<img attachment="ap_iran_women_vote_election_210_eng_17jun051.jpg" align="left" class="frame">The State Department recently said that it <iq>was concerned about the reports on a special clothing rule for Iranian minorities</iq>. This was in reference to a recent report in the Canadian National Post about a new law proposed by the <iq>conservative-dominated parliament</iq> in Iran. The Post, seemingly lacking either an Arabic translator, journalistic ethics or both, made up the details of the story from whole cloth. The law would require: <bq style="margin-left: 240px">Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews...to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.</bq> The State Department, not missing a chance to capitalize on a single-source story published without the benefit of fact-checking, seized the opportunity to escalate the Iran situation to code "vegetarian painter": This law carries <iq>clear echoes of Germany under Hitler.</iq> Saddam was Hitler. Ahmadinejad is Hitler. Only a fool or a communist would fail to connect the dots that lead to an air campaign. For those interested in a more moderated---and perhaps more moral---approach, there's the article <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060519.wdressco0519/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home" source="Globe and Mail">Iran debates dress code for women</a>. It turns out that the law described in such detail by the National Post doesn't exist and is supposed to have been inspired by another law recently proposed to: <bq>...discourage women from wearing Western clothing, increase taxes on imported clothes and fund an advertising campaign to encourage citizens to wear Islamic-style garments.</bq> While it's a relief to hear that Iran is not discriminating against religious minorities---in fact, <iq>[t]he minorities in Iran are completely free and are represented in the Iranian parliament</iq>---telling women which clothes to wear is touchy territory. Whereas a country is free to educate it's citizens to decrease cultural deterioration, anything that comes anywhere near <i>enforcement</i> of dress codes for women is not to be tolerated. Though Iran doesn't have strict Sharia law, they do have enough provisions against women: <bq>Iran's Islamic law imposes tight restrictions on women. They need a male guardian's permission to work or travel. They are not allowed to become judges, and a man's court testimony is considered twice as important as a woman's.</bq> Though the proposed law comes dressed in language that makes it sound like it's routine cultural protection, it's likely a step backward for Iran's women. What's interesting is that further oppression against women wasn't seen as enough of a "hook": a historical oppression of half of its population---women---was changed to oppression of tiny minorities---and of those, it's reasonable to assume it was oppression against Jews, not Zoroastrians, that struck a chord---and already the tanks are rolling. US concern for women's rights abroad is legendary, as evidenced by it's staunch support for other strict Islamic autocracies, like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the Sudan. Compared to women in these nations, <iq>Iranian women have more rights ... [t]hey can drive, vote and run for office.</iq> So the nations that give women no rights are staunch allies whereas the one considering relatively minor restrictions are compared to Hitler. As the propganda machine shifts into ever higher gears, the US war agenda couldn't be more transparent.