Haltation of this blog

Due to VERY diverse reasons this blog has not been updated. But most of these factors godwilling are clearing themselves up. So stay tuned for revival in the next few weeks.

Iran's nuclear complex (click to view)

Government forces kill six in north-west Iran riots

Orumieh, Iran, May 26 – At least six anti-government protestors were killed by security forces during clashes late Thursday in the north-western town of Naqadeh, according to dissidents.

Source

More on Tehran unrest

Translation:

Authorities; pseudo-students were arrested

Students; security forces has occupied the campus

Source

Protests at Tehran universities

BBC reports

Senior staff have been replaced at Tehran University
Up to 40 Iranian police officers have been injured in clashes with demonstrating students in Tehran.
Students were demonstrating about the appointment of a new college head at Tehran University and the forced retirement of some professors.

There were also protests at Tehran's Amirkabir University about activities of the hardline Basij militia.

The militia had "interfered in elections" for the Islamic Students Association, a pro-reform group.

Iran's student news agency INSA said protestors shouted "Death to reactionaries and dictatorship!" and "We don't want the Islam of the Taleban".

Amirkabir University is one of Iran's most prestigious technical colleges and research centres.


Source


These brave souls have the blood of Cyrus and the characteristics of Rostam upon their faces. In any other totalitarian regime this would end in “Rose Revolution” or the “Orange Revolution” the barbaric Islamic Republic knows no boundaries and knows no shame. Our prayers are with the students and their families. -Joseph

All aboard!

By: Joseph Salomonsen

Germany and China agreed Iran shouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said today in Beijing after meeting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. ``We talked about Iran and agreed Iran should not have the capability to make nuclear weapons and shouldn't proliferate weapons of mass destruction,'' Merkel, said in a briefing in the Great Hall of the People. Thank heavens China seems to be more on board now, only Russia remains. And only if for Russia's SC veto right we should have them on board. Here a few of my suggestions for the US to use as diplomatic tools.

• Assure President Putin US won’t meddle in his internal affairs: meaning not to
criticize Russia on three major points.

1- The Chechnya situation

2- The Russian election system

3- Russian media ownership

• Assure Russia, US wont support the dissident
oligarchs

• Assure Russia greater economic ties as in WTO

• AssureRussia will act as a major player in a free Iran

• And last not least Assure Russia it will be and perhaps is a power to reckon with and that the US is not in competition with but rather as a partner and a major player in the region.

I think with those points President Putin's main concerns would be addressed and hopefully jump aboard.

Murderer hanged in public in Iran

What is new with these new breed of savages is that they delight in violence. I mean look the excecutioners face, he loves it, he even loves the instrument of death (the rope). Its from these kind of monsters Iran needs to be freed from. -joseph


May 23, 2006
AFP
Yahoo News!


TEHRAN -- An Iranian man convicted of murder has been hanged in public in the southern town of Jahrom, a press report said. The man identified as Mehdi, 33, was hanged on Monday at an intersection in Jahrom, Fars province, while 4,000 people gathered to watch the execution, the Iran newspaper said.

The hangings bring to at least 52 the number of people executed in Iran so far in 2006, according to an AFP tally based on press reports and witnesses.

Capital offences in the Islamic republic include murder, rape, armed robbery, apostasy, blasphemy, serious drug trafficking, repeated sodomy, adultery or prostitution, and treason and espionage.

Source

Tehran stock exchange drops

Iranian government officials have told foreign consultants that about $200 billion has flowed out of Iran to overseas money centers such as Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. The Iranian stock exchange has dropped 7.5 percent this year, on top of double-digit declines last year, despite the tremendous inflow of money from oil sales. Every other stock exchange in the region has risen sharply.

Source

U.S. Moves to Weaken Iran

This is allo dandy and well times but my only concern is that I hope they have not hired a staff of appeasers and wannabe iran experts. I wished it was headed by Michael Ladeen and included more Iranian expatriots. - Joseph


May 19, 2006
Los Angeles Times
Laura Rozen

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, shunning pressure from allies for direct dialogue with Iran, is shifting toward a more confrontational stance and intensifying efforts to undercut the country's ruling clerics.

U.S. officials have taken a series of steps to increase pressure on Iran, most recently creating new offices in the State Department and Pentagon specifically to bolster opposition to the Tehran government. In February, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Congress for $75 million to supplement $10 million in funds to promote democracy, aid Iranian dissidents and expand the Voice of America's Persian-language broadcasts beamed across the Persian Gulf from Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates.

"We are more out of sync now with Iran than at any time since 1979," said a State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I don't think the time is right now for a dialogue. We seem to be moving closer toward a confrontational stance, versus a compromise stance."

Although some observers note similarities in the Iran policy to the stance on Iraq in the lead-up to the war in that nation, officials emphasize that this time around, State Department diplomats rather than Pentagon war planners are in charge. Still, the campaign illustrates the administration's hostility toward Iran's rulers and raises the question of whether its ultimate goal is to curb Iran's nuclear program or change the regime.

"The administration is trying to make regime change through democratization the policy, instead of making confrontation by military means the policy," said Trita Parsi, a Middle East specialist at Johns Hopkins University who advocates direct U.S. talks with Tehran.

The administration's efforts are taking shape on the second floor of the State Department, where a new Office of Iranian Affairs has been charged with leading the push to back Iranian dissidents more aggressively, boost support to democracy broadcasters and strengthen ties with exiles.

Nearby at the Pentagon, an Iranian directorate will work with the State Department office to undercut the government in Tehran.

Rice and other officials have publicly advocated steps to pressure the Iranian government. But by setting up the new offices, staffs and programs, the administration is institutionalizing its long-held antipathy toward Iran's government.

The new offices are modest in size — the Pentagon's directorate began with six full-time staff members. But they can draw on expertise throughout the government, providing access to potentially hundreds of specialists.

The State Department's new Iranian Affairs office is headed by David Denehy, a longtime democracy specialist at the International Republican Institute, who will work under Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of the vice president.

Recently, Denehy and other officials went to Los Angeles for meetings with Iranian exiles and the Persian-language media. The purpose was to inform them of the government's plans, get feedback and — perhaps not a secondary consideration — create a buzz within the Iranian American diaspora and its satellite media outlets, which are beamed into Tehran.

Afterward, some Iranian Americans were left disappointed by their first look at the new campaign and by the fact that officials had not begun distributing money to exile groups.

"They came here — we didn't know why they came — asking: 'What do you think about Iran? Do you have any connections to people inside?' " recounted Zia Atabay, the founder of Los Angeles-based NITV, a Persian-language broadcaster. "We said, 'The reason you are here is you know we have a connection.' "

Assistance to dissidents in Iran is complicated by the Iranian regime's demonstrated brutality toward its critics — writers, bloggers, trade union members and human rights activists — much less anyone perceived to be receiving U.S. aid. For that reason, the State Department does not publicly disclose whom it funds.

Even private U.S. groups receiving money to support democracy efforts in Iran are reluctant to discuss their programs for fear they will put their Iranian partners in harm's way.

As much as $50 million of the funds requested will go to the Voice of America for Persian-language broadcasts. The State Department also is planning to send 15 foreign service officers to countries neighboring Iran and to capitals with large Iranian exile populations to serve as "Iran watchers."

At the Pentagon, the new Iranian directorate has been set up inside its policy shop, which previously housed the Office of Special Plans. The controversial intelligence analysis unit, established before the Iraq war, championed some of the claims of Ahmad Chalabi. A number of assertions made by the former Iraqi exile and onetime Pentagon favorite were later discredited.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable declined to name the acting director of the new Iran office and would say only that the appointee was a "career civil servant." Among those staffing or advising the Iranian directorate are three veterans of the Office of Special Plans: Abram N. Shulsky, its former director; John Trigilio, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst; and Ladan Archin, an Iran specialist.

Even if the chief U.S. goal is arresting Iran's nuclear program — and not overthrowing the government — the democratization effort could be a useful part of the strategy, some experts said.

"The State Department policy of isolating the regime diplomatically is the main policy so far," said Daniel Byman, a professor at Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and a former CIA analyst who also worked for the Sept. 11 commission.

"But there are all these different ways you could game this. Supporting opposition groups could also be a way of raising the stakes, in effect saying, 'Here's what we are going to do if you won't comply,' " he said.

The new focus also may be contradictory, Richard N. Haass, a State Department official during President Bush's first term and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said at a conference in Washington this month. .

"We are telling Iran, 'We want regime change, but while you're still here, we'd like to negotiate with you to stop your nuclear program,' " Haass said.

Source

Democrats Ask Bush for Iran Intel Update

Now when was it last that I agreed with the democrats? 1940s? Anyways its all so true, US clandestine intel on Iran is outdated at best if not totally irrelevant. Not to mention the human infil element breing lacking. - Joseph

May 19, 2006
The Associated Press
Yahoo News!

Senate Democrats, saying they want to "avoid repeating mistakes made in the run-up to the conflict in Iraq," sent President Bush a letter Friday urging him to direct the nation's intelligence agencies to prepare an updated National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.

"We must have objective intelligence untainted by political considerations or policy preferences and a comprehensive debate in the Congress about the best short and long-term approaches to resolving the international community's differences with Iran," the Democrats' letter said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, has accused Iran of failing to answer questions about its nuclear program. In late March, it reported Tehran to the Security Council and gave it one month to address the demands.

The Bush administration has been at the forefront in sounding a warning about Iran's nuclear abilities and potential ambitions.

The Democrats, while wary of a repeat of the Bush administration's warnings about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist, stressed in their letter that they, like the administration, are seriously concerned about Iran's intentions.

"An Iranian nuclear weapons program would be a significant threat to international peace and security," they wrote to Bush. "Iran's refusal to conclusively explain or halt its uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities and its acquisition of ballistic missiles, coupled with the troubling rhetoric of its president, presents serious challenges to security in the Middle East and requires the United States to energetically pursue a diplomatic solution.

"The international community must not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and Iran must know that it ultimately will not succeed in undermining international peace and stability," said the letter.

The letter was signed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin of Illinois, Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Armed Services Committee ranking member Carl Levin of Michigan and Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Joe Biden of Delaware.

Source

The Iranian Economy today

Source

Iran's economy struggling, sanctions or no

May 13, 2006
The Associated Press
Ali Akbar Dareini

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran increasingly finds itself in economic limbo as the international community debates how to respond to Tehran's refusal to stop enriching uranium. Although the U.N. Security Council remains deadlocked over enforcing its demand with the threat of sanctions, Iranian businessmen complain that already trade is sluggish, investment opportunities have been lost and foreign capital has been withdrawn. They blame the nuclear crisis.

"The market is stagnant. Buyers can't pay for the material they've purchased and their checks often bounce because of lack of funds," said Amir Jazayeri, an iron trader.

He said that since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power last August, his business has slowed from its levels during the reign of Iran's previous moderate leader, Mohammad Khatami.

"It was not brisk business during Khatami's era, but the market was not so bad. There has been a clear economic recession since tensions rose over Iran's nuclear activities beginning last summer. It has gotten worse in the past two months," Jazayeri said.

Iran has been under U.S. sanctions since the 1979 Islamic revolution and the seizure of hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, but it was able to expand trade with other countries, diversify its economy and become self-reliant in many industries.

Tehran also is benefiting from the surge in oil prices, seeing its oil revenues rise nearly 50 percent to $45 billion during the 12 months that ended March 20.

Still, the economy staggers under the weight of high unemployment, double digit inflation and interest rates of 25 percent to 30 percent on personal loans. Prices for key consumer needs - food in particular - have risen recently by as much as 20 percent.

"Prices of some basic products that we need have increased, like meat and milk. We've been promised an increase in our pension, but we haven't received anything yet," said Firoozeh Kadijani, a 60-year-old retired teacher.

Official statistics say unemployment is about 16 percent, but some analysts estimate it is above 30 percent. Many Iranians earn less than $3,000 a year, and outside studies say as many as 40 percent of the population lives in poverty.

The European Union sought to settle the nuclear dispute by offering economic help if Iran gave up uranium enrichment and agreed to international controls to ensure it does not build atomic weapons, but Iranian leaders rejected the offer. They also say they don't fear U.N. sanctions.

"If sanctions are imposed, we are capable of managing the country according to our past experiences. We could run the country with no dollars in oil revenue as we did in the 1990s," Finance Minister Davood Danesh-Jafari said in March.

Others say Iran already is paying a stiff penalty. And, said economist Bahman Arman, "If the U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions on Iran, we should expect greater economic recession."

He said Iranian companies are cutting back on investment and other spending.

"All businessmen are just holding down, waiting to see what will happen next. Everybody is waiting to see what the U.N. Security Council will decide," he said.

Arman said not all of Iran's economic problems stem from worries about possible sanctions.

"Wrong economic policies on the part of the government have also contributed to economic recession," he said. "The government is backing small industries, not big industries. Ahmadinejad's economic policies have caused greater inflation, too."

Ahmadinejad came to office promising to increase wages for the working class, boost retiree pensions and distribute Iran's oil wealth, but he has not delivered.

"He has failed to fulfill his promise of social justice," Arman said.

Source

IAEA in probe of uranium found in Iran

May 12, 2006
The Financial Times
Roula Khalaf


The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog is investigating the source of traces of highly enriched uranium found on equipment procured by a suspicious Iranian site once associated with the defence ministry. The preliminary finding of traces of material that could be used in nuclear weapons production will add to concerns that Iran is concealing the more dubious parts of its nuclear programme.

It comes as members of the UN Security Council struggle to forge a common policy on Iran’s nuclear crisis. But the results of sampling taken by the International Atomic Energy Agency this year could also be due to contaminated equipment bought from Pakistan, as was the case with previous suspicious samples taken by UN inspectors from other Iranian sites.

Western diplomats on Friday confirmed a Reuters report that the traces of highly enriched uranium were found in samples taken from equipment bought by the Physics Research Centre. The site at Lavizan Shian, northeast of Tehran, was tied to the defence ministry and had been under investigation by the IAEA since 2003. But it was razed in 2004, before it was visited by inspectors, fuelling even greater concern about its previous activities.

Tehran says it has enriched uranium only to low levels needed for fuel in nuclear reactors. But a history of concealment and resistance to demands for information from the IAEA have reinforced doubts about Iran’s facilities.

The US and other western governments suspect Tehran of pursuing a parallel, clandestine nuclear programme.

So far, the IAEA has not found a “smoking gun”, but nor has it been able to reassure the world community that Iran is not seeking to build atomic bombs.

In a report last month, the IAEA said Tehran was still resisting agency requests to interview one of the former heads of the Lavizan centre and inspectors were still waiting for clarification on the procurement of equipment.

Tehran’s resumption of small-scale, low-level uranium enrichment this year provoked the high-stakes crisis now facing the Security Council.

Source

The man who makes the world tremble

Here are a few briefs from a french article in L'express. The translation is mine.


Iran will not move back of an iota.” Pointing to his nuclear obsession, said the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He wants to provoc, play with the nerve of the world, threaten the international peace. And with what a arguments! “People of God do not fear any power because they are commanded by Allah.” He views Israel as a “permanent threat”, denies the “historical reality of the Holocaust”. In his speech of hatred, he describes the Hebrew State as “anti-Islamic by nature”, resolves 50 million dollars to support Hamas. Will Mahmoud Ahmadinejad succeed in putting fire at the Middle East?

The Iranian Military

Army:

• 350 000 Soldiers
• 350 000 reserves
• 40 000 Speacial Forces

Air Force

• 52 000 Soldiers
• 281 Combat Aircraft
• 225 Surface to Air Missiles

Navy

• 18 000 Soldiers
• 2 Battleships
• 3 Fregates
• 3 Submarines

Source

The Perils of Engagement

His done it again! Once again Mr. Taheri shows immense authentic insight. Let the appeasers read and reshape their paradigm. - Joseph

May 09, 2006
The Wall Street Journal
Amir Taheri

Something interesting is happening with regard to the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Slowly the blame is shifting from the mullahs to the Bush administration as the debate is redirected to tackle the hypothetical question of U.S. military action rather than the Islamic Republic's real misdeeds. "No War on Iran" placards are already appearing where "No Nukes for Iran" would make more sense.

The attempt at fabricating another "cause" with which to bash America is backed by the claim that the mullahs are behaving badly because Washington refuses to talk to them. Some of this buzz is coming from those who for years told the U.S. to let them persuade Iran to mend its ways. They include German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his British and French colleagues in the European Union trio that negotiated with Iran for years. Preparing to throw in the towel, they now say the U.S. should "directly engage" Iran. That would enable them to hide their failures and find a pretext for blaming future setbacks on the U.S.

The "engage Iran" coalition also has advocates in the U.S. Over the past few weeks they have hammered the "engagement" theme with op-eds, TV soundbites and speeches. Some have recommended John Kennedy's "sophisticated leadership" during the Cuban missile crisis as a model for George W. Bush. The incident has entered American folklore as an example of "brilliant diplomacy," but few bother to examine the small print. The crisis, as you might recall, started when the Soviets installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, something they were committed not to do in a number of accords with the U.S. Kennedy reacted by threatening to quarantine Cuba until the missiles were removed. The Soviets ended up "flinching" and agreed to removal.

In exchange they got two things. First, the U.S. agreed never to take or assist hostile action against Castro, offering his regime life insurance. The second was to remove the Jupiter missiles installed in Turkey as part of NATO's defenses. Instead of being punished, Castro and his Soviet masters were doubly rewarded for undoing what they shouldn't have done in the first place. And Castro was free to do mischief not only in Latin America but also in Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf, often on behalf of Moscow, right up to the fall of the U.S.S.R. Applied to Iran, the "Kennedy model" would provide the mullahs, now facing mounting discontent at home, with a guarantee of safety from external pressure, allowing them to suppress their domestic opponents and intensify mischief-making abroad.

Believe it or not, the second model for engaging Iran is actually Jimmy Carter's policy towards the mullahs. Mr. Carter has called for a "diplomatic solution," and Zbigniew Brzezinski, his national security adviser, has published an op-ed blaming the Bush administration for the crisis. He writes: "Artificial deadlines, propounded most often by those who do not wish the U.S. to negotiate in earnest, are counterproductive. Name-calling and saber rattling, as well as a refusal to even consider the other side's security concerns, can be useful tactics only if the goal is to derail the negotiating process."

Let's forget that the "artificial deadlines" have been set by the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council, and that most of the "name-calling and saber rattling" has come from Tehran. But let us recall one fact that Mr. Brzezinski does not mention--that the Carter administration did "engage" with the mullahs without artificial deadlines, saber rattling and name-calling. The results for the U.S. were disastrous.

In 1979, soon after the mullahs seized power, Mr. Carter sent Ayatollah Khomeini a warm congratulatory letter. Mr. Carter's man at the U.N., a certain Andrew Young, praised Khomeini as "a 20th-century saint." Mr. Carter also tapped his closest legal advisor, the late Lloyd Cutler, as U.S. ambassador to the mullarchy.

A more dramatic show of U.S. support for the mullahs came when Mr. Brzezinski flew to Algiers to meet Khomeini's prime minister, Mehdi Bazargan. This was love at first sight--to the point where Mr. Carter approved the resumption of military supplies to Iran, even as the mullahs were executing Iranians by the thousands, including many whose only "crime" was friendship with the U.S. The Carter administration's behavior convinced the mullahs that the U.S. was a paper tiger and that it was time for the Islamic Revolution to highlight hatred of America. Mr. Carter reaped what he had sown when the mullahs sent "student" fanatics to seize the U.S. embassy compound, a clear act of war, and hold its diplomats hostage for 444 days. "The Carter administration's weakness was a direct encouragement to [anti-American] hard-liners," wrote Ibrahim Asgharzadeh, one of the hostage-takers, years later.

Mr. Brzezinski's op-ed took the title "Been There, Done That," meant as a sneering nod to events that led to the liberation of Iraq. A more apt title, however, is: "Been There, Done That, Learned Nothing"--a nod to Mr. Brzezinski's failure to learn the lessons of Iran even three decades later.

