bargaining chip" (Bloomberg) against
American aggression. Masood Aziz, a former Afghan diplomat in
Washington, meanwhile, predicts that "Iran is going to be one of the key
pillars of our strategy which is going to help resolve this issue. Iran
has the potential to be extremely helpful." But he adds: "Discussions
and talks are one thing; how to go about implementing cooperation [with
Iran] is another."

Weigh in on this issue by emailing

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

See how zionists run scared and cause trouble

I just got this. Apparently because of community organizing the
zionists changed their venue. Notice it was to a location where the
shit u pigs are more able to concentrate. Check a map and see for
yourself. I know this because I was tackled by the 7 shit u pigs near
the new location, at the old location is where I put the 3 shit u pigs
in the hospital and forced them to call the city for backup, and the
zionists realize this. Remember folks, not to fear the pigs because of
their guns. Ever since the pigs at brown got their guns they have acted
out, but that did not stop me from sending 3 of them to the hospital.
Notice the security measures too.
Also I have included a piece about dick holbrooke's newest job position.
Him being sent to Afghanistan and Pakistan is BAD NEWS and every deal
offered to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran by america should be
Peter Khan Zendran

"Israel in a Changing Middle East," with Nadav Tamir, Consul General of
Israel to New England. Presented by the Watson Institute for
International Studies.

Location Change: Starr Auditorium, Room 117, MacMillan Hall, 167 Thayer

***Bags will not be allowed in the auditorium***

Nadav Tamir joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1993 and the
following year began to serve as the Policy Assistant to the Foreign
Minister. Nadav had the privilege to serve under 3 Foreign Ministers -
Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, and David Levy. He was then promoted to the
position of Political Officer at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C.
in 1997. In 2001, Nadav was granted the position of Advisor to the
Director General at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jerusalem.

In 2003, Nadav was chosen as a Wexner Israel Fellow and earned his
Masters in Public Administration from the Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University in 2004.

Prior to joining the Ministry, Nadav served as a security officer at the
Residence of the President of Israel, while simultaneously earning his
B.A. in Philosophy and Political Science from the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, from which he graduated Magna Cum Laude.

January 22, 2009 Richard Holbrooke ’62 LLD'97, a Brown professor at
large based at the Watson Institute, was named special envoy to
Afghanistan and Pakistan in a ceremony today at the State Department.
The former UN ambassador, who is widely credited as the chief architect
of the 1995 Dayton peace agreement ending the war in Bosnia, will be
charged with working for peace and stability in the troubled region.
"This is truly an international challenge of the highest order,"
President Barack Obama said, calling Holbrooke "one of the most talented
diplomats of his generation."

In a 2007 interview on Open Source internet radio, Holbrooke predicted
that “The next president of the United States is going to inherit the
worst opening-day hand in foreign policy in American history.”

Despite his assessment of the grim state of affairs, he urged students
to “get involved” in the world around them. “You’ve got to get engaged
and you mustn’t despair. It’s your opportunity to participate and I urge
you to do so… I do not despair for the country. I believe the people are
much better than the government,” he said during a major address at

Monday, February 02, 2009

One other piece of condemnation for watson/shit u

While it is good to see people organizing against injustice such as that perpetrated by zionism, people need to realize the evil perpetrated by watson/brown and organize against it. Sure it is good to see brown students and faculty speak out about zionism, but consider that brown does business with zionists and groups that support zionism, as well as with groups that profit from criminal acts. There are groups like NECDP and ISO, as well as people like myself, Jared Paul, etc who have put out info about such behaviors by brown. Don't go to school there, don't buy their merchandise, basically just don't do business with them, you are only feeding an entity which will lead you like a farmer feeds their animals, to ultimate destruction.
Peter Z

Respond to zionist pig at watson/shit u

Notice this is occuring when watson/brown have either removed people who oppose the zionist agenda or have intimidated those who oppose it into keeping quiet. The former include people like Bill Beeman and the latter include people like biersteker, lutz, and stallings who remain at watson but are intimidated into silence. As of today you can count the number of people there who oppose zionism openly, like Bill keach, can be counted on your fingers. Were it not for the court order barring me from attending the event I would be there in a heartbeat, however notice that when I was more active with watson zionist pigs liek this knew to stay away, now watson is just another mediocre zionist ass kisser.
Peter Z

Forwarded as a public service.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Emergency Action:

3:30 pm
Watson Institute, 111 Thayer Street

Hi everyone, some of us at Brown have just learned of a visit of the
Israeli Consul General to New England speaking at the Watson Institute
this Tuesday at 4 pm. At the bottom of this email I've copied the
announcement for his talk, which is entitled "Israel in a Changing
Middle East."

We're trying to pull together a quick but solid response, with two components:

1) We'll ask people to stand outside the talk between 3:30 and 4 or
4:15, with signs if you wish and distributing flyers (we're in the
process of producing these, but any fact sheets/ information for the
Feb 7 event, etc, people can bring would be great, too). We hope to
target not only people coming in to the talk, but also the rush of
students coming to 4pm classes.

2) We also hope to have a contingent of people inside the talk,
preferably arriving at an early enough time to fill up as many seats
as possible (Joukowsky is actually quite small, about 40 seats). We'd
like people inside to coordinate by wearing black, and potentially
silently holding up placards (not sure yet of what these will be, but
again, it would be great if they were coordinated) after the talk

We are having an organizing meeting tonight to work out some of the
specific logistics of this. Come if you can--6pm in the lobby of J
Walter Wilson (corner of Waterman and Brown)--from there we'll try to
find a classroom in JWW.

But in the meantime, please email if you
think you will be
available to be either outside or inside the event (or both). You can
also call me if you arrive at the meeting late, or for any other
reason--401 575 1782. We'd like to get some idea of how many people
we can anticipate, and plan accordingly.


"Israel in a Changing Middle East," with Nadav Tamir, Consul General
of Israel to New England. Presented by the Watson Institute for
International Studies.

Location: Joukowsky Forum, Watson Institute, 111 Thayer Street

Please note that seating is limited

Nadav Tamir joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1993 and the
following year began to serve as the Policy Assistant to the Foreign
Minister. Nadav had the privilege to serve under 3 Foreign Ministers -
Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, and David Levy. He was then promoted to the
position of Political Officer at the Israeli Embassy in Washington,
D.C. in 1997. In 2001, Nadav was granted the position of Advisor to
the Director General at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jerusalem.

In 2003, Nadav was chosen as a Wexner Israel Fellow and earned his
Masters in Public Administration from the Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University in 2004.

Prior to joining the Ministry, Nadav served as a security officer at
the Residence of the President of Israel, while simultaneously earning
his B.A. in Philosophy and Political Science from the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, from which he graduated Magna Cum Laude.