The third model for engaging Iran is the Clinton model. Beating his own drum, Bill Clinton has rejected the threat of force and called for "engaging" Iran. This is how he put it in a recent speech: "Anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this, people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak." Mr. Clinton's pseudo-Socratic method of either/or-ing issues out of existence is too well-known to merit an exposé. This time, however, Mr. Clinton did not ask enough questions. For example, he might have asked: What if by refusing to kill some of them today we are forced to kill many more tomorrow? Also: What if, once assured that we are not going to kill them today, they regroup and come to kill us in larger numbers? We all know the answers.

Mr. Clinton did not reveal that in 1999 he offered the mullahs "a grand bargain" under which the Islamic Republic would be recognized as the "regional power" in exchange for lip service to U.S. "interests in the Middle East." As advance payment for the "bargain" Mr. Clinton apologized for "all the wrongs that my country and culture have done" to Iran, whatever that was supposed to mean. The "bargain," had it not been vetoed by the "Supreme Guide" in Tehran, might have secured Mr. Clinton the Nobel Peace Prize he coveted, but it would have sharpened the mullahs' appetite for "exporting" revolution.

President Bush can learn from the Kennedy, Carter and Clinton models by not repeating their mistakes. What the U.S. needs is an open, honest and exhaustive debate on what to do with a regime that claims a mission to drive the U.S. out of the Middle East, wipe Israel off the map, create an Islamic superpower, and conquer the world for "The Only True Faith." The options are clear: retreat and let the Islamic Republic advance its goals; resist and risk confrontation, including military conflict; or engage the Islamic Republic in a mini-version of Cold War until, worn out, it self-destructs.

With the options clear, Messrs. Carter, Brzezinski and Clinton along with other "engagers" would have to tell us which they favor and, if they like none, what alternative they offer. Calling for talks is just cheap talk. It is important to say what the proposed talks should be about. In the meantime, talk of "constructive engagement" is sure to encourage President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intransigence. Why should he slow down, let alone stop, when there are no bumps on the road?

Mr. Taheri is author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002).

Source

Iranian Dissident to Seek Support For Opposition

For those who say where is the sons of Cyrus the Great, I say here is atleast one. True Iranians Like Mr. Fakhravar gives this stricken country hope. - Joseph

May 09, 2006
NY Sun
Eli Lake

Less than 24 hours after one of Iran's leading dissidents and authors escaped to a neighboring state, the former chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, interrupted his trip to central Asia to meet with him in a cramped hotel room.

The meeting between Mr. Perle and Amir Abbas Fakhravar on April 29, in a location both men have asked not appear in print, may end up being as important as the first contacts between Mr. Perle and the ex-Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky in the 1980s.

Like Mr. Sharansky with the Soviet Union, Mr. Fakhravar is making an appeal to the world to support the cause of Iranian freedom.

Mr. Perle first made contact with Mr. Fakhravar while he was first in prison and the two have kept in touch since the Iranian student leader went into hiding. They have spoken regularly for three years and Mr. Fakhravar is hoping to use Mr. Perle's contacts in America to build solidarity for his country's democratic movement.

The 27-year-old Mr. Fakhravar, who was first sentenced in November 2002 for publishing a book, "This Place Is Not a Ditch," has emerged as a leader of a secular student opposition organization that he estimated in an interview to be 3,000 strong.

While in detention, Mr. Fakhravar was placed in solitary confinement and subjected to a technique Amnesty International described as "white torture," in which he was confined to a sound proof cell where everything was painted in a cream color and he was forced to eat white rice from white paper plates.

Next week, he is planning to visit Washington, where he says he will make the case for America to support a unified Iranian opposition. His arrival in Washington comes as President Ahmadinejad offered what he said yesterday was a "diplomatic opening" for direct talks with America.

Mr. Fakhravar said it would be a mistake to take this offer seriously."This is the same method as the North Koreans used. This is to stretch the time for them," he said. But Mr. Fakhravar also said the purpose of his trip to Washington - he intends to return to Iran - was not to encourage military action against the Islamic republic.

"We are not pro-war. But we do believe in getting rid of this rotten government and to keep the costs to the people as low as possible. This is to keep the casualties and cost controls," he said. But he also cautioned, "The Islamic Republic of Iran is going in the direction that heads straight on to war with America."

Mr.Fakhravar yesterday was effusive in his praise of Mr. Perle, who has been a target of anti-war critics who have dubbed him the "prince of darkness" for his part in conceiving the intellectual foundations of the Iraq war.

The Iranian author does not share this view. "In my eyes I saw the prince of light, not the prince of darkness," Mr. Fakhravar said. "I could see in his eyes he is worried for our people as well as the American people and this is very important and this is very special. Of course, Mr. Perle has the interest of the American people at heart. And I have the interest of the Iranian people at heart. But there is a common goal and interest."

The admiration is mutual. Of Mr. Fakhravar, Mr. Perle said, "He is very impressive. I formed that opinion by talking to him on the telephone. It is even more evident in person. He is obviously a man of great courage and conviction. He has been enormously frustrated at the lack of outside support, not just from the United States but the free world generally."

Mr. Perle first got in contact with Mr. Fakhravar in 2003 through a contact in Los Angeles who asked that she only be referred to her by her first name, Manda. Manda, who emigrated to America from Iran in 2000, sought out Mr. Perle through contacts of her father, who served as a high official in the Shah's government toppled in the 1979 revolution.

"Richard I knew of from a long time ago. I knew how much he wanted the regime to change. Even before the Iraq war, he knew about what is going on in Iran. He knew so much about Iran, almost more than Michael Ledeen," she said, referring to the scholar who holds the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

Manda says that Mr. Fakhravar asked her to reach out to Mr. Perle and she arranged conference calls between the two, even when the dissident author at one point was in a lower security Iranian prison.

"Whenever Amir Abbas wanted to talk to Richard, at 11 at night, at five in the morning, Richard was available every time," she said. Mr. Perle says he remembers these conversations with Mr. Fakhravar and one of the leaders of the 1999 Tehran University uprising, Ahmad Batebi. "I was reluctant to stay on the phone so long because I know about the technology," he said.

Mr. Fakhravar yesterday said that his conversations with Mr. Perle were important for his morale when he was on the run from the Iranian authorities. But he also said he sought out him out in part because he believed that neoconservatives in America could help "lower the cost" of Iranian freedom.

"There have been some contacts with some Democratic senators. There are people in our organization that are talking to them to organize," Mr. Fakhravar said. "But most of the support is coming from the Republicans, Mr. Perle, and his friends. We have the interest of the Iranian people. We want to achieve freedom at any costs. We will take help from wherever we can get it to reduce the costs of obtaining our freedom."

While some critics have accused Mr. Perle of endorsing another Iraq-style invasion for Iran, Mr. Perle says this is a gross mischaracterization. "I'm doing the sort of thing I have been doing my whole life, with Iraqi dissidents and Soviet dissidents. I think they deserve support," he said.

"Along with a lot of others I am vilified for the war in Iraq. If people look at my writing it was always to support the opposition. It was the failure to do that before 9/11 that left us with no choice but to use force."

Source

Norwegian leftist media

By Joseph Salomonsen

Norwegian (read European) media has been a tad (read a lot) tilted in the past few years. It has been openly anti American, anti war on terror, anti Israeli, pro Eurobia, pro diplomacy, pro Palestinian; A report of Norways Journalism Club submits the following which might clear up the paradigm.

Norways journalists political tilt:

• 7% Far Left
• 46% Left
• 33% Center
• 14% Right
• 0% Far Right

Yes FRP norways biggest party of 36.9% has no journalist sympathizers according to the report. With the leftist Norwegian media I guess then there is no wonder why NRK, VG, Dagbladet report as they do.

Source1

Source2

Source3

THE IRANIAN REGIME

"The international community is (also) speaking with one voice to the radical regime in Tehran. Iran is a nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people, and denying them basic liberties and human rights. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorists and is actively working to expand its influence in the region. The Iranian regime has advocated the destruction of our ally, Israel. And the Iranian regime is defying the world with its ambitions for nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats, and Iran's aggressive behavior and pursuit of nuclear weapons is increasing its international isolation."
-President George W. Bush

ADMIRATION FOR THE IRANIAN PEOPLE

The United States admires and respects the Iranian people and supports their right to determine their own future. As the President has stated, the United States hopes one day soon to be the closest of friends with a free, sovereign and democratic Iran.

The United States:


Stands with the Iranian people as they confront a corrupt, repressive regime.

Supports their efforts to promote positive political change, economic prosperity, and freedom.

Offered assistance in the aftermath of earthquakes in 2003, 2005, and 2006.

Asked Congress to fund an ambitious program offering the Iranian people:
unbiased information

empowerment of local activists

development of civil society

civic education and advocacy training

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Iran's human rights record is abysmal and its democracy deficit is growing.

The Iranian Government regularly commits:


Summary executions

Disappearances

Torture

Arrest and detention of activists, journalists and religious minorities

NUCLEAR NON-COMPLIANCE

The international community has been clear that we cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, states have a right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but the international community does not accept Iran's right to manipulate its access to peaceful programs to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran has:


Abused its Nonproliferation Treaty privileges for years in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Pursued a clandestine nuclear program for 18 years.

On February 4, 2006, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted 27-3 to report Iran's program to the Agency (IAEA) voted 27-3 to report Iran's program to the UN Security Council.

On March 29, 2006, the UN Security Council issued a Presidential Statement (PRST) calling on Tehran to fully suspend its enrichment-related activities, cooperate with the IAEA, and implement the Additional Protocol.

SUPPORT OF TERRORISM

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2005.


Refused to start judicial proceedings against, render to countries of origin, or identify publicly senior al-Qa'ida members.


Played a high profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli terrorist activity, including public threats to wipe Israel off the map as well as provision of financial and military assistance to Hizbullah and Palestinian extremists, enabling them to launch terrorist attacks.


Provided financial and lethal support, including explosives-related components, to Iraqi Shia militants who have attacked Coalition forces.

Source

Concept of Kitman & Taqiyyah

By: Joseph Salomonsen
www.pimes.org
04-05-06

Many in the west are confused by why the Islamic Republic sends a double edged message. (a recent example is whether IRI would accept the Russian uranium deal). Well there is a Sharia explanation for it. Taqqiyyah, theological term, advises the individual and the community not only to hide their true beliefs but even to profess the opposite where this is to their advantage. Kitman, a politico-theological terms, means never revealing one’s true intentions, especially when dealing with Kafirs “the Infidel”.


• Kitman
o Etymology; Katama (conceal, hide)
o “Seek fulfillment for things you want to finish in kitman.” Al bukhari
• Taqiyyah Quran Majid 16:106, 3:28
o Etymology: Tuqat (safeguard)
o "Nine tenths of religion is taqiyyah (dissimulation), hence one who does not dissimulate has no religion." Jaffar Sadegh Al-Kafi vol.9 p.110

-------------------------------


Here is jurisprudence backing of it.

That is why the Prophet (saw) has categorically said

He who has no taqiyah has no religion. (Mulla `Ali Muttaqi, Kanzu l `ummal, Beirut, 5th ed., 1405/1985, vol. 3, p. 96, hadith no. 5665)



And Imam Muhammad al Baqir (as) has said:

Taqiyah is religion and the religion of my forefathers: He who has no taqiyah has no faith. (al Kulayni, al Kafi, Tehran, 1388, vol. 2, p.174)

Here is an example of this in the early part of the Islamic revolution:

The big headline from early says of the Islamic Revolution in one daily "Ettelaat" says:

“On the issue of Hejjab: there is not going to be force”

Iran Says it Can Mass-produce Uranium Enrichment Centrifuges

TEHRAN -- Iran now has the knowhow to mass-produce centrifuges used to enrich uranium, an official said today, as Western powers stepped up efforts to secure a freeze of the sensitive nuclear work. "Iran can now mass-produce centrifuges. This is an important success, because no other country was willing to sell us this technology," Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation official Hossein Faghihian told the local media

Source

Shah of Iran's Heir Plans Overthrow of Regime

Some have emailed me for my position on the Islamic Republics conflict; A quick answer to FAQs would be. Do you feel Iran needs to be attacked to prevent a nuclear holocaust? No! How then deter it? Civil disobedience. How you feel about Israel? Israel could and should be the future Iran's greatest ally in the region...Now you ask why this why that? Perhaps I need to explain more. Well Reza Pahlavi at least in this article has ideas I for one am 100% in agreement with. Please read his remarks carefully. No better option for Iran stands. ::Joseph::



May 01, 2006
Human Events Online
The National Conservative Weekly

Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah of Iran, told the editors of HUMAN EVENTS last week that in the next two to three months he hopes to finalize the organization of a movement aimed at overthrowing the Islamic regime in Tehran and replacing it with a democratic government.

He believes the cause is urgent because of the prospect that Iran may soon develop a nuclear weapon or the U.S. may use military force to preempt that. He hopes to offer a way out of this dilemma: a revolution sparked by massive civil disobedience in which the masses in the streets are backed by elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Pahlavi, who lives in exile in the United States, said he has been in contact with elements of the Revolutionary Guard that would be willing to play such a role, and activists who could help spark the civil disobedience.

He also said that the U.S. and other governments can help by imposing “smart sanctions” on the leaders of Iranian regime, but he categorically opposes U.S. military intervention.

After the revolution he envisions, Pahlavi said, he would be willing to become a constitutional monarch in Iran if an Iranian constitutional convention offered him that role. “I’m ready to serve in that capacity,” he said. “If the people so choose, it would be my greatest honor.”

The following are excerpts from the interview with the editors of HUMAN EVENTS in which Pahlavi explained why and how he thinks his country can be transformed from an Islamist dictatorship into a free democracy.

Under any circumstances, would you support U.S. military action against Iran?

As a matter of principle there’s no way that I can support any kind of military intervention regardless of the crisis because as a matter of principle, and as a nationalist, I cannot even imagine the fact that my country could be attacked, and today it’s a very different scenario from, let’s say, the Second World War where you are occupied by Nazi forces and there’s a liberating force coming in. This is a strike against Iranian installations that are part of our national assets. That it’s used wrongly by the wrong people is beside the point. So there’s no justification as far as I’m concerned.

Even if we had absolutely certain knowledge the regime in Iran was on the threshold of actually building a nuclear weapon, you would oppose U.S. military intervention to stop that from happening?

First of all, whether the U.S. does it or not is its affair. I would still be critical of it only because I think that if we come back to a position in which we are today, there’s time to remedy the situation and I will get to other options later. But I can tell you one thing: The best gift that you can give the current regime is, in fact, to attack it. Why? Because, one, it will immediately consolidate the nation, two, it will neutralize all elements of the military and paramilitary forces who have a role to play in the options that I will present later and they will be forced into a position of defense. So they are out of the equation.

Three, it will stir this entire regional emotion, once again, against the West, while we are trying to get help from the very same West to promote a democratic ideal.

Fourth, if it’s a race against time, as in the sense, “Will this regime become nuclear first or will the Iranian people achieve democracy?” there’s no way you’re going to win the race by doing so. You may prolong the inevitable armament of Iran, but you will certainly push back the democratic cause for many years, if not for good.

And, ultimately, I don’t know if it’s going to be effective. We’re not talking about Iraq. We’re talking about a country with a multitude of installations, some of which you happen to know about and many of which we still don’t know about. Many of these entities are hidden under civilian areas, the actual stockpiling.

You would not demand that Israel disarm?

Since when has Israel been a threat to anyone? Israel just wants to be left alone and live in peace side by side with its neighbors. As far as I’m concerned, Israel never had any ambition to territorially go and invade, I don’t know, Spain or Morocco or anywhere else. And let me tell something else about Iran: Unlike the rest of the Islamic or Arab world, the relationship between Persia and the Jews goes back to the days of Cyrus the Great. We take pride as Iranians of having a history where Cyrus was the most quoted figure in the Torah, as a liberator of Jewish slaves, who went to Babylon and gave them true freedom for them to worship and in fact helped them build a temple. We have a biblical relation with Jews, and we have no problem with modern day Israel. As far as regional politics, I believe, I think many Iranians believe so, that as much as Israel has a right to exist, so should the Palestinians. They have to work the problem between each other. And we have no business interfering, and we need to help get as much stability in the region.

A democratic regime in Iran would be doing that, but a clerical regime in Tehran that sends money to Hamas and to Hizballah and to all the terrorists around the globe obviously is not promoting stability and peace, it is doing the reverse.

Are you the person who puts together the master plan? Are you the commander-in-chief of this counteraction?

Look, I think I can be effective, and the reason I have stayed behind until now was because I wanted to exhaust every avenue of possibility so that the opposition can gather itself and collectively work on a common agenda. Within the next two or three months, we’ll know if the result of two or three years of intense effort is going to pay off.

Two or three months?

Two or three months. This summer.

Are you going to have a unity council of sorts?

Yes, the goal was to have some kind of congress, or, we call it a forum, where all these [exiled Iranian opposition] groups, albeit under their own umbrellas and structure, could agree on a common agenda of action under common points that we all agree, and act like that. That’s the best we can hope to make something out of the fabric of the known opposition. But what I have told them, and what I am telling them right now, as much as there’s a deadline on anything, there should be a deadline for that, too. And I’ve exhausted every avenue to act as a catalyst to bring as many people together so they can work together. But if, for any reason, this strategy does not work, then I would be ready to step in and take any initiative that is necessary. But I would do that only if the other option does not work.

Specifically, what you’d like to do, if you can get this umbrella of these outside groups together, is use their collective ability to communicate back with all these atomized groups inside Iran to call for things like a general strike.

Then orchestrate a massive campaign of resistance and civil disobedience to bring as much pressure within domestically. Meanwhile, the international community can play a much bigger role as well in pressuring the regime even further. That’s where I get to the smart sanction part. For instance, why penalize the people that are already bleeding and hungry? Why don’t you, for instance, in terms of the UN sanctions, demand a complete obstruction of travel for Iranian officials? Or denying them visas or from entering other countries, things of that nature? Why don’t you talk to all these countries that have intelligence and data on all those dummy corporations and bank accounts that the regime has in different countries and freeze those accounts?

You basically send a very strong message to the regime, you penalize their officials, you don’t necessarily declare war on Iran or economically put more pressure.

Then it’s also a challenge to Russia and China. You know Russia and China might be able to legitimately argue why they would veto any Security Council resolutions on sanctions. China, obviously, because it’s dependent on Iranian oil, and Russia because I think Putin and Peter the Great are not that far apart, in terms of their being the big boys in the region. But they will be hard pressed to object to any smart sanction, because failure to do so basically means they are in cahoots with the Islamic regime. I don’t know if they want to take that public position in the court of public opinion.

In your Iran, Mahmoud Abdullah, the Afghan who converted to Christianity, would have every right to do that and the state would protect him from retaliation by radical clerics?

God, I hope so. I hope so. Because if we are basing our constitution on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that’s one of the most fundamental rights that any human being should have. I’m sick and tired of hypocrisy and all this dubious attitude that is so typical of our region. If you believe in something you say it, you don’t fool around. I mean, that’s where I’m coming from. I haven’t lived 45 years of my life to fool around with these things. If I’m willing to lose my life for it, hell I’m going to fight for these rights, otherwise it’s not worth it. Frankly it’s not worth it! I might as well forget about Iran and become a citizen and live my life in this country. No. I want to have the same rights you have over here over there. That’s what I’m fighting for! Otherwise why bother?

Would you rather participate in a democratic parliamentary election like Iraq or simply come back as a constitutional monarch?

I appreciate the question. I know what my function is today, and my function today is to be a catalyst that promotes unity as opposed to being an element that brings polarity. My role today is not institutional, it’s political. My role today is not someone who will be a symbolic leader under that institution, but a national leader that is fighting for freedom. ... My job today is to be a liberator, as opposed to representing an institution. However, as an option, certainly the Iranian people should consider that beyond the content of the future, which I described to you—secular, democratic, based on human rights—what should the ultimate form be? Do we want to have a parliamentary monarchy like we do Sweden, or Japan, or Holland, or Belgium? Or do we want to have a republican system like you have in this United States or France or elsewhere? That debate is not today’s debate. That is the debate that will be the responsibility of the next constitutional assembly that will have to bring in a new constitution and draft a new one.

At that time, there probably will be a lot of debates between those who are advocates of a monarchic system and those who are advocates of a republican system.

But you don’t rule it out?

I think it is, in my personal opinion, I think that that institution will better serve the purpose of the institutionalization of the democracy in Iran rather than the republican form. I can, case in point, use the example, of a post-Franco [Spain] with King Juan Carlos.

You’re not renouncing the throne, in other words? You’ll take it, if—

Look, it’s not a matter what I choose to do. I think that if monarchy has to be decided it should be based on people wanting it, not me arguing it. I have faith that this is an appropriate institution. It’s not a coincidence it survived more than 25 centuries. It is very much imbedded in Iranian culture and tradition and identity. In modern days, it can play just as effective a role. And I think that one of the things that I often find, thinking of the way Americans look at monarchy, which is immediately George III in your mind, is that you should at least liberate yourself from that aspect and see that the name “republic” doesn’t mean anything. Most of your enemies are republics. Saddam Hussein is one. Syria is one. “Republic” doesn’t automatically mean democratic. The Soviet Union was a republic. Most of your allies in Europe and NATO, half of them were monarchies. ... I think it’s not the form of the regime, it’s the content that matters. I think a monarchy is just as compatible to be committed to be democratic as a republic is. In some countries, a monarchy works better than a republic. Usually, history has shown us, in countries that are heterogeneous, in other words that have a lot of different groups, ethnicities and religion, the gelling factor, the unifying factor, has been the institutional mind, with the difference that this institution has to remain above the fray and not be engaged in the politics. That’s the big difference. Because the only time it can maintain neutrality and be for all is by not being engaged. Because the minute you become political then you have to take sides and that defeats the purpose, which is pretty much the problem we had under the previous regime, because the person of the king was directly involved in making policy, which is the last thing you want to do.

Having said that, yes, I’m fully committed to that. I’m ready to serve in that capacity. If the people so choose, it would be my greatest honor. But at the end of the day, what I tell them is, first and foremost, I’m an Iranian and I’d be just as happy to serve my country in whatever capacity. But if you give me that choice, that opportunity, I think I could do a good job for you.

Source

Iran Increases Uranium Enrichment to 4.8% From 3.6% in 2 Weeks

May 02, 2006
Bloomberg
Marc Wolfensberger and

Iranian scientists have increased their enrichment of uranium to a 4.8 percent concentration, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, said.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last month said Iran had joined the ``nuclear club'' on April 9 by enriching uranium to 3.5 percent. United Nations inspectors on April 28 confirmed that by April 16 Iran had enriched uranium to 3.6 percent. A concentration of 3 to 5 percent is needed to fuel a power plant, while 90 percent is required for a weapon, according to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Maryland.

``Enrichment of more than 5 percent is not part of Iran's program,'' Aghazadeh told the state-run Iranian Student News Agency today. ``This level of enrichment for producing nuclear fuel is sufficient.''

The UN Security Council is preparing a resolution calling on Iran to suspend the enrichment work, Nicholas Burns, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, said today. Iran ignored an April 28 deadline set by the council for the Islamic Republic to halt the program. The U.S. suspects Iran plans to build a bomb, while Iran says the aim is to generate electricity.

The U.S. is joined by the U.K. and France in the diplomatic offensive at the Security Council to pressure Iran to suspend its research and allow wider inspections. Delegates from the three nations, along with Russia and China, are meeting today in Paris to discuss the dispute. German envoys are joining the five delegations, which represent the permanent members of the council and hold veto power over resolutions.

Iran's parliament this week agreed to allocate an additional $212 million to finish the construction of the country's first nuclear plant, in Bushehr, state-run Iran News reported today, citing Gholam Hossein Elham, a government spokesman.

The Islamic Republic has already paid Russia as much as $1 billion to build the plant capable of generating about 1,000 megawatts of electricity. The construction has faced numerous delays and should be completed by the end of this year.

To contact the reporters on this story: Marc Wolfensberger in Tehran at mwolfens@bloomberg.net; Ladane Nasseri in Tehran lnasseri@bloomberg.net

Source

US Foreign Policy: Explaining the Debate - Part One

A superb paper about US foreign policy themes. Extremely consice and telling. Enjoy!

April 30, 2006
IslamOnline.net
Joshua Muravchik

IslamOnline.net's Muslim Affairs department is providing special coverage of the US role in Mideast change. Neo-conservative scholar Dr. Joshua Muravhick contributes a two-part series on the domestic debate. Part one maps foreign policy schools of thought inside the United States. Part two explains different stances on the US policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East.

Sorting out the various schools of thought about American foreign policy is difficult for Americans, so it must be pretty confusing to foreign observers. To decipher our debates requires knowing their background. The roots of the various positions are found in earlier arguments going back to World War II. Therefore, I will offer a historical description covering four periods: the Cold War; the period between the end of the Cold War and the attacks of 9/11; the beginning of the war in Iraq; and the situation today.

1. The Cold War

During the earliest days of the Cold War, the main divide was between isolationists and internationalists. The internationalists believed that the two world wars had proven that we could not separate our own fate from the state of the world around us. The isolationists preferred that we mind our own business. But the aggressiveness of Soviet expansion in 1945 through 1948, coming on the heels of the world war, wiped out the isolationist camp. So, from 1948 until around 1968, Americans were pretty much of one mind about foreign policy.

The Vietnam war divided us again. Americans split over whether we should be in Vietnam. Opponents of the war mostly came to believe that the war was not just a single mistake, but rather the outcome of an overall approach to the world that was too militantly anti-Communist. As President Jimmy Carter put it, we were guilty of an “inordinate fear of Communism.”

From the peak of the Vietnam war until the end of the Cold War, the main dividing line in US foreign policy debates was between “hawks” and “doves” or “hard-liners” and “soft-liners.”

It was in this context, in the 1970s, that “neo-conservatism” arose. The debate between hawks and doves was not, for the most part, a debate between conservatives and liberals, but rather a debate between liberal hawks and liberal doves. This was because foreign policy is almost always a secondary concern in American politics, and the labels “liberal” and “conservative” were mostly determined by domestic issues: Liberals tended to favor more government programs and help for the poor whereas conservatives tended to favor smaller government and lower taxes. In those times, there were very few conservative intellectuals.

As the debates between the liberal doves and the liberal hawks grew intense, the doves invented the term “neo-conservative” to describe the hawks. It was intended as an insult, and, at first, the liberal hawks (of whom I was one) rejected it angrily. But eventually we accepted the label.

Neo-cons were sometimes more hawkish than traditional conservatives. Why? Because traditional conservatives had historically been isolationists. Although they had turned away from isolationism in the late 1940s along with most other Americans, they continued to worry that America might reach too far.

The traditional conservatives, in other words, were “realists” in foreign policy, i.e., they wanted America to only become involved in places and ways that affected very clear American interests. The neo-cons, in contrast, were “idealists,” i.e., they wanted America to exert itself for moral or ideological reasons and, also, they believed that America’s interests were enmeshed with the interests of many other states and could not easily be disentangled.

Thus, although both conservatives and neo-conservatives tended to be hawkish about the Cold War, the conservatives usually saw it in "great power" terms, as a struggle between Russia and America, while the neo-conservatives usually saw it ideologically, as a struggle between Communism and freedom.

2. Between the Cold-War and 9/11

After the Cold War, the term “neo-conservative” largely disappeared. After all, it was the Cold War that had defined “neo-conservatism,” and the Cold War was over. But in the course of the debates about the war in Bosnia, from 1992 through 1995, it became apparent that there continued to be a distinctive mindset on the part of those who had been neo-cons during the Cold War. As the Serbs carried on their bloody campaign of “ethnic cleansing” against Bosnian Muslims, and American presidents--first George H. W. Bush and then Bill Clinton--refused to do anything effective to stop it, a movement grew up demanding intervention in Bosnia. It consisted mostly of neo-cons. Why? Traditional conservatives believed that America had no interests at stake in Bosnia; what was going on there could be seen as a tragedy or even an outrage, but it was not our problem and therefore we should not spend our own lives or treasure over there, they said. Liberals believed that Bosnia was a problem that deserved our attention and even our money but they were reluctant to use force, and they preferred to see the problem handled by the UN.

Neo-cons shared the moral concerns of the liberals about the wanton abuse of Bosnian Muslims' human rights. They also believed, in contrast to the traditional conservatives, that America did indeed have a concrete self-interest in stopping the slaughter, namely that, if this kind of violent aggression was allowed to go on, the whole world would become more lawless and dangerous. Where neo-cons parted company with liberals was that they believed that the UN could never be counted on to act effectively, and that the only way to stop the Serbs would be for America to use force.

Thus by the end of the 1990s, one could distinguish three main camps: the liberals, who tended to be idealists but generally reluctant to use force or act outside of the UN; the conservatives, who had no use for the UN and no reluctance to use force, but were “realists,” defining American interests in a narrow way; and finally the neo-cons, who were idealists like the liberals, but, like the conservatives, were not reluctant to use force and saw little value in the UN.

3. From 9/11 Through the Iraq War

When George W. Bush ran for president, and during his first months in office, he seemed very much the traditional conservative. He showed little interest in foreign policy, focusing instead on domestic issues like cutting taxes. When he did address foreign policy, he sounded like a realist, even a bit of an isolationist, criticizing his predecessor Bill Clinton for having gotten America involved in too many places, such as Bosnia. But 9/11 changed everything, especially Bush himself, who took a new interest in foreign policy and a new approach to it.

At first 9/11 pulled the country together, and there were few differences among Americans. This continued through our invasion of Afghanistan, which harbored the terrorist group that had attacked us; ousting the Taliban was supported by all camps in America. But Bush’s decision to turn next to Iraq, and also some of the president’s belligerent rhetoric, created divisions--although at first these were muted. Most citizens, commentators, and members of Congress supported the war. But the divisions grew wider and deeper.

Among liberals, there were critics who objected to Bush’s willingness to go ahead without the approval of the UN; they were unhappy about going to war and sometimes with Bush’s provocative rhetoric.

Among conservatives, there were doubts about fighting some place as distant as Iraq and even larger doubts about the president’s declared mission of fostering democracy in the Middle East, which they believed was unrealistic.

Neo-cons, in contrast, were strongly in Bush’s corner. From this came the widespread notion that Bush’s administration had somehow been taken over by neo-cons. But this impression, while understandable, was false. There just weren’t many neo-cons in the Bush administration, and none of the top people--Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice--were neo-cons. It is true that, after 9/11, Bush went through a metamorphosis from a position of traditional conservatism, and that he adopted policies that had a distinct neo-con ring to them. But we will have to wait until he leaves office and writes memoirs to understand how this transformation occurred.

4. The Situation Today

As America has found itself in a much deeper thicket in Iraq than Americans anticipated, the war has naturally grown more unpopular and new divisions have appeared.

There are some voices, like Congressman John Murtha’s--but not many--calling for the United States to withdraw from Iraq now. But most of the strong critics of Bush’s policy agree that, if we pulled out now, we would likely pave the way for a bloodbath in Iraq along sectarian lines. Moreover, it is widely perceived that Iraq has become a showdown between America and jihadism, and that allowing the likes of Zarqawi to drive us out would have powerful repercussions.

On the other hand, the widespread disillusionment with the war has led to a variety of calls for setting a future deadline for US withdrawal or for other formulas to hasten our departure.

It has also led to a lot of criticism of the Bush administration. Some comes from conservatives, who were always doubtful about the mission of democratizing the Middle East, and some from liberals, who were all along opposed to using force without the UN’s authorization.

It also comes from Francis Fukuyama, a onetime neo-con who has announced his split with neo-conservatism; he believes that we “overreacted” to 9/11.

There are also many neo-cons, such as William Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, who supported the war and still support it, but who have criticized the administration for various of its tactical decisions, especially not sending enough troops to provide security and seal Iraq’s borders, and perhaps also the decision to disband the Iraqi army.

In contrast, there are still some neo-cons, like the writer Victor Davis Hanson, who argue that the troubles we are having in Iraq are the kinds of troubles to be expected in warfare, and that it will all turn out all right if we don’t panic and retreat.

Every major war has rearranged our foreign policy alignments. By the time the war in Iraq is over, for better or worse, they will have been rearranged again. Such is the natural flow of policy debate in a democracy.

Joshua Muravchik is a resident scholar at AEI.

Source

Violence Destroys Islam

This artice is a bit old BUT its worth evry byte in gold! I mean listen to her. If a few more muslims would look a bit inward; Islam would come off much more stronger...

By JOHN M. BRODER
The New York Times
March 2006


LOS ANGELES, March 10 — Three weeks ago, Dr. Wafa Sultan was a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los Angeles, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims.

Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.

In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.

She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.

Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose.

In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark threats. But Islamic reformers have praised her for saying out loud, in Arabic and on the most widely seen television network in the Arab world, what few Muslims dare to say even in private.

"I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings," she said in an interview this week in her home in a Los Angeles suburb.

Dr. Sultan, who is 47, wears a prim sweater and skirt, with fleece-lined slippers and heavy stockings. Her eyes and hair are jet black and her modest manner belies her intense words: "Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs."

Perhaps her most provocative words on Al Jazeera were those comparing how the Jews and Muslims have reacted to adversity. Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling."

She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."

She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."

Her views caught the ear of the American Jewish Congress, which has invited her to speak in May at a conference in Israel. "We have been discussing with her the importance of her message and trying to devise the right venue for her to address Jewish leaders," said Neil B. Goldstein, executive director of the organization.

She is probably more welcome in Tel Aviv than she would be in Damascus. Shortly after the broadcast, clerics in Syria denounced her as an infidel. One said she had done Islam more damage than the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service reported.


DR. SULTAN is "working on a book that — if it is published — it's going to turn the Islamic world upside down."

"I have reached the point that doesn't allow any U-turn. I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book."

The working title is, "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."

Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout Muslim, and she followed the faith's strictures into adulthood.

But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.

"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."

She and her husband, who now goes by the Americanized name of David, laid plans to leave for the United States. Their visas finally came in 1989, and the Sultans and their two children (they have since had a third) settled in with friends in Cerritos, Calif., a prosperous bedroom community on the edge of Los Angeles County.

After a succession of jobs and struggles with language, Dr. Sultan has completed her American medical licensing, with the exception of a hospital residency program, which she hopes to do within a year. David operates an automotive-smog-check station. They bought a home in the Los Angeles area and put their children through local public schools. All are now American citizens.


BUT even as she settled into a comfortable middle-class American life, Dr. Sultan's anger burned within. She took to writing, first for herself, then for an Islamic reform Web site called Annaqed (The Critic), run by a Syrian expatriate in Phoenix.

An angry essay on that site by Dr. Sultan about the Muslim Brotherhood caught the attention of Al Jazeera, which invited her to debate an Algerian cleric on the air last July.

In the debate, she questioned the religious teachings that prompt young people to commit suicide in the name of God. "Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."

Her remarks set off debates around the globe and her name began appearing in Arabic newspapers and Web sites. But her fame grew exponentially when she appeared on Al Jazeera again on Feb. 21, an appearance that was translated and widely distributed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, known as Memri.

Memri said the clip of her February appearance had been viewed more than a million times.

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations," Dr. Sultan said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality."

She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human being," she said.

The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked, "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.

Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.

One message said: "Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see." She received an e-mail message the other day, in Arabic, that said, "If someone were to kill you, it would be me."

Dr. Sultan said her mother, who still lives in Syria, is afraid to contact her directly, speaking only through a sister who lives in Qatar. She said she worried more about the safety of family members here and in Syria than she did for her own.

"I have no fear," she said. "I believe in my message. It is like a million-mile journey, and I believe I have walked the first and hardest 10 miles."



Source

AA Yazdi "Ummah depends on martyrdom"

This Ayatolah is the mentor of Ahmadinejad

For sure, when protecting Islam and the Muslim `Ummah (the muslims)depends on martyrdom operations, it not only is allowed, but even is an obligation (wajib) as many of the Shi'ah great scholars and Maraje', including Ayatullah Safi Golpayegani and Ayatullah Fazel Lankarani, have clearly announced in their fatwas.

Ayatolah Mesbah Yazdi

Nobel Peace Prize winner ElBaradei on use of force

DICKEY: What if the Iranians are just buying time for their bomb building?

ELBARADEI: That´s why I said we are coming to the litmus test in the next few weeks. Diplomacy is not just talking. Diplomacy has to be backed by pressure and, in extreme cases, by force. We have rules. We have to do everything possible to uphold the rules through conviction. If not, then you impose them. Of course, this has to be the last resort, but sometimes you have to do it.

Source

Iranians not Arabs

Michael Rubin one of the authentic Iran experts had a brilliant interview with NRO. Read the whole article here. (thanx Winston for the pointing out of the paper)

Lopez: What's something about the Iranian people we should all know?

Rubin: It sounds basic, but Iranians aren't Arabs. While Arabic is a Semitic language like Hebrew, Persian is Indo-European. There are so many Persian cognates: The Persian word for forest is jungle and the word for sugar cube is qand (like candy). Mother is madar, father is padar, and brother, baradar. It is important to know and understand Iranian culture. Iranian poetry is rich, and Iranian cuisine the best in the world. Still, while appreciating Iranian culture is important to derive a more nuanced policy, it is also important to not lose perspective: It is true that 80 percent of Iranians don't support their government and are pro-Western. But it's equally important to remember that how friendly and independent Iranians are doesn't matter; it's the guys with the guns who make the decision and who have for a quarter century isolated Iran.



Also a fine Persian translation by Winston here

ل: چه چيز خاصی هست که همگی ما بايد راجع به مردم ايران بدانيم؟
م.ر: چيز های ابتدايی مثل اينکه مردم ايران عرب نيستند. زبان عربی زبانی سامی مثل عبری است، فارسی زبانی از گونه هندی-اروپايی ميباشد.
فارسی و انگليسی لغات مشترک زيادی دارند مثل جنگل، برادر، خواهر، مادر، پدر، شکر، قند، و الخ... و بسيار مهم است که فرهنگ ايران را بشناسيم و درک کنيم
شعر ايران بسيار غنی است. و غذای ايرانی بهترين غذای دنياست. اگر چه بايد فرهنگ ايرانی را درک کرد و پاس داشت اما اين دليل بر اين نيست که زاويه ديد به دور دست را هم ناديده بگيريم.
درست است که بيش از 80 درصد مردم ايران از دولت خود ناراضی هستند و همگی غرب دوست هستند، اما اين هم به همان مقدار مهم است که بدانيم هر چقدر مردم ايران آزاد انديش و دوستانه هستند، ان کسی که دستش بر روی ماشه قرار دارد تصميم گيرنده است و هم اوست که نزديک به ربع قرن ايران را در جامعه جهانی منزوی ساخته است

Israel's Olmert forges coalition government

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel's acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert won enough partners for a coalition government on Sunday after a key faction said it agreed to join.

Shas, an ultra-religious Jewish party, had drafted a coalition deal with Olmert's centrist Kadima. Shas's ruling rabbis approved the deal at a late-night meeting, a party spokesman said.

With Shas on board, Olmert controls 67 of parliament's 120 seats -- a majority crucial to pushing through a plan to withdraw from isolated Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank in the absence of peace talks with the Palestinians.

Source

Iran Jams Satellite Broadcasts

Meysam Salehian

30 Apr 2006

Iran's hardline Sepah-e Passdaran Revolutionary Guards Corps has launched a new project to use intelligent jamming to block specific satellite channels and broadcasts beamed into Iran.

Rials 100 billion were allocated for the project earlier this year and its operations began about two weeks ago through which by the end of the year some 50 to 70 jamming stations in Tehran and some other cities would prevent television sets in Iran to receive satellite-broadcast signals, primarily Persian language broadcasts. Under existing plans, the current 50 jamming stations would be increased to 300. The original program began during the initial years of Mohammad Khatami’s presidency after people poured into the streets following the victory of Iran’s football team in Australia, and subsequently the student protests in June and July of 2003.

According to informed sources, the problem with the earlier jamming efforts was that the sweepers that were used could only jam frequencies between 10.8 and 12.8 on the bandwidth. This jammed the signals that the state-run radio and television system itself wanted to receive.

The new efforts use synthesizers which apparently take care of the problem. Khatami’s administration put obstacles to the Rials 2,000 project of the Passdaran, but not to much avail. Observers conclude that with the new budget and purchases that the guards have made, this may impact the number of foreign-broadcast television viewers inside Iran.

Source

Iran's Psychopath in Chief

April 30, 2006
Times Online
Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv, Marie Colvin and Sarah Baxter in Washington

Israel's prime minister designate, Ehud Olmert, yesterday denounced the president of Iran as a “psychopath” and likened him to Adolf Hitler, in a growing confrontation over the Iranian nuclear programme.

The attack on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”, came as it emerged that the head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, secretly discussed the nuclear programme with officials in Washington last week.

Meir Dagan, the Mossad chief, is believed to have passed on the latest Israeli intelligence on covert Iranian plans for enriching uranium, with a warning that Tehran may be nearer to acquiring nuclear weapons than widely believed.

The Israeli leader’s comments, his most forceful condemnation of Ahmadinejad, came in an interview with the German newspaper Bild.

“Ahmadinejad speaks today like Hitler before taking power,” Olmert said of the president, who has questioned the Holocaust and suggested the Jewish state be moved to Europe or North America. “So you see, we are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind — with an anti-semite. God forbid that this man ever gets his hands on nuclear weapons, to carry out his threats.”

The strength of Olmert’s denunciation reflected mounting concern not only about Iran’s nuclear projects, but also about the international community’s perceived failure to respond decisively to what many Israelis see as a threat that will ultimately have to be eliminated by force.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) admitted on Friday that it was alarmed by “gaps” in its knowledge about Iran’s centrifuge programme and the role of the Iranian military in undeclared nuclear work. An Israeli source said Mossad had evidence of hidden uranium enrichment sites in Iran “which can short-cut their timetable in the race for their first bomb”.

Dagan, a stocky former commando who was injured in the 1967 six-day war, was sent to Washington by Olmert, the victor of last month’s Israeli elections, to prepare the way for his own visit to the White House on May 23. The Mossad boss is thought to have held meetings with counterparts at the CIA, the Pentagon and national security council. “Dagan is not given to small talk and niceties,” said an Israeli intelligence source, who believes he told the Americans: “This is what we know and this is what we’ll do if you continue to do nothing.”

Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, vowed last week that Iran’s nuclear programme would go underground if attacked. But many intelligence experts believe it is already operating a parallel uranium enrichment programme concealed from IAEA inspections.

“When I read the recent (intelligence) reports regarding Iran, I saw a monster in the making,” said Dr Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament’s foreign and defence committee, who oversees Mossad’s activities in Iran.

Steinitz fears the Islamic republic might be only a year away from developing a bomb, although the Iranians claim to be pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy programme. “There is only one option that is worse than military action against Iran and that is to sit and do nothing,” Steinitz said.

Although the Israelis would like the Americans to take military action against Iran, should it become necessary, President George W Bush is in no rush to order airstrikes. After the IAEA released its report last week, Bush said “diplomatic options are just beginning” and promised to work with allies to achieve a “peaceful solution”.

Britain, France, Germany and America hope to pass a resolution at the United Nations security council this week mandating Iran to suspend its work on uranium enrichment. If Iran refuses to back down, the security council could impose targeted sanctions.

Ahmadinejad boasted last week that he did not “give a damn” about UN resolutions.

If America does not get its way at the security council, it intends to raise the possibility of isolating Iran economically at the July G8 summit in St Petersburg.

A senior Israeli source said in Washington last week that Israel could not allow Iran to spin out negotiations indefinitely. “If we do not see any progress on the political or economic track that convinces the Iranians to back down, one of the parties will use the military option,” he said.

Source

Iran's Secret Plan if Attacked by US Codenamed "Judgement Day"

Iran's Secret Plan if Attacked by US Codenamed "Judgement Day"

April 27, 2006
Asharq Al-Awsat
Ali Nouri Zadeh



London, - Eight fundamentalist Islamist organizations have received large sums of money in the last month from the Iranian intelligence services, as part of a project to strike U.S military and economic installations across the Middle East Asharq Al-Awsat has learned.

The plan, which also includes the carrying out of suicide operations targeting US and British interests in the region, as well as their Arab and Muslim allies, in case Iran is attacked, was drawn up by a number of experts guerilla warfare and terrorist operations, and was revealed by a senior source in the Iranian armed forces' joint chief of staff headed by the veterinary doctor Hassan Firouzabadi,

The source added that the forces of the Revolutionary Guards’ al Quds Brigades, under Brigadier General Qassim Suleimani is responsible for coordinating and providing logistical support for the groups taking part in the execution of the plan, codenamed al Qiyamah the Islamic word for "Judgment Day".

The plan includes three steps, which Asharq al Awsat has examined in earlier reports. The source gave more details about how the plan will be implemented. He said, “Most of Iran’s visitors in the last four months, including the leaders of revolutionary groups in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, as well as the heads of Hezbollah cells in the Persian Gulf and Europe and North America were asked, when they met with the Iranian intelligence minister Gholamhossein Mohseni Ezhei and his aides: are you ready to defend the Islamic revolution and vilayat e faqih? If you agree to take part in the great jihad, what would you need to be ready for the great fight?

Amongst the leaders who visited were the head of one of the Iraqi armed group who was very clear and honest. He said his men would transform Iraq into a hell for the Americans if Iran were attacked.

The source also said that the military training camps of the Guards were opened for the fighters of the Mehdi army in Iran to receive the necessary training. Iran had also increased its financial assistance to Moqtada al Sadr to more than 20 million dollars.

The same applied to Islamic Jihad in Palestine which has received large sums of money, large quantities of arms and military training for its cadres in Isfahan, including street fighting methods.

As for the Lebanese Hezbollah, several loads of arms have been sent to; they include rockets, explosives, and guided missiles. Hezbollah's arsenal includes more than 10 thousand rockets short-range rockets and missiles including Fajr, Nour, Arash, Hadid.


An estimated 80 members underwent private training last year on how to carry out suicide operations from the air (through the use of kite planes) and undersea operations using submarines.

While denying that Hamas had joined the list of organizations ready to help Iran in its likely war with the U.S, the source indicated that the external success of the movement, which enjoys considerable Iranian support both financial and military, was strengthened following the latest visit by its leaders to Tehran. This was translated in the Palestinian masses’ support for Iran, against Israel and the United States .

According to Iran, the latest military plan includes:

1- A missile strike directly targeting the US bases in the Persian Gulf and Iraq , as soon as nuclear installations are hit.

2- Suicide operations in a number of Arab and Muslim countries against US embassies and missions and US military bases and economic and oil installations related to US and British companies. The campaign might also target the economic and military installations of countries allied with the United States .

3- Launch attacks by the Basij and the Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi fighters loyal to Iran against US and British forces in Iraq , from border regions in central and southern Iraq .

4- Hezbollah to launch hundreds of rockets against military and economic targets in Israel .

According to the source, in case the US military attacks continue, more than 50 Shehab-3 missiles will be targeted against Israel and the al Quads Brigades will give the go-ahead for more than 50 terrorists cells in Canada, the US and Europe to attack civil and industrial targets in these countries.

What about the last stage in the plan?

Here, the Iranian source hesitated before saying with worry; this stage might represent the beginning of a world war, given that extremists will seek to maximize civilian casualties by exploding germ and chemical bombs as well as dirty nuclear bombs across western and Arab cities.

http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=4722

Iran claims nuclear project breakthrough

April 30, 2006
Telegraph
Philip Sherwell in New York

Iran is developing an advanced centrifuge that would allow it to accelerate its controversial uranium enrichment programme, a senior official told state television yesterday.

Mohammad Saidi, the vice-president of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, made the claim a day after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran had ignored a United Nations ultimatum to end enrichment work.

A more sophisticated breed of centrifuge would allow scientists to speed up purification of uranium towards the 90 per cent level required for bomb-making. They recently achieved an initial enrichment level of 3.6 per cent - the purity required to generate electricity. "We have told the agency [IAEA] that we are studying and conducting research on different types of machines," Mr Saidi said. "We cannot limit ourselves when we have an enrichment programme."

His comments were supported by a television interview with Gholamreza Aghazadeh, Iran's nuclear chief. "As for more advanced machines - we indeed have plans to develop such machines," he said. "Having the advanced type of centrifuges and the new technology enables one to multiply production."

Britain will this week introduce a draft resolution at the UN Security Council for a mandatory order to Iran to halt enrichment after it ignored Friday's deadline to cease the work voluntarily. But diplomatic deadlock looms as Russia and China say that they will veto any moves to impose sanctions or enforce action against Iran.

Teheran snubbed requests by the IAEA for an explanation of recent claims by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about Iran's centrifuge operations. The hard-line leader revealed that Iran was conducting research on the P2 centrifuge, based on technology acquired from the secret network of A Q Khan, the rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist - even though Teheran had long insisted that it had abandoned such work.

In referring to even more sophisticated centrifuges, Mr Saidi may have been alluding to the P[2], which Pakistan is known to have developed.

The Sunday Telegraph was last week supplied by the main exiled opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), with a detailed breakdown of locations, scientists and front companies involved in building the P2.

The work is focused on two sites - at Ab-e Ali, in northern Teheran, and in secret underground facilities at the Natanz enrichment plant. Testing on P2 prototypes is being conducted at Ab-e Ali, in two huge workshops, under the guidance of Chinese and North Korean nuclear experts, according to the NCRI, which revealed the existence of Iran's clandestine nuclear programme in 2002.

The successful construction of P2 centrifuges would be a giant leap for the regime's nuclear ambitions as they would quadruple the enrichment speed of the present P1 machines.

A country that masters enrichment will have the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons. Teheran says its programme is a peaceful effort to generate electricity, but the West is convinced that it is secretly trying to build an atomic bomb.

After disclosing details of Iran's P2 programme, Maryam Rajavi, the NCRI leader, told The Sunday Telegraph: "There is no doubt that the clerical regime is only interested in deceiving the world community and the IAEA, in order to buy time and obtain nuclear weapons. There is no room for appeasement toward this regime."

Mr Ahmadinejad insisted yesterday that Teheran would "never" renounce its nuclear programme. "Iran's decision to master nuclear technology and the production of nuclear fuel is irreversible."

Other officials said that Iran would allow the resumption of full IAEA inspections if its case was removed from the attention of the UN Security Council, but the offer was viewed as meaningless by Western officials.

Source

Rice says US could pressure Iran outside UN

WASHINGTON (Reuters)
Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:34 PM ET
By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned on Sunday the United States might take steps outside the U.N. Security Council to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear program.

Rice, who appeared on several Sunday television talk shows, said Washington still had a number of diplomatic steps it could take through the U.N. Security Council against Iran. However, if the Council did not act quickly enough, Washington and its allies would not wait.

"I absolutely believe that we have a lot of diplomatic arrows in our quiver at the Security Council and also like-minded states that would be able and willing to look at additional measures if the Security Council does not move quickly enough," Rice said on the CBS show Face the Nation.

Rice accused Iran of "playing games" with the international community, saying Tehran had had plenty of time to comply with earlier demands to halt its program.

The United States contends that Iran is working to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran says its program is purely to meet civil energy needs.

The United States, Britain and France want to introduce a new Security Council resolution which would require Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported last week that Tehran had defied an earlier Security Council deadline to halt its enrichment program.

The new resolution would invoke Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, making compliance mandatory and punishable by sanctions if violated. However, the United States still has to overcome veto threats by Russia and China to get such a resolution through the Council.


Source

Iran enriched uranium to over 4 pct

Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:02 AM IST
Reuters


TEHRAN - Iran has enriched uranium to more than 4 percent, an Iranian official said on Saturday, a level higher than Iran previously told the U.N. nuclear watchdog but still in the range used for fuel in nuclear power stations.

Iran had told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in mid-April that it had enriched uranium to 3.6 percent, a level which the IAEA confirmed from samples it took.

Experts said uranium enriched to a range of roughly 3 to 5 percent is a low level used in atomic power reactors. Uranium would have to be enriched far higher, to 80 percent or more, to make nuclear weapons, which is what the West fears Iran wants.

"We have done enrichment in the range of above 4 percent," Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency, said on a discussion programme on Iranian state television.

He also repeated Iran's position that it would not give up enrichment, describing it as an "issue of life and death for Iranian society" and saying the goal enjoyed broad support.

"It is up to Iran to decide if it will keep enrichment at a pilot level or move towards an industrial scale," he said.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran will pursue large-scale enrichment in defiance of U.N. demands for suspending the sensitive nuclear work.

The world's fourth largest oil exporter insists it has no military nuclear programme and says it wants to enrich fuel for nuclear power stations.

Western diplomats at the United Nations in New York have said they plan to introduce a resolution to the Security Council within a week giving legal force to the Council's demands.

The United States, backed by Britain and France, support limited sanctions but the other two veto-wielding permanent Council members, Russia and China, are more guarded.

"I am sure that Russia and China will not support any draft that could lead to a Chapter 7 resolution in the Security Council," Iran's envoy to the IAEA in Vienna, Ali-Asghar Soltanieh, told the television programme by telephone.

A resolution adopted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter makes council resolutions mandatory under international law. Chapter 7 allows for sanctions or even war but a separate resolution is required to specify either step.

Western diplomats have said China and Russia were unlikely to veto a resolution, but may block any eventual sanctions.

Source

Perhaps God does not want flag burning?

Political prisoners condemn Shirin Ebadi

Iran Press News: Translation by Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi.

We would like to remind Ms. Ebadi, who won the Nobel Peace Prize two years ago, of a few things. Though we were all so proud that an Iranian woman won that distinguished prize, we are nonetheless, forced to point out her apathy. Her newfound financial and political influence, has afforded her the distinction to champion and openly talk about the immeasurable human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran; after all she has become recognized by international human rights organizations around the world as an authority on such issues.

Before her winning the award however, she was a lawyer who had spent 25 days in prison and had been unconditionally released after signing a letter, repenting for her charges; therefore no one expected anything from her. However, now, given all the above-mentioned reasons one would hope and expect more from her. As of late however, her interviews, speeches, articles and reports have taken on a very conservative tone. In recent days as well, on the occasion of the execution of political prisoner, Hodjat Zamani, she not only did not condemn the execution, she simply ignored it.

We are certain that she does not truthfully report any of the atrocities committed by the Islamic regime to western leaders and various human rights establishments who are in contact with her. This human rights celebrity has even declined to mention some of her own closest friends [for whom we have a great deal of respect], some of whom have been in prison for 27 years; she has never so much as spoken of or even defended the brave imprisoned students and political activists who have spent years in these nightmarish prisons of the Islamic regime, under the most horrifying mental and physical tortures. It has also just come to our attention that she does not even keep up with the status of the prisons or the statistics of the political prisoners.

Isn't this preferential treatment and discrimination? Isn't she meant to be defending all political prisoners? Why should western leaders and international human rights establishments be so coaxed by such shady and bogus individuals? Is this all there is to her claim on equality and defense of human rights? It is indeed a sad day when the world leaders are taken in by such underhanded lobbyists and sleazy influence peddlers. READ MORE

Please help us by sending our letter of complaint to the various heads of states and international human rights organizations and please appeal to them, on our behalf, in exposing her willful neglect and discrimination against us all, who clung, with hopes for freedom to her.

We will shortly present a detailed and explicit profile on Ms. Ebadi that will summarize her exploitations [on behalf of the Islamic regime] and her complete disinterest and apathy to the vital mission, as a defender of human rights, meaning the defense of all people, for which she received the renowned award.

Signatories are imprisoned student leaders and various activists:

1. Manouchehr Mohammadi (Evin Prison)2. Akbar Mohammadi (Evin Prison)3. Khaled Hardani (Evin Prison)4. Mostafa Jowkar (Evin Prison)5. Behnam Vafo-Seresht (Evin Prison)6. Hashem Shanian (Evin Prison)7. Haydar-Qoli Soltani (Evin Prison)8. Hodjat Bakhtiari (Evin Prison)9. Hamid-Reza Mohammadi10. Mohsen Bawpeeri (Evin Prison)11. Asad Shaghaghi (Rejaiishahr)12. Amir-Heshmat Saran (Rejaiishahr)13. Valiollah Fayz-Mahdavi14. Mehrdad Lohrasbi (Rejaiishahr)15. Jafa Eghdomi (Rejaiishahr)16. Reza Ashrafpour (Mazandaron detention center)

Source

Iran working on advanced enriching equipment

LONDON, March 29 (IranMania) - Iran is working on extremely advanced centrifuge designs for its controversial uranium enrichment programme, a senior official told Iranian state television Saturday.

"We have told the (International Atomic Energy) Agency that we are studying and conducting research on different types of machines. We cannot limit ourselves when we have an enrichment programme," said Mohammad Saidi, the vice president of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation.

"But when it comes to which type we will use, we are still examining this. It isn't the P-2 (centrifuge), there are other devices that are more advanced and that are a part of our work," he added.

Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium for either nuclear reactor fuel or atom bomb material. They work in cascades of hundreds, or thousands, spinning at high speed to refine out the uranium U-235 isotope, AFP reported.

Enrichment is seen as a "breakout capacity" which, once mastered, makes manufacturing nuclear weapons possible, AFP stated.

The International Atomic Energy Agency report has prompted calls from Western powers for tougher Security Council action.

Tehran claims that it wants to enrich uranium only to make reactor fuel for an atomic energy drive. The process, however, can be extended to produce weapons grade material that forms the fissile core of an atom bomb, AFP noted.

Source

The IAEA report on the Iranian nuclear program

I dont think there is anywhere on the net a text version of this yet, so I felt the need for it. - Joseph




IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency



Board of Governors


GOV/2006/27
Date: 28 April 2006

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards
Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran


Report by the Director General



1. On 4 February 2006, the Board of Governors adopted a resolution (GOV/2006/14) in
paragraph 1 of which it, inter alia, underlined that outstanding questions concerning the
implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran1 (Iran) could best be
resolved and confidence built in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme by Iran
responding positively to the Board’s calls for confidence building measures. In this context, the Board
deemed it necessary for Iran to:


• re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities,
including research and development, to be verified by the Agency;
• reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water;
• ratify promptly and implement in full the Additional Protocol;
• pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional
Protocol which Iran signed on 18 December 2003;
• implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director General, including in
GOV/2005/67, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement
and Additional Protocol, and include such access to individuals, documentation relating to
procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and
development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations.
2. In paragraph 2 of that resolution, the Board requested the Director General to report to the United
Nations Security Council that the steps set out in paragraph 1 of the resolution were required of Iran
by the Board and to report to the Security Council all IAEA reports and resolutions, as adopted,
relating to this issue. In paragraph 8 of GOV/2006/14, the Board also requested the Director General
to report on the implementation of that resolution, and previous resolutions, to the next regular session



GOV/2006/27
Page 2

of the Board, for its consideration, and immediately thereafter to convey, together with any resolution
from the March Board, that report to the Security Council.
3. Following receipt by the Security Council of the Director General’s report (GOV/2006/15), the
President of the Security Council made a statement on behalf of the Council (reproduced in
GOV/INF/2006/7) in which the Council, inter alia, called upon Iran to take the steps required by the
Board of Governors, notably in the first operative paragraph of its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are
essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to
resolve outstanding questions, and underlined, in this regard, the particular importance of re-
establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities,
including research and development, to be verified by the Agency. The Security Council requested in
30 days a report from the Director General on the process of Iranian compliance with the steps
required by the Board of Governors, to the Board and in parallel to the Security Council for its
consideration.
4. This report is being submitted to the Board and in parallel to the Security Council. It provides an
update on the developments that have taken place since March 2006 in the implementation of Iran’s
Safeguards Agreement, on the Agency’s verification of Iran’s implementation of the confidence
building measures requested by the Board of Governors, and on the Agency’s overall assessment in
connection with the implementation of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement.
A. Developments since March 2006
5. On 13 April 2006, at the invitation of Iran, the Director General and an Agency team met in
Tehran with the President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), the Secretary of the
Supreme National Security Council of Iran and other Iranian officials to discuss issues relevant to the
verification of the correctness and completeness of Iran’s declarations. The Director General urged
Iran to accelerate substantially its cooperation with the Agency on the outstanding verification issues,
and underlined the importance of Iran’s implementation of the confidence building measures requested
by the Board of Governors.
6. On 27 April 2006, the Director General received from Iran a letter of the same date in which it
stated, inter alia, the following:
“1 - Isla mic Republic of Iran has fully cooperated with the Agency during the past three
years in accordance with the NPT Comprehensive Safeguards, the Additional
Protocol and even beyond the Additional Protocol which was voluntarily
implemented as if it was ratified.
“2 - Isla mic Republic of Iran has granted the full and unrestricted access to nuclear
facilities during the past three years in the course of around 2000 man-day
inspections.
“3 - All nuclear facilities and activities have been under the Agency’s Safeguards.
“4 - Nuclear materials have been declared to the Agency and have been accounted for.
“5 - Isla mic Republic of Iran is fully committed to its obligations under the NPT and
the comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC/153).


GOV/2006/27
Page 3

“6 - Isla mic Republic of Iran is fully prepared to continue granting the Agency’s
inspection in accordance with the Comprehensive Safeguards provided that the
Iran’s nuclear dossier will remain, in full, in the framework of the IAEA and under
its safeguards, the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to resolve the remaining
outstanding issues reflected in [the Director General’s] report GOV/2006/15 of
27 February 2006, in accordance with the international laws and norms. In this
regard, Iran will provide a time table within next three weeks.”
A.1. Enrichment Programme
7. As noted in the Director General’s report of 27 February 2006 (GOV/2006/15), the Agency has
repeatedly requested Iran to provide additional information on certain issues related to its enrichment
programme. Iran declined to discuss these matters at the 12–14 February 2006 meeting in Tehran
referred to in paragraph 6 of GOV/2006/15 on the grounds that, in its view, they were not within the
scope of the Safeguards Agreement. Iran reasserted this position in a meeting which took place with
Agency inspectors in Tehran on 8 April 2006. The Agency reiterated that it was essential to resolve
these questions so that the Agency can verify the correctness and completeness of Iran’s declarations,
particularly in light of the two decades of concealed activities. The current status of these outstanding
issues is as follows.
A.1.1. Contamination
8. Although the results of the Agency’s analyses to date tend, on balance, to support Iran’s statement
regarding the foreign origin of most of the high enriched uranium (HEU) contamination which was
found at locations where Iran has declared that centrifuge components had been manufactured, used
and/or stored, the Agency is continuing to investigate the source(s) of low enriched uranium particles,
and some HEU particles, found at those locations.2
9. Since it will be difficult to establish a definitive conclusion with respect to the origin of all of the
contamination, it is essential for the Agency to make progress in ascertaining the scope and
chronology of Iran’s centrifuge enrichment programme. The implementation of the Additional
Protocol and Iran’s full cooperation in this regard are essential for the Agency be able to provide the
required assurance concerning the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.
A.1.2. Acquisition of P-1 centrifuge technology
10. As noted in previous reports, the Agency was shown by Iran in January 2005 a copy of a
handwritten one-page document reflecting an offer said to have been made to Iran in 1987 by a foreign
intermediary.3 In order to be able to ascertain its nature and origin, a copy of the document is needed
by the Agency. However, Iran continues to decline the Agency’s request for a copy of the document.
11. As previously reported, according to Iran, there were no contacts by Iran with the network
between 1987 and mid-1993, when discussions leading to the later offer in the mid-1990s are said to

2 GOV/2006/15, paras 7–10.
3 Most recently in GOV/2006/15, para. 11. The document related to the possible supply of: a disassembled centrifuge;
drawings, specifications and calculations for a “complete plant”; and materials for 2000 centrifuge machines. The document
also made reference, inter alia, to uranium re-conversion and casting capabilities. Iran has repeatedly stated that that
document wa s the only remaining documentary evidence relevant to the scope and content of the 1987 offer, attributing this
to the secret nature of the programme and the management style of the AEOI at that time. Iran has stated that no other written
evidence exists, such as meeting minutes, administrative documents, reports, personal notebooks or the like, to substantiate
its statements concerning that offer.


GOV/2006/27
Page 4

have been initiated.4 Statements made by Iran and key members of the network about the events
leading to the mid-1990s offer are still at variance with each other. Iran has yet to provide further
clarification in this regard. Iran has also said that it is unable to provide any documentation or other
information about the meetings that led to its acquisition of 500 sets of P-1 centrifuge components in
the mid-1990s. The Agency is still awaiting clarification of the dates and contents of the shipments
containing those components.
A.1.3. Acquisition of P-2 centrifuge technology
12. As reflected in the Director General’s previous report, Iran still maintains that, after having
received the drawings for P-2 components in 1995, it carried out no work on P-2 centrifuges until
2002, and that at no time during the intervening period did it ever discuss with the intermediaries the
P-2 centrifuge design or the possible supply of P-2 centrifuge components.5 Iran also continues to
maintain that there were no deliveries of any centrifuge components after 1995.
13. In connection with the research and development (R&D) work on a modified P-2 design, said by
Iran to have been carried out by a contracting company between early 2002 and July 2003, Iran has
confirmed that the contractor had made enquiries about, and purchased, magnets suitable for the P-2
centrifuge design. In February 2006, Iran provided some additional clarification about the types of P-2
magnets that it had received, but maintained that only a limited number of magnets had been
delivered. The Agency is still investigating this matter.
14. In mid-April 2006, there were several reports in the press about statements by high level Iranian
officials concerning R&D and testing of P-2 centrifuges by Iran. The Agency has asked Iran to clarify
these statements.
A.2. Uranium Metal
15. The references to uranium re-conversion and casting capabilities in the one-page document
mentioned in paragraph 10 above have taken on greater significance in light of the existence of the
15-page document shown to the Agency by Iran describing the procedures for the reduction of UF6 to
uranium metal in small quantities, and for the casting of enriched and depleted uranium metal into
hemispheres.6
16. As previously reported, although there is no indication about the actual use of the latter document
or when it was received, its existence in Iran is a matter of concern. The Agency is aware that the
intermediaries had this document, as well as other similar documents, which it has seen in other
Member States. Therefore, it is essential that the Agency be able to understand the full scope of the
offer made by the network in 1987 and to confirm what was obtained by Iran in connection with that
offer, and when. To do so, it is necessary for the Agency to have a copy of the 15-pa ge document, so
that it can follow up further on these issues. However, Iran has continued to decline the Agency’s
request for a copy.

4 GOV/2006/15, para. 15.
5 GOV/2006/15, para. 18.
6 GOV/2006/15, paras 20–22. According to Iran, the document was provided on the initiative of the intermediaries, and not at
the request of the AEOI. The document is currently under Agency seal.


GOV/2006/27
Page 5

A.3. Plutonium Experiments
17. As indicated earlier, the Agency has been following up with Iran information provided by Iran
concerning experiments involving the separation of small (milligram) quantities of plutonium.7 After
having received Iran’s further clarifications on 15 February 2006, and the results of additional sample
analyses which confirmed the Agency’s earlier findings, the Agency provided Iran on 30 March 2006
with an updated summary of its overall analysis of this issue. On 10 April 2006, the Agency met with
Iranian officials to seek further explanations concerning the inconsistencies identified in that analysis.
Following that meeting, in a letter dated 17 April 2006, Iran reaffirmed its previous explanations of the
inconsistencies. In the light of the Agency’s findings, the Agency cannot exclude the possibility —
notwithstanding the explanations provided by Iran — that the plutonium analysed by the Agency was
derived from source(s) other than the ones declared by Iran.
A.4. Heavy Water Research Reactor
18. On 22 April 2006, the Agency visited the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) at Arak to carry
out design information verification and confirmed that the civil engineering work was still ongoing.
A.5. Other Implementation Issues
19. There are no new developments to report with respect to Iran’s uranium mining activities.8
20. There are also no new developments to report with respect to Iran’s experiments involving
polonium.9
21. On 9–11 April 2006, the Agency discussed with Iran the routine safeguards measures to be
implemented at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) at Esfahan and the Pilot Fuel Enrichment
Plant (PFEP) at Natanz. When fully implemented, the measures proposed by the Agency should allow
it to meet all of the safeguards objectives for these facilities. Although agreement was reached on most
of the measures, Iran still has reservations about the remote transmission of encrypted safeguards data
to Agency Headquarters in Vienna.
22. On 11 April 2006, the Agency visited the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) at Natanz, and observed
that civil construction was ongoing.
A.6. Voluntary Implementation of the Additional Protocol
23. Since 5 February 2006, Iran has not been implementing the provisions of its Additional Protocol.
A.7. Transparency Visits and Discussions
24. Since 2004, the Agency has repeatedly requested additional information and clarifications related
to efforts made by the Physics Research Centre (PHRC), which had been established at Lavisan-Shian,
to acquire dual use materials and equipment that could also be used in uranium enrichment and

7 GOV/2006/15, paras 23–26.
8 GOV/2005/67, paras 26–31.
9 GOV/2005/67, para. 34; GOV/2004/83, para. 84.


GOV/2006/27
Page 6

conversion activities.1 0 The Agency also requested interviews with the individuals involved in the
acquisition of those items, including two former Heads of the PHRC.
25. As previously reported, the Agency met in February 2006 with one of the former Heads of the
PHRC, who had been a university professor at a technical university while he was Head of the
PHRC.1 1 The Agency took environmental samples from some of the equipment said to have been
procured for use by the university, the results of which are currently being assessed and discussed with
Iran. Although Iran agreed to provide further clarifications in relation to efforts to procure balancing
machines, mass spectrometers, magnets and fluorine handling equipment, the Agency has yet to
receive such clarifications. Further access to the procured equipment is necessary for environmental
sampling. Iran has continued to decline requests by the Agency to interview the other former Head of
the PHRC.
26. In January 2006, Iran provided some clarification of its efforts in 2000 to procure some other dual
use material (high strength aluminium, special steels, titanium and special oils). Iran agreed to provide
additional information on these efforts, some of which the Agency has since received from Iran. Iran
also presented information on its acquisition of corrosion resistant steel, valves and filters for UCF. In
January 2006, environmental samples were taken from these latter items, the results of which are still
pending.
27. As previously reported, the Deputy Director General for the Department of Safeguards met with
Iranian authorities in February 2006 to discuss alleged studies related to the so-called Green Salt
Project, to high explosives testing and to the design of a missile re-entry vehicle, all of which could
have a military nuclear dimension and which appear to have administrative interconnections.12
28. As indicated in GOV/2006/15, Iran stated that the allegations with regard to the Green Salt Project
“are based on false and fabricated documents so they were baseless,” and that neither such a project
nor such studies exist or had existed. Iran stated that all national efforts had been devoted to the UCF
project, and that it would not make sense to develop indigenous capabilities to produce UF4 when such
technology had already been acquired from abroad. However, according to information provided
earlier by Iran, the company alleged to have been associated with the Green Salt Project had been
involved in procurement for UCF and in the design and construction of the Gchine uranium ore
processing plant.
29. The Agency is assessing the information provided by Iran during these discussions concerning the
Green Salt Project, as well as other information available to it. However, Iran has yet to address the
other topics of high explosives testing and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle.


1 0 According to Iran, the PHRC was established at Lavisan-Shian in 1989, inter alia, to “support and provide scientific advice
and services to the Ministry of Defence” (GOV/2004/60, para. 43).
1 1 Iran informed the Agency that the PHRC had attempted to acquire the electric drive equipment, the power supply
equipment and the laser equipment, and had successfully purchased vacuum equipment for R&D in various departme nts of
the university. The professor explained that his expertise and connections, as well as resources a vailable at his office in the
PHRC, had been used for the procurement of equipment for the technical university.
1 2 GOV/2006/15, paras 38 and 39.


GOV/2006/27
Page 7

A.8. Suspension
30. In a letter dated 3 January 2006, Iran informed the Agency that it had decided to resume, as from
9 January 2006, “those R&D on the peaceful nuclear energy programme which ha[d] been suspended
as part of its expanded voluntary and non-legally binding suspension”.1 3
31. In February 2006, Iran started enrichment tests at PFEP by feeding UF6 gas into a single P-1
machine, and later into 10-machine and 20-machine cascades. During March 2006, a 164-machine
cascade was completed, and tests of the cascade using UF6 were begun. On 13 April 2006, Iran
declared to the Agency that an enrichment level of 3.6% had been achieved. On 18 April 2006, the
Agency took samples at PFEP, the results of which tend to confirm as of that date the enrichment level
declared by Iran. On that day, UF6 gas was again being fed into the 164-machine cascade, and two
additional 164-machine cascades were under construction. The enrichment process at PFEP, including
the feed and withdrawal stations, is covered by Agency safeguards containment and surveillance
measures.
32. The current uranium conversion campaign at UCF, which was initiated in November 2005, is still
ongoing and is expected to be finished in April 2006. Since September 2005, approximately
110 tonnes of UF6 has been produced at UCF, all of which remains under Agency containment and
surveillance.
B. Current overall assessment14
33. All the nuclear material declared by Iran to the Agency is accounted for. Apart from the small
quantities previously reported to the Board, the Agency has found no other undeclared nuclear
material in Iran. However, gaps remain in the Agency’s knowledge with respect to the scope and
content of Iran’s centrifuge programme. Because of this, and other gaps in the Agency’s knowledge,
including the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear programme, the Agency is unable to make progress
in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in
Iran.
34. After more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran’s nuclear
programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern. Any progress in that
regard requires full transparency and active cooperation by Iran — transparency that goes beyond the
measures prescribed in the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol — if the Agency is to be
able to understand fully the twenty years of undeclared nuclear activities by Iran. Iran continues to
facilitate the implementation of the Safeguards Agreement and had, until February 2006, acted on a
voluntary basis as if the Additional Protocol were in force. Until February 2006, Iran had also agreed
to some transparency measures requested by the Agency, including access to certain military sites.
Additional transparency measures, including access to documentation, dual use equipment and
relevant individuals, are, however, still needed for the Agency to be able to verify the scope and nature

1 3 GOV/INF/2006/1.
1 4 A detailed overall assessment of Iran’s nuclear programme and the Agency’s efforts to verify Iran’s declarations with
respect to that programme was most recently provided to the Board of Governors by the Director General in February 2006.
See GOV/2006/15, paras 46–54.


GOV/2006/27
Page 8

of Iran’s enrichment programme, the purpose and use of the dual use equipment and materials
purchased by the PHRC, and the alleged studies which could have a military nuclear dimension.
35. Regrettably, these transparency measures are not yet forthcoming. With Iran’s decision to cease
implementing the provisions of the Additional Protocol, and to confine Agency verification to the
implementation of the Safeguards Agreement, the Agency’s ability to make progress in clarifying
these issues, and to confirm the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities, will be further
limited, and Agency access to activities not involving nuclear material (such as research into laser
isotope separation and the production of sensitive components of the nuclear fuel cycle) will be
restricted.15
36. While the results of Agency safeguards activities may influence the nature and scope of the
confidence building measures that the Board requests Iran to take, it is important to note that
safeguards obligations and confidence building measures are different, distinct and not
interchangeable. The implementation of confidence building measures is no substitute for the full
implementation at all times of safeguards obligations. In this context, it is also important to note that
the Agency’s safeguards judgements and conclusions in the case of Iran, as in all other cases, are
based on verifiable information available to the Agency, and are therefore, of necessity, limited to past
and present nuclear activities. The Agency cannot make a judgement about, or reach a conclusion on,
future compliance or intentions.
37. The Agency will pursue its investigation of all remaining outstanding issues relevant to Iran’s
nuclear activities, and the Director General will continue to report as appropriate.

Hidden Nuclear activities of Iran

Nuclear activities Iran kept hidden from the IAEA includes:

1. Clandestine construction of a pilot uranium enrichment facility;
2. Construction of a large-scale enrichment facility;
3. Construction of a facility to convert uranium yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) - which then can be enriched to create nuclear bombs;
4. Construction of a heavy-water reactor that can be used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons without having to master the uranium enrichment process;
5. Importation of the design and components for centrifuges used to enrich uranium;
6. Importation of 1.8 tons of uranium yellowcake; experimentation with the separation of plutonium;
7. Experimentation with polonium (a radioactive isotope used to trigger and boost nuclear explosions);
8. Importation of instructions on how to weaponize highly enriched uranium.

Source

War clouds

April 28, 2006
The Los Angeles Times
Op-Ed

Let me tell you about the next war. It will start sooner than you think — sometime between now and September. And it will be precipitated by the 700-million dollars Russian deal this week to sell Tor air defense missile systems to Iran.

When the war begins, it will be between Iran and Israel. Before it ends, though, it may set the whole of the Middle East on fire, pulling in the United States, leaving a legacy of instability that will last for generations and permanently ending a century of American supremacy.

Despite the high stakes, the Bush administration seems barely to have noticed the danger posed by the Russian missile sale. But the signs are there, for those inclined to read them.

As international pressure over their nuclear program mounts, the Iranians have become increasingly bellicose toward the U.S. and Israel. On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel was a "fake regime" that "cannot logically continue to live." On Wednesday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, warned that "if the U.S. ventured into any aggression on Iran, Iran will retaliate by damaging the U.S. interests worldwide."

Israel has upped the rhetorical heat as well. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reiterated Israel's determination to "make sure no one has the capability or the power to commit destruction against us."

This alone should make any observer jittery. In June 1981, Israel unilaterally launched an airstrike against a nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed and well-concealed, making a preemptive Israeli strike far more difficult this time around. But there's no reason to doubt Israel's willingness to try.

Of course, there's no firm evidence that Iran has offensive nuclear capabilities. And even a successful military strike against Iran would be a risky move for Israel, potentially igniting regionwide instability. Absent external meddling, Israel has a substantial incentive to wait to see if a diplomatic solution can be found.

But Russian brinksmanship is about to remove Israel's incentive to pursue a peaceful diplomatic path.

Russian leaders continue to mouth the usual diplomatic platitudes about democracy and global cooperation, but Russia is actually playing a complex double game. On Tuesday, Russia launched a spy satellite for Israel, which the Israelis can use to monitor Iran's nuclear facilities. On the same day, Russian leaders confirmed their opposition to any U.N. Security Council effort to impose sanctions against Iran, and their intention to go through with the lucrative sale of 29 Tor M1 air defense missile systems to Iran.

"There are no circumstances which would get in the way of us carrying out our commitments in the field of military cooperation with Iran," declared Nikolai Spassky, deputy head of Russia's National Security Council.

The upcoming deployment of Tor missiles around Iranian nuclear sites dramatically changes the calculus in the Middle East, and it significantly increases the risk of a regional war. Once the missile systems are deployed, Iran's air defenses will become far more sophisticated, and Israel will likely lose whatever ability it now has to unilaterally destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

The clock is ticking for Israel. To have a hope of succeeding, any unilateral Israeli strike against Iran must take place before September, when the Tor missile deployment is set to be completed.

At best, a conflict between Israel and Iran (with resulting civilian casualties) would further inflame anti-Israel sentiment in the Islamic world, with a consequent increase in terrorism, both against Israel and against the U.S., Israel's main foreign backer. At worst — if the U.S. gets drawn into the conflict directly — the entire Middle East could implode, terrorist attacks worldwide would increase, the already overstretched U.S. military would be badly damaged and U.S. global influence would wane — perhaps forever.

So what is Russia up to? Andrei Piontkovsky, a Russian political analyst, suggests that Russia's oil and gas oligarchs wouldn't shed any tears over a war in the Middle East, especially if it's a war that ensnares the U.S. and keeps oil prices high.

Even so, it may not be too late to avert a new war in the Middle East. A quiet but firm U.S. threat to boycott the G-8 summit in July in St. Petersburg might inspire Russian President Vladimir V. Putin to freeze the missile transfer. And a promise to facilitate Russian entry into the World Trade Organization might even get Russia's oil and gas oligarchs on board. Freezing the missile sale would buy crucial time to find a diplomatic solution to the stalemate over Iran's nuclear program.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration appears to be asleep at the wheel, too distracted by Iraq, skyrocketing gas prices and plummeting approval ratings to devote any attention to Russia's potentially catastrophic mischief.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.

Source

Iran 'Won't Give a Damn' About Resolution

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad probably "laughs". He assumes that the U.N. won’t take action. It’s sad how UN has given itself that portrayal. Ahmadinejad will continue his defiance until the SC makes action of Chapter 7. Nothing is more dangerous for the world’s security than a man who 'thinks' he can defy with no consequence.


April 28, 2006
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Ali Akbar Dareini
Edith M. Lederer
Anne Gearan

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran ''won't give a damn'' about any U.N. resolutions concerning its nuclear program, its president said Friday, hours before an expected finding that Tehran has failed to meet a Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment.

The anticipated finding by U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei will set the stage for a confrontation at the Security Council.

If Iran does not comply, the council is likely to consider punitive measures against the Islamic republic. While Russia and China have been reluctant to endorse sanctions, the council's three other veto-wielding members say a strong response is in order.

The United States, France and Britain say that if Tehran does not meet the deadline, they will make the enrichment demand and other conditions compulsory and they want punitive measures to stay on the table.

But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said no Security Council resolution could make Iran give up its nuclear program.

''The Iranian nation won't give a damn about such useless resolutions,'' Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Khorramdareh in northwestern Iran. Today, they want to force us to give up our way through threats and sanctions but those who resort to language of coercion should know that nuclear energy is a national demand and by the grace of God, today Iran is a nuclear country,'' state-run television quoted him as saying.''

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice won broad support from NATO allies for a tough diplomatic line on Iran if Tehran fails to comply.

However, NATO foreign ministers meeting in Sofia, Bulgaria, did not offer any specific threat of sanctions against Iran, in part to avoid a rift with Russia and China.

''On Iran, there was unanimity,'' Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos told reporters. ''Although the clear message to the Iranian authorities is one of firmness, we have to continue with the diplomatic path.''

Rice said it was time for the Security Council to act if the world body wished to remain credible.

''The Security Council is the primary and most important institution for the maintenance of peace and stability and security and it cannot have its word and its will simply ignored by a member state,'' Secretary Rice said.

On Thursday, Iran's deputy nuclear chief, Mohammad Saeedi, met with Olli Heinonen, the International Atomic Energy Agency's deputy director general in charge of Iran's nuclear file, handing over material on Tehran's nuclear program in a bid to stave off sanctions.

Diplomats, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss confidential details of the IAEA's Iran probe, said they had no details of what Saeedi had brought to the table.

Still, they characterized the meeting between Saeedi and Heinonen as unlikely to blunt the report's main finding: that Tehran has ignored council requests to suspend uranium enrichment.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton already has said he plans to introduce a resolution requiring Tehran to comply with the council's demand to stop its enrichment program. The resolution would not call for sanctions now, but it would be introduced under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows for sanctions and is militarily enforceable.

Iran's U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, said Tehran will refuse to comply with such a resolution because its activities are legal and peaceful. Enrichment can be used to generate fuel or make the fissile core of nuclear weapons.

''If the Security Council decides to take decisions that are not within its competence, then Iran does not feel obliged to obey,'' he said Thursday in New York.

He also said Tehran was prepared to return to discussions of the offer it made in negotiations with the Europeans last year if the international community agrees to ''stop this nonsense, pressure tactic.''

A Russian proposal to move Tehran's uranium enrichment to Russian territory ''is still alive,'' he said, ''and Iran is prepared to consider any proposal that will guarantee Iran's rights.''

Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, insisted the U.N. nuclear watchdog should continue to play a central role in the dispute. ''It mustn't shrug this role from its shoulders and pass it on to the U.N. Security Council,'' Putin said.

But a top French diplomat laid out a starkly contrasting position reflecting U.S. and British views: The Security Council should not only have primacy in dealing with Iran but also should start considering how to increase the pressure. But, the diplomat said, a U.N. resolution would not automatically mean resorting to military action.

The Security Council adopted a statement a month ago giving Iran until Friday to suspend all activities linked to enrichment because it can be used to make the highly enriched uranium used in the core of nuclear warheads.

Instead of complying, Iran -- which says it seeks the technology only to generate electric power -- has upped the ante recently, announcing it had for the first time successfully enriched uranium and was doing research on advanced centrifuges that would let it produce more of the material in less time.

Western concern has grown since 2002 when Iran was found to be working on large-scale plans to enrich uranium.

While the IAEA has found no ''smoking gun'' proving Iran wants nuclear arms, a series of reports have revealed worrying clandestine activities -- like plutonium processing -- and documents, including drawings of how to mold weapons-grade uranium metal into the shape of a warhead.

Source

France Wants UN Resolution On Iran To Allow Possible Force

April 27, 2006
Dow Jones Newswires
AP

PARIS -- France wants any U.N. resolution on Iran's nuclear program to come under a provision allowing for sanctions or possibly military force, a top French diplomat said Thursday.

Iran faces a Friday deadline to meet U.N. demands that it halt uranium enrichment, or face Security Council action. The U.S. foresees that such action will include a resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, meaning it could be eventually enforced with sanctions or force, depending on how it is worded.

France, too, wants any resolution to be under Chapter 7, a top diplomat said Thursday on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Such a resolution wouldn't "automatically" mean resorting to military action, the diplomat said. "We are not yet at that stage," he said.

The U.S., France and Britain have warned that noncompliance could lead to sanctions, but Russia and other key members of the coalition seeking to talk Iran into dropping its enrichment program have opposed sanctions or force.

The diplomat reiterated France's hope to make the demand compulsory if Iran doesn't meet the April 28 deadline. The U.S. and Britain agree, despite opposition from Russia and China, the other two veto-wielding council members.



Source

IRAN UNABLE TO BLOCK HORMUZ

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- Iran lacks the capability to block the world's leading shipping route for crude oil exports.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies said the Iranian Navy, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has failed to procure the platforms or weapons required to block the Straits of Hormuz, the passage for 60 percent of the world's oil trade. In a report, the Washington-based center said the United States could block any Iranian attempt to attack Gulf shipping, particularly from the sea.

"Iran could not close the Strait of Hormuz, or halt tanker traffic, and its submarines and much of its IRGC forces would probably be destroyed in a matter of days if they become operational," the report said.

The assertion undermined an Iranian warning to threaten the global oil trade if attacked by the United States. The warning was issued during the Holy Prophet exercise in the Gulf, which took place from March 31 to April 6.

Source

Iran Rejects UN Call to Halt Enrichment

April 27, 2006
Reuters
Edmund Blair

Iran will pursue uranium enrichment in defiance of outside pressure, its president said on Thursday, a day before a U.N. nuclear watchdog delivers a verdict on whether Tehran has met U.N. Security Council demands.

"If you think by frowning at us, by issuing resolutions ... you can impose anything on the Iranian nation or force it to abandon its obvious right, you still don't know its power," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a rally in northwest Iran


Source

Football Under the Swastika

April 26, 2006
The Wall Street Journal
Review & Outlook

"He could come with pleasure to the World Cup. We want to be good hosts," German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said earlier this month. "He" -- well, that's Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the guy who seems bent on revealing Shia Islam's messiah-like "Hidden Imam" by starting a nuclear Armageddon with Israel. The last time that Germany welcomed a foreign, apocalyptic politicians with genocidal ambitions his first name was Adolf and his favorite sporting event was the Olympics.

It's disappointing enough to hear Mr. Schäuble, usually one of Germany's saner politicians, encourage Iran's leader to attend June's football extravaganza. What really put the minister's remarks offside was the setting -- a symposia on "Football Under the Swastika." As guilt-ridden Germany bemoaned its football association's collaboration with the Nazis some 60 years ago, it was inviting the world's most infamous Holocaust denier and No. 1 threat to the Jewish state to its big event. Ironic doesn't quite capture it.

Mr. Ahmadinejad, a huge football fan, isn't revealing his travel plans for late June. A generous soul may put the German's behavior down to indiscriminate hospitality. The World Cup motto, after all, is "A Time to Make friends." But friendship by definition rests on discrimination. Playing "good hosts" to a sponsor of global terrorism makes Germany exactly what in this game?

No worries, Mr. Schäuble assured, "I will ask him about some of the statements in the past." Mr. Ahmadinejad must be trembling with fear that while watching a match with Mr. Schäuble in a VIP box, the German might ask him some really grueling questions. The conversation might go something like:

Mr. Schäuble: So, when you said Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth, you were just kidding, right?

Mr. Ahmadinejad: No.

Mr. Schäuble: Oh, I see. Pretty good seats, huh?

As that old dictum goes, sports and politics should be separated. But there is a big difference between allowing Iran's players, who have the great misfortune of living under a terrible regime, to attend an international tournament and extending the same courtesy to that regime itself.

Declaring a political leader persona non grata is not without precedent in the European Union. Just two weeks ago, the EU slapped a travel ban on authoritarian Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko and 30 key ministers and officials for rigging elections and suppressing democracy. We assume the travel ban includes the World Cup and similar sports events.

We applaud the EU's decision to shun the Lukashenko regime. But why hasn't the EU or Germany moved to keep Mr. Ahmadinejad out? Unless Mr. Schäuble's invitation was only a ploy to lure the Iranian president into the country and arrest him for Holocaust denial (punishable with up to five years in prison), Mr. Ahmadinejad, should he come to Germany, will probably get red carpet treatment and free tickets to all Iranian games. That's what friends are for, nicht wahr?

Brief Bio of Reza Pahlavi

Reza Pahlavi has been a lot on the media the last few. CNN, FOX, BBC...Thought it might be helpful with a brief bio.


Since the establishment of the clerical regime in Iran, and the passing of his father, the late Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi has been a leading and vocal advocate of the principles of freedom, democracy and human rights for his countrymen.

In 1978, Reza Pahlavi, then Crown Prince of Iran, left his homeland to complete his higher education in the United States. An accomplished jet fighter pilot, Reza Pahlavi completed the United States Air Force Training Program at the former Reese Air Force Base in Lubbock, Texas. He is a Political Science graduate of the University of Southern California.

Reza Pahlavi has lived in Morocco, Egypt and, since 1984, the United States. He is married to Yasmine Etemad Amini who is a graduate of George Washington University School of Law. Together with his wife, Yasmine and two daughters, Noor (April 3, 1992) and Iman (September 12, 1993), they reside in the state of Maryland.

Born on October 31, 1960, in Tehran, Iran, Reza Pahlavi is the eldest of four. Since the tragic passing of the late Leila Pahlavi (March 27, 1970 - June 10, 2001), Reza Pahlavi's siblings include Farahnaz (March 12, 1963), a brother Ali Reza (April 28, 1966), as well as a half-sister, Shahnaz (October 27, 1940).

Iran Is Described as Defiant on 2nd Nuclear Program

Iran seems increasingly defiant. With no signs of cooperation, it even leaves Mohammad Al Baradai to shrink in finding appeasing words. What is important now is time. And thats is not in our side before Iran oulls a North Korea on us with a nuclear inssurance policy...


April 24, 2006
The New York Times
David E. Sanger and Nazila Fathi



Iran has told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it will refuse to answer questions about a second, secret uranium-enrichment program, according to European and American diplomats. The existence of the program was disclosed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier this month.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad spoke at a rare news briefing with Iranian and foreign reporters in Tehran that was broadcast live with simultaneous translation.

The diplomats said Iran had also refused to answer questions about other elements of its nuclear program that international inspectors had focused on because they could indicate a program to produce nuclear weapons. The diplomats insisted on not being identified because of the delicacy of continuing negotiations between Iran and the West.

---


Iran's decision not to answer the I.A.E.A.'s questions was conveyed last week to Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the nuclear monitoring agency. He is required to send a report on Iran to the Council by Friday.

As a result, the diplomats said, Dr. ElBaradei decided to cancel a trip to Iran by top officials of the agency that had been scheduled for late last week, a trip intended to resolve as many of the questions as possible before the report is submitted.

Some of the most important questions concerned an advanced technology, the P-2 centrifuge, for enriching uranium. International inspectors believe that Iran obtained designs for the P-2 from the Pakistani nuclear engineer Abdul Qadeer Khan in the 1990's.

Iran long denied that it was doing anything with the technology, until Mr. Ahmadinejad declared 10 days ago that the country was "presently conducting research" on the P-2, which he said could increase fourfold the amount of uranium the country is able to enrich.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement took the inspectors and American officials by surprise. But they seized on his boasts about Iran's programs to press the question of whether the country has a separate set of nuclear facilities, apart from the giant enrichment center at Natanz, that it has not previously revealed. Dr. ElBaradei was told when he visited Tehran, the Iranian capital, two weeks ago that the country would try to answer questions about the P-2 program, its dealings with Mr. Khan in the 1980's and 90's and a series of other issues.

Dr. ElBaradei's inspectors were pressing other issues as well, many related to suspicions that Iran has been researching or developing ways to produce warheads or delivery systems for weapons — which Iran has denied. So far, Iran has answered few questions about a document in Tehran, apparently obtained from the Khan network, that shows how to form uranium metal into two spheres. Metal in that form can be used to create a basic nuclear device.

I.A.E.A. reports show there are also questions about plutonium enrichment, and a secret entity known as the Green Salt Project, which seemed to suggest that there were what the agency has called "administrative interconnections" between Iran's uranium processing, high explosives and missile design programs.

If Iran continues to refuse to answer the questions, it could bolster the American argument that the Security Council should take action under Article 7 of the United Nations Charter, which could pave the way for sanctions. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking in Shannon, Ireland, said Monday that the credibility of the Council would be in doubt if it does not take clear-cut actions against Iran.

But China and Russia have both expressed deep reservations about any measures meant to coerce Iran, and Mr. Ahmadinejad vaguely suggested Monday, as he has before, that he would consider pulling his country out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if membership was no longer in Iran's interests. North Korea did that in 1993, expelling all inspectors, and they have not been allowed to return.

"Our current policy is to work within the framework of the NPT and I.A.E.A., but if we feel that there is no benefit in it for us, we will review our policy," he said. "We must see what the benefits of cooperating with the I.A.E.A. are after 30 years."

Mr. Ahmadinejad rejected the United Nations deadline of Friday for Iran to suspend its nuclear program. He brushed off threats of economic sanctions, saying that sanctions would hurt Western nations more than Iran.

He also rejected a proposal by Moscow to enrich uranium on Russian soil. The proposal was aimed at easing international concern over Iran's nuclear program. While some Iranian officials rejected the proposal in the past, others suggested that Iran might accept it under certain conditions.

David E. Sanger reported from Washington for this article, and Nazila Fathi from Tehran.


Source

The Islamic Republic needs a 'Clash of Civilizations'

By: Joseph Salomonsen

Ahmadinejad and his in power party "Abadegarane Irane Eslami" plan and work for a "clash of civilization" paradigm. He believes he is one of the 36 "nails" in contact with the hidden 12th Imam of Shiism. He is to prepare a way thru conflict to ease the way for the revelation of Imam-e-Zaman. If one has no clue about such powerful unshakable concepts I understand the call for dialog. But as reality stands diplomacy is futile, conflict is the doctrine, paving the way for the 12th imam is the precept and global Islamic domination is the Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic dogma.

More on the Ahmadinejads Doctrine here

Also think of these telling remarks

What has more than 30 years of membership in the agency given us? Working in the framework of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the agency is our concrete policy, (But) if we see that they are violating our rights, or they don't want to accept (our rights), well, we will reconsider.

President Ahmadinejad

If provoked we will hide our nuclear program and stop being transparent.

Ali Larijani Chief Nuclear Issues Negotiator

"The Islamic Republic is ready to transfer this experience and the technology and knowledge of its scientists,"

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

From this we learn the Islamic Republic might:

1- Go clandestine with its program

2- Singout of Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

3- And make nuclear nations of like minded nations

Well this may sound as a world disaster, and it will be if the responsible free nations don't actively opt for regime change.

Iran 'Could Share Nuclear Skills'

Extreme Importance NEWS
Extreme Importance NEWS
Extreme Importance NEWS

Think of it; letting the Islamic Republic get away with its plans will usher a new era. An Era with nuclear Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Qatar, Libya and yes even nuclear Hamas now thats a whole new ball game...One which I for one wish not to play.


April 25, 2006
BBC News
BBCi


Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said his country is ready to share its nuclear technology with other nations. Ayatollah Khamenei made the offer during a meeting with visiting Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice condemned the comments.

Earlier, Iran's top nuclear negotiator threatened to suspend co-operation with the UN's nuclear watchdog if Teheran faced sanctions over its nuclear work.

The UN Security Council has set a deadline of 28 April for Iran to freeze its programme of uranium enrichment, which has been the focus of concerns that Iran could acquire nuclear weapons.

The US is trying to rally support from the Security Council for tougher action against Iran, including sanctions - a move currently being resisted by Russia and China.

Sudanese ambitions

In his meeting with Mr Bashir, Ayatollah Khamenei said Iranian scientists' nuclear capability was "one example of the numerous scientific movements in the country".

"The Islamic Republic is ready to transfer this experience and the technology and knowledge of its scientists," the leader was quoted as saying.

In return, the Sudanese president praised Iran's enrichment of uranium as a great victory for the Islamic world.

Mr Bashir said last month his country was considering creating a civilian nuclear programme.

Ms Rice said she feared an "escape... of knowledge and expertise on these dangerous technologies".

Last year, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad spoke of sharing nuclear technology with other countries.

But the BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says that this time the offer comes from the very top, and seems to imply the technology could be shared with Sudan.

'Emblematic behaviour'

As well as threatening to end Iranian co-operation with the UN, negotiator Ali Larijani said Iran would "hide" its nuclear programme if it was attacked.

"They [Western countries] have to understand they cannot resolve this issue through force," Mr Larijani told a conference on Iran's controversial nuclear energy programme in Tehran.

Responding while on an official visit to Greece, Ms Rice said Iran's threats were "emblematic of the kind of Iranian behaviour seen over the past couple of years".

Ms Rice said the Security Council must now issue something more concrete than last month's "presidential statement", which gave Iran 30 days to comply with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) directives.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes only. The US and several other nations say they do not believe this.


Source

Iran Hostage Crisis Remembered

The spirited man, and a good Liberator Winston wrote this fine post:

Today is the 26th anniversary of the failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran which resulted in death of Eight American servicemen.

The fall of the late Shah of Iran in 1979 turned Iran to a anti-American hotbed for a while, and the crisis got worse when a group of radical islamist-marxist individuals supported by the Islamic regime leadership occupied the US embassy in Nov, 4th 1979 and took more than 60 American diplomats hostage for more than a year.

As an Iranian, I am sorry for the mistreatment of the American nationals in Iran but the issue of hostage taking will remain in history of Iran as a dark and shameful spot for which we owe an apology to the Americans.

The Atlantic Monthly recently published a series of articles, pictures and video clips on the hostage crisis which can be seen at The Atlantic Online web site.

For more information, you may want to view James Bancroft's personal web page which is looking at the issue from a personal point of view.

Rice: Security Council credibility in question if it doesn't act on Iran

SHANNON, Ireland -- The credibility of the U.N. Security Council will be in doubt if it does not take clear-cut action against Iran over Tehran's nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday. Rice made her remarks four days before the expiration of a United Nations deadline for Iran to stop uranium enrichment. That process can produce fuel for nuclear reactions or material for nuclear weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, has accused Iran of failing to answer questions about its nuclear program. In late March, it reported Tehran to the Security Council and gave it one month to address the demands.

"When the international community reconvenes after the 30 days, there has to be some message, clear message, that this kind of behavior is not acceptable, or you will start to call into question the credibility of what the Security Council says when it says it," Rice said while flying to diplomatic visits to Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria.

Though the United States has said it prefers decisive steps, Security Council members Russia and China have opposed forceful sanctions. As permanent members of the council, either of those countries could veto any proposals.

Source

Iran Gave 10Million Dollars to Palestinian Terror Groups in '06

April 25, 2006
The Jerusalem Post
Yaakov Katz



Iran has given close to 10 million dollars to Palestinian terror groups in Israel since the beginning of the year, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Monday.

"The money transferred by Iran serves as fuel for the terror groups," Mofaz said during a speech at the inauguration ceremony for the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University. "A combination of Hamas's rise to power and Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons demonstrates the growing motivation to perpetrate anti-Israel terror attacks," he said. Mofaz did not elaborate on how the Iranian money reached Palestinian terror organizations.

A senior security official said Monday night that stopping the money flow was extremely difficult. Iran, the official said, employed Western Union money transfers, human couriers and bank wire transfers sent to Palestinians' personal bank accounts to get the money to the terror groups, mostly to Islamic Jihad. The funds were sometimes sent, the official said, to seemingly innocent Palestinians who then passed them on to terrorists.

"There are smart ways to transfer the money," the official said. "It is not just moved in a suitcase. They use Western Union, banks and other ways, and it is difficult to get our hands on it."

Less than an hour after Mofaz wrapped up his speech calling Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the greatest threat to Israel since Hitler, the Islamic republic's leader told reporters that Israel was an artificial state that could not continue to exist.

Source

Why does Iran need a uranium enrichment facility?

There are only two realistic uses for enriched uranium - to produce low enriched uranium fuel for nuclear reactors and, secondly, to produce the highly enriched uranium for the fissile heart of a nuclear weapon.

The Russian-supplied nuclear reactors presently under construction at the southern port of Bushehr are supplied complete with Russian-made fuel, so there is no demand for enriched uranium for these reactors.

Tehran says it is pursuing a nuclear programme for energy production only.

But Iran does not have a significant and established nuclear reactor programme, and in economic and practical terms establishing an enrichment facility cannot be justified. Another factor is that Iran is rich in natural gas, and oil reserves for energy consumptions

I simplify here but, that means the enrichment facility is almost certainly for a nuclear weapons programme.

Iran Democracy Act

This senate act is been out since 2003 but some of PIMES readers are not familiar with it from the email I get. So here it is, its relevancy is enhanced due to current tensions.


Iran Democracy Act (Introduced in Senate)
S 1082 IS
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1082
To provide support for democracy in Iran.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 19, 2003
Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. SANTORUM, and Mr. CAMPBELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL
To provide support for democracy in Iran.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. IRAN DEMOCRACY ACT.
This Act may be cited as the `Iran Democracy Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) There is currently not a democratic government in Iran. Instead, Iran is an ideological dictatorship presided over by an unelected Supreme Leader with limitless veto power, an unelected Expediency Council, and Council of Guardians capable of eviscerating any reforms, and a President elected only after the Council disqualified 234 other candidates for being too liberal, reformist, or secular.
(2) The April 2003 report of the Department of State states that Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2002.
(3) That report also states that Iran continues to provide funding, safehaven, training, and weapons to known terrorist groups, notably Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
(4) Human rights have failed to improve in Iran under the pseudo-reformers. Torture, executions after unfair trials, and censorship of all media remain rampant throughout the country. Stoning and beheading are used as methods of punishment.



SEC. 3. POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States to--
(1) support transparent, full democracy in Iran;
(2) support an internationally-monitored referendum in Iran by which the Iranian people can peacefully change the system of government in Iran;
(3) support the aspirations of the Iranian people to live in freedom; and
(4) help the Iranian people achieve a free press and build an open, democratic, and free society.
SEC. 4. RADIO FARDA REFORM.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Broadcasting Board of Governors shall--
(1) require the head of Radio Farda to develop programming for Radio Farda, after consulting with--
(A) Iranian-Americans and other Iranian exiles who--
(i) support a referendum described in section 3(2); and
(ii) oppose the current Government of Iran; and
(B) the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) at the Department of State and the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) at the Department of State; and
(2) ensure that a significant percentage of the programming on Radio Farda is devoted to discussing democratic change in Iran including an internationally-monitored democratic referendum in Iran as described in section 3(2).
(b) TRANSLATIONS OF WRITTEN AND VIDEO MATERIALS FOR THE IRANIAN PEOPLE-
(1) REQUIREMENT- The MEPI and ECA shall provide grants to appropriate entities to create and maintain websites, translate and distribute books, videos, documents, and other materials on democracy, rule of law free market economics, and related topics.
(2) CONSULTATION- The MEPI and ECA shall consult with nongovernmental entities and with Iranian-American opposition groups that support the holding of an internationally-monitored referendum in Iran as described in section 3(2) to select materials to be translated into Persian.
(c) IRAN DEMOCRACY SUPPORT INITIATIVE-
(1) AUTHORITY- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the MEPI and ECA are authorized to award grants to an eligible entity for the purpose of funding programs and activities to promote a democratic referendum in Iran.
(2) ELIGIBLE ENTITY- The following persons are eligible for grants under paragraph (1):
(A) A person who provides radio or television broadcasting into Iran that includes programming intended to promote an internationally-monitored democratic referendum in Iran.
(B) A person who is working to promote the holding of an internationally-monitored referendum in Iran, as described in section 3(2).
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not less than 10 percent of the funds appropriated to the International Broadcasting Operations account for fiscal year 2004 shall be made available to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Iran Hints at Exiting Nuclear Treaty

TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hinted Monday that Iran was considering withdrawing from the worldwide Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and said he did not think the U.N. Security Council would impose sanctions on Iran.

"Those who speak about sanctions would be damaged more" than Iran, he told a news conference. "But no particular event will happen, don't worry."

He also renewed his criticism of Israel, calling it a "fake regime" that cannot continue to exist. Israel has long identified Iran as its biggest threat, and these concerns have grown amid repeated calls by Ahmadinejad for Israel's destruction.

"Some 60 years has passed since the end of World War II, why should the people of Germany and Palestine pay now for a war in which the current generation was not involved," he said.

Ahmadinejad also questioned the need for talks with the United States about neighboring Iraq.

He said Iran would reconsider its compliance with the treaty and membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency if they continued to be of no benefit to the country.

His comments came four days before Friday's expiration of a Security Council deadline for Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors material for nuclear warheads.

Iran has rejected the demand, arguing it is entitled to the peaceful use of enrichment as a signatory to the treaty.

The IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, has accused Iran of failing to answer all questions about its nuclear program and reported the country to the Security Council for noncompliance with its demands.

"What has more than 30 years of membership in the agency given us?" Ahmadinejad asked.

"Working in the framework of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the agency is our concrete policy," he added. "(But) if we see that they are violating our rights, or they don't want to accept (our rights), well, we will reconsider."

The United States says Iran is using a civilian nuclear program as a cover for producing weapons. Iran denies that, saying its program is designed only to generate electrical power.

Earlier this month, Iran announced that for the first time it had enriched uranium with the use of 164 centrifuges, a step toward large-scale enrichment — which would be necessary to for making nuclear fuel or weapons.

In other remarks, Ahmadinejad again focused on Israel.

"We say that this fake regime (Israel) cannot not logically continue to live," he said.

The Iranian president has long campaigned against Israel, saying in October that the Jewish state should be "wiped off the map." He has said Europe should find a home for Israelis, who should not live on Palestinian land.

"Open the doors (of Europe) and let the Jews go back to their own countries," he said Monday.

He added that Europeans should jettison their "anti-Semitism" to enable Israelis to "return" to their continent, and "allow Palestinians to decide their own fate and live freely."

His remarks came a day after interim Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert urged the international community to work against Iran's nuclear program, saying Tehran's ambitions threaten not only Israel but all of Western civilization.

Israel has long identified Iran as its biggest threat, and these concerns have grown amid repeated calls by Ahmadinejad for Israel's destruction.



Source

Why Russia and China stand with Iran

We all know that oil was an issue in pre-iraq war debate. And as we found out it was not US wanting Iraqi oil, but French Elf\Total, we found that the biggest Iraqi liberation opposers had economic stakes like Germany and even in some ways some elements within UN. Now its clear why Russia and China oppose UN sanctions against Iran. Read on;

April 24, 2006
U.S. News
Thomas Omestad

What to do when China and Russia refuse to help deal with the emerging nuclear threat

The Americans were stunned. Moments after adjournment of closed talks at the United Nations Security Council, Russian diplomats strode over to their counterparts from Iran, waiting in a hallway to be briefed on the negotiations over Iran's secret nuclear program. To the American officials, there was no clearer illustration of their uphill struggle to prod the U.N. to squeeze Iran. "There was no hiding it," recalls a U.S. official. "The Russians were acting as liaison to the Iranians--physically and intellectually."

President Bush denies that the Pentagon is intensifying plans for possible airstrikes on Iran--and vows to stick with diplomacy--but Russia and China have erected seemingly immovable barriers to the imposition of sanctions. Two of the five veto holders on the Security Council, both Russia and China reject calls to punish Tehran for flouting U.N. demands that it stop enriching uranium and open all of its nuclear facilities to inspection. Against an April 28 deadline for Iran to meet those demands, one European diplomat fears that a solution looks lost "in the long grass of Security Council politics."

So it is that western nations are now talking about a "Plan B": a non-U.N. "coalition of the willing" that would slap "smart sanctions" on the Iranian leadership. If the Security Council fails its "test" of rebuking Iran, says John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., "we have to look at other alternatives." Those include banning travel by Iranian officials, freezing overseas accounts, restricting Iranian trade credits, and stepping up probes of questionable financial deals.

Doing deals. The looming impasse at the U.N. is feeding fears that the dispute over Iran is headed for more dangerous terrain. Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has answered the council's call to halt its nuclear work by announcing that Iran had enriched uranium to a level usable for nuclear power plants and that it had plans to accelerate its enrichment. In trademark fashion, Ahmadinejad also declared that Iran's nemesis, Israel, was heading toward "annihilation." Now, officials in Washington, along with allies in London and Paris, hope the next step will be a resolution that insists Iran comply under the U.N.'s Chapter VII, which invokes the council's role in protecting international security. In practice, that could mean sanctions--or worse.

But Moscow and Beijing object to this strategy. Both have struck large energy and trade deals with Iran, and both fear a replay of the U.S. confrontation with Iraq. China, remarked Deputy Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo, "feels that there has already been enough turmoil in the Middle East." A Russian official agrees: "Unfortunately, this looks familiar to us."

Russia has a considerable stake in Iran, including the $800 million nuclear reactor project at Bushehr, future construction contracts worth $5 billion, and arms contracts of up to $1.5 billion. But the politics may be just as important. Moscow does not view Iran as an adversary to be contained. In fact, Russia gives Iran high marks for not interfering in Russia's mostly Muslim southern tier and in the former Soviet Central Asian republics. Aides to President Vladimir Putin also fault the Bush administration for its criticism of Putin's consolidation of power, as well as for the U.S. presence in Central Asia. "This has had a considerable impact on Russian willingness to accommodate U.S. interests," says Dimitri Simes of the Nixon Center.

The Chinese, likewise, tread carefully with Iran, largely because of its clout as a supplier of oil and natural gas. China has a 25-year deal with Iran, worth up to $100 billion, to help develop a key oil field at Yadavaran and to buy oil and gas. In addition to being a major trade partner, China is a supplier of weapons to Iran. China also credits Iran for not abetting separatist activities by China's Muslim Uighurs.

Source

Iran’s president recruits terror master

Sarah Baxter, Washington and Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv

Plot for revenge attacks on West


IRAN’S president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attended a meeting in Syria earlier this year with one of the world’s most wanted terrorists, according to intelligence experts and a former national security official in Washington.

US officials and Israel intelligence sources believe Imad Mugniyeh, the Lebanese commander of Hezbollah’s overseas operations, has taken charge of plotting Iran’s retaliation against western targets should President George W Bush order a strike on Iranian nuclear sites.

Mugniyeh is on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists” list for his role in a series of high-profile attacks against the West, including the 1985 hijacking of a TWA jet and murder of one of its passengers, a US navy diver.

Now in his mid-forties, Mugniyeh is reported to have travelled with Ahmadinejad in January this year from Tehran to Damascus, where the Iranian president met leaders of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

The meeting has been dubbed a “terror summit” because of the presence of so many groups behind attacks on Israel, which Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe from the map.

Jane’s Intelligence Review cited “reports in recent weeks” of Mugniyeh’s presence alongside the president.

Michael Ledeen, a Middle East expert and former Pentagon and National Security Council official who wrote that Mugniyeh had “probably” been there, said last week senior American officials had confirmed it.

“It’s hard to identify Mugniyeh because he is said to have changed his face and his fingerprints,” Ledeen said. “But senior government officials have told me I was right. He was there.”

Shortly after the Damascus summit Henry Crumpton, head of counter-terrorism at the state department, singled out the elusive Mugniyeh as a threat. The Iranians, Crumpton said, “have complete command and control of Hezbollah. Imad Mugniyeh works for Tehran. And you can’t talk about Hezbollah and not think about Iran. They really are part and parcel of the same problem.”

Mugniyeh lives in Iran and has evaded capture for more than 20 years, despite a $5m American bounty on his head. Western intelligence reports claim he has many connections to terrorist cells in Europe, Africa, Latin America and the US and he is said to have met Osama Bin Laden.

“When and if the Iranians decide to hit the West in its soft belly, Imad will be the one to act,” a western intelligence source said last week.

An Israeli defence source claimed Mugniyeh was in regular touch with the new Iranian intelligence minister, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ezhei. The minister is a long-time confidant of Ahmadinejad and was appointed by him.

“We know that Mohseni Ezhei holds routine meetings with Mugniyeh, who is today Iran’s head of overseas operations,” said the Israeli defence source. “Since we know from previous Iranian terror attacks that it takes about a year to plan a substantial one, we should not be surprised if operations against western targets are already in high gear and Mugniyeh is certainly playing a major role.”

The young Mugniyeh first attracted the attention of the West when he was involved in the kidnapping, torture and mutilation of William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, in 1984. He kept his victim at the Sheikh Abdullah camp in the Lebanese Bekaa valley and was allegedly the last person Buckley saw before he died.

“Imad had good reason to retaliate,” said a well-informed source. “A car bomb killed his brother Jihad, who had taken Imad’s old job as bodyguard to Hezbollah’s spiritual leader.” Mugniyeh blamed the CIA, and Buckley was chosen to pay the price.

The kidnapping led to the Iran-contra affair, one of the most embarrassing episodes of the Reagan presidency, in which arms were swapped for hostages. But by the time the Americans were negotiating with the Iranians, Buckley was already dead.

Mugniyeh has also been linked to the demolition of the American embassy and marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and is wanted in Argentina for his role in recruiting the bombers of the Israeli embassy and Jewish centre in Buenos Aires in the early 1990s.

Mugniyeh left Lebanon for Iran in 1994 with his wife and son after an assassination attempt. He is since believed to have played an active role in fomenting trouble in Iraq. Ledeen described him last week as the “spinal column of the terror war against America in Iraq from the beginning”.

According to Robert Baer, a former CIA agent who pursued Mugniyeh in the 1980s, “he is the most dangerous terrorist we have ever faced. Mugniyeh is probably the most intelligent, most capable operative we have ever run across, including the KGB or anybody else.

“He enters by one door, exits by another, changes his cars daily, never makes appointments by telephone — he is never predictable. He is the master terrorist, the grail we have been after since 1983”.


UPDATE :: Elite Iranian army officers who arrived in south Lebanon this month have taken command of thousands of rockets aimed at cities across Israel. They are believed to have been given control of the missiles by Hezbollah to deter possible Israeli attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities.



Source

Poll: U.S. Should Have Iran War Plans Ready

April 21, 2006
FOX News
Dana Blanton



NEW YORK -- Most Americans agree with the U.S. position of trying diplomacy first with Iran, but want to keep military options open. In addition, a clear majority thinks having war plans for Iran already prepared is the right thing to do, according to the latest FOX News Poll.

By a 62 percent to 27 percent margin, Americans say they agree with the U.S. position for handling the nuclear weapons situation with Iran — try to find diplomatic solutions, but keep military action as an option. A large majority of Republicans (75 percent) agree with this position, as do a slim majority of Democrats (52 percent).

Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News on April 18 and April 19.

The poll finds disagreement with those who say the United States lacks the military strength to take action against Iran while it has so many troops committed in Iraq. If military action were to become necessary, more than half of Americans (56 percent) think the U.S. military currently has the strength to defeat Iran. About a third (34 percent) disagrees.

Groups traditionally more hawkish, such as men and Republicans, are more likely to think the U.S. military has the strength to defeat Iran. Among Republicans, 66 percent agree, compared to 49 percent of Democrats. Similarly, 64 percent of men think the military could defeat Iran, but that drops to 49 percent among women.

“The fact that a third of Americans say we aren’t strong enough to defeat Iran and another 10 percent aren’t sure is significant,” comments Opinion Dynamics Chairman John Gorman. “ I doubt there would have been that much pessimism about American capabilities before Iraq. Many people clearly worry about repeating the Iraq experience.”

Overall, a sizable majority thinks it would be “responsible” for the United States to have war plans for Iran already prepared. About two-thirds of Americans (67 percent) think it would be responsible; 26 percent say “irresponsible.”

While there is no real gender gap on the war plans issue (69 percent of men and 64 percent of women agree), there is a striking partisan difference: Fully 80 percent of Republicans think the U.S. should have Iran war plans prepared, compared to 59 percent of Democrats.

Views are mixed on whether it is acceptable to allow Iran to become a nuclear nation. Forty-four percent of Americans think the United States could co-exist with a nuclear Iran; almost as many — 40 percent — disagree.

If the United Nations fails to take a hard line with Iran on nukes, over a third of Americans (36 percent) think the United States should take a hard line with the U.N. and stop paying dues, though a 49 percent plurality would continue paying.

In the end, by a slim 10-percentage point margin, people think the United States will have to take military action against Iran.

Source

Iran 'Models Nuclear Plan on Pakistan'

April 23, 2006
Telegraph
Philip Sherwell



The United States arms control chief has given warning that Iran is "very close to the point of no return" in acquiring the technological expertise to make a nuclear weapon. "In terms of activities on the ground in Iran, it is fair to say that the Iranians have put both feet on the accelerator," said Robert Joseph, the senior US State Department official responsible for countering nuclear proliferation.

His comments, which come as the United Nations Security Council prepares to meet to discuss the crisis this week, indicate that Washington believes that the stakes are rising rapidly in the West's confrontation with the Islamic republic.

Earlier this month, Teheran claimed to have enriched uranium for the nuclear fuel cycle. It has pushed ahead with its programme while taking advantage of a diplomatic stand-off between Moscow and Washington over possible UN sanctions.

Iran is following tactics outlined by its former chief nuclear negotiator in comments to clerics and academics previously unreported in the West. Hassan Rowhani made clear that Iran's goal was to present the world with a fait accompli over its nuclear ambitions.

"If, one day, we are able to complete the fuel cycle and the world sees that it has no choice, that we do possess the technology, then the situation will be different," he told the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council. "The world did not want Pakistan to have an atomic bomb or Brazil to have the fuel cycle, but Pakistan built its bomb and Brazil has its fuel cycle."

He delivered the speech in September, a month after Iran sparked the latest stage of its showdown with the international community by resuming uranium conversion, in breach of previous accords, following the election of its hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mr Rowhani reiterated to his audience Iran's public insistence that it is seeking nuclear technology only for peaceful civilian purposes. But his comparison to Pakistan's secret development of an atomic weapon is significant, as Iran acquired much of its nuclear know-how from A Q Khan, the rogue scientist known as the father of the Pakistani bomb.

During the speech, Mr Rowhani emphasised that Iran had intended to complete its programme in secret. "This was never supposed to be in the open. But in any case the spies exposed it," he said, in reference to the revelation by opposition exiles of Iran's clandestine nuclear operations.

Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian analyst with the International Crisis Group, said Teheran was aiming to shape the debate with its claims.

"Iran is betting that it can redraw the West's red lines by creating facts on the ground. At the time they re-commenced uranium conversion activities in Isfahan, last August, much fuss was made in the US and EU, but it eventually became an irreversible fait accompli. They may well believe that the West will eventually come to accept their enrichment activities as well."

The Security Council meets on Friday to hear a report on Iran's nuclear activities from the International Atomic Energy Agency. But although the agency's director, Mohamed ElBaradei, is certain to report that Iran has ignored the ultimatum to halt enrichment work, US, British and French hopes of moving towards imposing sanctions are slim.

Russia hardened its stand against such punitive measures last week. Its foreign ministry said Moscow would consider sanctions only if "concrete facts" emerged that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. China, which also holds a Security Council veto, leans towards the Russian position.

Iran made an apparent attempt yesterday to confuse the situation ahead of the UN meeting when it said it had reached a "basic" agreement with Moscow to enrich uranium in Russia. The announcement made no mention of whether Teheran would cease enrichment in Iran - a key UN demand.

Last week, Moscow rejected an appeal by Washington to halt the sale of air defence missile systems to Teheran in a $700 million (£392 million) deal. "This is not the time for business as usual with the Iranian government," said Nicholas Burns, a senior US State Department official.

Source

Iranian Envoy Denies Deal

April 23, 2006
Reuters
today.reuters.com

Soltanieh says Iran and Russia have not reached uranium enrichment agreement. Iranian state radio reported that Iran and Russia had reached a basic deal to enrich uranium in a joint venture, but Iran's Ali-Ashghar Soltanieh, Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) later on Saturday denied the existence of a deal.

Moscow, while joining Washington and European powers in calling on Iran to end enrichment, has made it clear it would not at this stage back imposing sanctions on the Islamic state.

Iran announced earlier this month that it had produced its first batch of enriched uranium.

Video - Jim Drury reports
SOUNDBITE: Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency Ali Asghar Soltanieh, saying (English):

"I said there was no discussion on the Russian deal and therefore there is no agreement. This has been maybe the misinterpretation from English to Russian or so. We have not had such a discussion."

Mideast’s Undeclared War

Another awesome article by Amir Taheri, this guy is one of the few that has a total grasp of the situation.

Every decade produces a word or a phrase that is sure to provoke commotion whenever it is pronounced. You can use it to wake up the bored and the blasé in your audience or toss it like a hand grenade into a curmudgeonly crowd.

Since the overthrow of the Taleban in Kabul and the Baathist in Baghdad the current favorite phrase has been “regime change.”

To many, especially in the heteroclite anti-war coalition, regime change produces the same effect that waving a red rag does on a raging bull. The more traditional foreign policy gurus who have not grown beyond the “Treaty of Westphalia” regard the phrase as sacrilegious. The more sophisticated quote Immanuel Kant’s Project for Perpetual Peace as authority for their claim that intervening in the internal affairs of any state, no matter how constituted, is an infringement of “the basic principles of international life.”

The average citizen has been persuaded that even talking of “regime change” must be regarded as the eighth deadly sin.

With all that in mind you can imagine the flack I attracted when, in a recent column, I suggested that no serious study of the situation with regard to the duel between the Islamic republic of Iran and the United States could exclude “regime change” as an analytical option.

Some saw this as a call for a military invasion of Iran. Others claimed that I was trying to get the US involved in an adventure on spurious grounds.

So, let us start by saying that I was trying to do neither.

I am not calling for military invasion of the Islamic republic by the United States or anybody else.

Now let us go back to the analysis of the situation.

The Middle East today is passing through what historians describe as “disequilibrium”. This happens when the status quo is shattered while a new one has not yet been formed.

So, who is going to create a new equilibrium and shape a new status quo in the Greater Middle East?

The Arab states, still recovering from the shock of Iraq, plagued by internecine feuds, and preoccupied with Israel, offer no project.

Turkey, one of the region’s leading powers, has turned its face away from it in the hope of joining Europe.

For obvious reasons, Israel is also out of this game.

That leaves only the United States and the Islamic republic to make rival bids for reshaping the region.

The real question, therefore, is simple: Will the new Middle East, which is bound to emerge sooner or later, be an American one, an Iranian one or an Irano-American one?

The United States, at least as long as President George W. Bush is in charge, regards the shaping of a friendly Middle East not only as a good thing in itself but also as vital for American security. The Bush Doctrine is based on the axiom that democracies do not export terrorism or start wars against other democracies. The strategic interests of the US, therefore, dictate that hostile regimes be replaced by friendly ones.

Now let us have a look at the view from Tehran.

The Islamic republic is surrounded by regimes that feel closer to Washington than Tehran, to say the least.

What would happen when, say 10 years from now, the whole of the region is pro-American, included in the mainstream of globalization, and more or less prosperous and more or less democratic? Wouldn’t an anti-American, isolated, more or less poverty-stricken, and openly undemocratic Islamic republic look like out of place in this new jigsaw?

One law of history, inasmuch as history does have any laws, is that no nation can play the odd-man out in its region for long. You cannot, for example, have a military regime in France when the whole of Europe lives in democracy.

So, if the US is allowed to create the kind of the Middle East with which it feels comfortable, it is obvious that the Islamic republic, as the odd man out, will feel uncomfortable, not to say threatened.

This is why the Islamic republic is determined not to allow the US to succeed in the region.

In every single country of the region — from Pakistan to Morocco — the US and the Islamic republic are engaged in almost daily political, diplomatic and, at times, even proxy military, combat, with varying degrees of intensity. The Islamic republic is actively engaged in sabotaging US plans for Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and has revived its dormant networks in more than a dozen Arab countries. It has to do so because the emergence of a pro-American Middle East would mean the death of the Khomeinist ideology and its global ambitions.

There are only two ways to end this undeclared war between US and the Islamic republic.

The first is a Yalta-like agreement between Washington and Tehran to divide the Middle East into zones of influence, to set out the rules of the game, and to establish red lines. That would allow a new status quo to be shaped on the basis of a new balance of power. The model for such an arrangement is that of the Cold War between the West and the now defunct USSR that ensured Europe’s stability for almost half a century.

But even then there is no guarantee that the two ideological adversaries, the Western democracies on the one hand and the Islamic republic on the other, will not pursue a global, low-intensity conflict just as was the case between the Soviet camp and the West throughout the Cold War.

Another problem, of course, is that the other countries of the region — the Arab states, Pakistan, Turkey, the Caspian Basin nations, and Israel — might not be jubilant about an Irano-American condominium, and may try to undermine it.

The second way to end the undeclared war between the US and the Islamic republic is, you guessed it, regime change.

In theory, this could work either way.

If there were a regime change in Washington that leads to a new policy of leaving the Middle Eat to Iran, the undeclared war would end — at least in the short run. Conversely, regime change in Iran could also do the trick by producing a new regional partner for the United States.

Regime change, therefore, is not a dirty phrase that should be kept out of all analyses. On the contrary it is a useful tool for focusing attention on the realities of a complex situation.

Is regime change possible in either Tehran or Washington?

The answer is: Yes.

One could imagine a new Jimmy Carter in the White House who would decide that it was no business of the United States to reshape the Middle East and that it would be better to allow “the natives” in the region to concoct their own witches’ brew.

To achieve regime change in Washington, Tehran should do all it can to discredit the Bush Doctrine and to portray Afghanistan and Iraq not as successes, but as total failures. On that score the Islamic republic has many actual or potential allies inside and outside the US who, for different reasons, want Bush to fail and the US to be humiliated. This is why President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has based his foreign policy on a simple stratagem: Waiting Bush out in the hope that his successor will run away from the Middle East.

At the other end of the spectrum, the US, were it to adopt a policy of regime change toward the Islamic republic, something it has not done yet, would find many allies inside and outside Iran.

But even then regime change need not mean military invasion.

The way change happened in Kabul was different from the way it happened in Baghdad. And, were it to happen in Tehran, it would again be different. Nor should we assume that a policy of regime change should be put into immediate effect. For a range of reasons that might not be possible, or even desirable, at this particular moment in time.

The important thing is to realize that the Middle East will not be out of crisis until one side gives in.


Source

Iran as bad as Nazis: Merkel

Some of us made an active effort to support pro-democracy conservative parties within Europe. We tried to expose the other side the appeasers, the socialist left. We did this in hope that when a conflict came they the conservative would side with the people of Iran and the Mullahcracy. Angela Merkel of CDU was one of these we supported. Now our efforts are bearing precious fruit. This message of Chancellor Merkel just warmed my heart. Godbless her for siding with freedom and not the Deutsche Mark.

THE German chancellor, Angela Merkel, compared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Adolf Hitler yesterday as Tehran vowed to resume the enrichment of uranium which could be used to make nuclear weapons.
Amid growing fears that the Iranians are intent on acquiring an “Islamic bomb”, Merkel warned that the world must not repeat the mistakes it made in appeasing the Nazis.

“Looking back to German history in the early 1930s when National Socialism was on the rise, there were many outside Germany who said, ‘It’s only rhetoric — don’t get excited’,” Merkel told an international security conference in Munich.

“There were times when people could have reacted differently and, in my view, Germany is obliged to do something at the early stages,” she added. “We want to, we must prevent Iran from developing its nuclear programme.”

Merkel issued a blunt warning to Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.

“Iran has blatantly crossed the red line,” she said. “I say it as a German chancellor. A president who questions Israel’s right to exist, a president who denies the Holocaust cannot expect to receive any tolerance from Germany.”

The statement came as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations nuclear watchdog, voted overwhelmingly in Vienna to report Iran to the UN Security Council, expressing doubts that the country’s nuclear programme “is exclusively for peaceful purposes”.


Source

Belarus: Lukashenka courts Tehran

Jane’s Intelligence Digest probes the covert links between Minsk and Tehran.

A recent JID probe has indicated that Belarus may be preparing to export sensitive Russian military technology to Iran. Since early 2005, Minsk has been negotiating with Moscow for the purchase of the latest and most advanced version of the S-300SP surface-to-air missile system. According to well-informed sources, a contract for an unspecified number of S-300SP missiles was signed between Minsk and the Kremlin during the summer of 2005, with delivery scheduled to take place either later that year or else in early 2006.

Our investigations suggest that the real reason for Belarus' deal with the Kremlin may lie several thousand kilometres to the southwest. In January a high-level military and political delegation from Tehran paid a low-key visit to Minsk.

According to well-informed JID sources, the main reason for the visit was to make arrangements for the future transfer of the S-300SP SAMs from Belarus in order to help the embattled Iranian regime bolster its defences against possible US or Israeli air strikes designed to de-rail its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

While the Kremlin remains a major supplier of nuclear technology for Iran's nuclear programme, President Vladimir Putin would face serious problems if he had to explain to the rest of the world how the Islamic Republic had acquired the most recent generation of S-300PSs. For this reason, Belarus and its increasingly isolated regime could provide an alternative supply route and one that would offer Moscow the cover of 'plausible deniability' once the missile transfer has been effected.

Source

U.N.'S SAD CIRCUS

UN does a good job in some branches e.g. UNICEF but when it comes to political issues like human rights or global security one would think the Gestapo would do a better job. Well just think as an example the the Kojo Annan Oil for Cash program that his father UN chief had nothing to do with…or consider this brilliant article…

By THOMAS P. KILGANNON
The New Yorker

April 21, 2006 -- THE Midtown Circus, other wise known as the United Nations, opened a new at traction last week: The U.N. Commission on Disarmament elevated Iran to a leadership post - despite the terrorist regime's dogged pursuit of nuclear capabilities and defiance of its international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran on the Disarmament Commission; it's rather like naming a member of the Ku Klux Klan to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. And even as the Disarmament Commission was rewarding the Islamic Republic's behavior, the Security Council was delaying action on the International Atomic Energy Agency's referral of Iran for its nuclear violations.

Created in 1952 and re-established by the General Assembly in 1978, the U.N. Disarmament Commission opened its 2006 session on April 10. Delegates immediately pledged to "effectively deal with new emerging threats and challenges" - and then proceeded to promote Iran to a vice-chairmanship.

Speaking from its new perch of authority, Iran demanded that Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and open all of its nuclear sites to international inspection. Such demands are considered statesmanship by a nation whose leader has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map."

For those who would rather watch train wrecks than tightrope artists, the United Nations may just be the greatest show on earth. It is a collection of corruption and contradictions that undercuts U.S. foreign policy goals, yet still manages to win the support of Congress and the administration. U.S. taxpayers send upward of $4 billion a year to the world body.

Iran's rise on the Disarmament Commission prompted Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) to call for the suspension of funds as long as Iran is a member. "The election of Iran as a vice-chair of the U.N. Disarmament Commission at the same time as Iran clandestinely pursues its own nuclear ambitions," he said, "provides yet another example of the United Nations' inability to establish credible institutions to deal with global issues."

Coleman, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee who spearheaded the Senate's probe of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food corruption, called on the Bush administration to withhold U.S. contributions "to send an unmistakable signal that there will be serious consequences to the U.N. failure to implement real reform."

Yet there's little reason to think most member states want U.N. reform. The U.N. Human Rights Commission booted the United States out in 2001, and the next year chose Libya to represent the hopes of oppressed people the world over. Just this month, Jean Ziegler, the infamous founder of the "Moammar Khadafy Human Rights Prize," was nominated as an expert adviser to the new U.N. Human Rights Council.

Last year, after Zimbabwe's dictator Robert Mugabe orchestrated a man-made famine in his country, the United Nations invited him to address its annual conference on hunger. (He accepted.)

Simply put, too many (quite possibly most) U.N. members put a much higher priority on America-bashing and anti-Semism than on such U.N. ideals as disarmament, fighting hunger or advancing human rights.

As one of its first acts, the new Human Rights Council is expected to condemn the U.S. terrorist-detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - even as it continues to turn a blind eye to the hideous abuses of rights by Cuba's government (and, indeed, by those of countless other U.N. members.) Of course, there's an excellent chance that the council's members will include terror-sponsoring states such as Iran or Syria.

The United Nations is of no use in advancing U.S. foreign-policy goals or in promoting the lofty ideals with which many still associate it. It has discredited itself again and again. The time has come to cage the animals, ship them back home, and bring down the tent on the U.N. circus.

Thomas P. Kilgannon is the president of Freedom Alliance and the author of "Diplomatic Divorce: Why America Should End Its Love Affair With the United Nations."

Source

Counting the Minutes

A conversation with Iranian dissident Amir Abbas Fakhravar. This interview is not fresh, but revealing of the Iranians mood:

It was Saturday [February 4] that the people here found out that Iran was going before the [U.N.] Security Council, and there was celebration all over Tehran. I heard from my own family, the families of my friends, that it was one of the busiest days of the year for the pastry shops — that people were buying pastries and cookies and candies in the streets of Tehran and going to each other to celebrate. They think we have nothing to lose and everything to gain with action that, no matter how long the time period, leads to the downfall of this regime. If you overthrow the regime, we will welcome you with open arms and open hearts. People are counting the minutes for this regime to be over and gone.

and this, this is what all Persians are longing for

I want for my sister and mother and all the women I know to live in freedom. I want my children, when I get married and have a child and he goes to school, to be taught love rather than death. We want to live among all the nations of the world in peace, and we want all the basic freedoms that other countries have right now. We don't want our name to be — whenever people hear "Iranians," a country that had such a civilization and was so respected — now they say Iranians equal terrorists. We don't want our name to be mentioned like that.

Read More

Iranian gold rush highlights escalating tensions

With the war of words over Iran’s nuclear programme escalating and the domestic economy stalling, Iranians are scrambling to buy gold coins, sending their value soaring by 32 per cent in the past two months.

“It’s unbelievable,” blazed a front page story in Etemad-e Meli, a reformist newspaper, earlier this week. “It seems no investment field is as safe.”

“Gold coins are Iranians’ political hedge fund,” says Heydar Pourian, editor of Iqtisad Iran (Iran Economics), a monthly magazine. “We keep them at home and they make us feel secure.”

Commodity prices have risen worldwide over recent years partly in response to Middle East tensions centred on Iraq, but Iranians are now starting to feel they may be at the centre of a growing storm.

Source

US prepared to go it alone over Iran

US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has invoked self-defence as a potential justification for military intervention in Iran. Rice said the US had the authority to act alone or with a coalition if the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme could not be resolved within the context of the United Nations Security Council.

The UN Security Council has given Iran until the 28th of April to comply with its demands to stop enriching uranium. Iran has ignored the ultimatum, while China and Russia have both made clear they will use their power of veto against sanctions. However, a senior US official at the meeting said they are in the minority: "We heard last night, and again today, from individual countries, that all of those who spoke, and it was the great majority, are looking at sanctions", said senior White House official Nicholas Burns.

Iran's programme of low-grade uranium enrichment has stoked western fears that the country plans to manufacture nuclear weapons. But the country has always insisted its research is peaceful and aimed at generating domestic energy.

Source

Chirac says Iran with atomic weapons is 'unacceptable'

CAIRO (AFX) - French President Jacques Chirac told Egyptian daily Al-Ahram that it was 'unacceptable' for Iran to have nuclear weapons, but he left the door open to resumed discussions with Tehran.

The Iranian leaders 'must understand that, for the international community, the prospect of a militarily nuclearized Iran is unacceptable,' Chirac said in an interview published as he was due to arrive on a two-day visit set to be dominated by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and rising tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions.


Source

Blair Cautions Against `Message of Weakness' to Iran

April 19 (Bloomberg) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned against sending a ``message of weakness'' to Iran and backed President George W. Bush's vow to keep military options open to prevent the country from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Blair spoke in Parliament today after Labour Party lawmaker Michael Meacher asked him for an ``absolute assurance'' that the U.K. wouldn't support military action against Iran.

``At a point in time when the president of Iran is talking about wiping Israel off the face of the earth and when there are young people signing up to be suicide bombers, I do not think that this is the time to send a message of weakness,'' Blair said.

READ MORE

Harper Says Canada Stands with Allies Against Iran

April 19, 2006
Ottawa Citizen
Mike Blanchfield

Harper said Canada and its allies should be concerned about Iran's getting the bomb because of ''the kind of values it stands for, the kind of human rights abuses we've seen there, including ... a Canadian journalist who was murdered in that country, and many of the other problems in that regime, holocaust denial and some of the bellicose language.

Ahmadinejad: Military is Ready to 'Cut Off the Hand of Any Aggressor'

Can there be any doubt? this man is determined to pull the green flag (islam) across the world. Very little can convince such a man except brute force.

ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

April 18, 2006 7:30 AM

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that Iran would ''cut off the hand of any aggressor'' and insisted Tuesday the country's military must be prepared amid escalating tensions with the international community over its disputed nuclear program.

The defiant stance came hours before a meeting in Moscow of senior diplomats from the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany to discuss the issue and less than two weeks before a council deadline for Iran to stop uranium enrichment.

''Today, you are among the world's most powerful armies because you rely on God,'' Ahmadinejad declared at a parade to commemorate Army Day.

''Iran's enemies know your courage, faith and commitment to Islam and the land of Iran has created a powerful army that can powerfully defend the political borders and the integrity of the Iranian nation and cut off the hand of any aggressor and place the sign of disgrace on their forehead,'' Ahmadinejad said.

Just some facts

It’s Bush’s fault; Democracy spreads

“When the people realize they have the power to expose the deceit underlying a government prone to repression, it is the beginning of that regime's end,” Peter Ackerman, Fletcher School graduate and Tufts trustee, op-ed in The Boston Globe

A resilient, yet experimental venture by the Bush Administration into uncharted waters has proven largely beneficial as democracy sweeps several countries once occupied by tyrants. The winds of change are blowing across the world as jubilant demonstrators are taking back their God-given right to freedom once usurped by fascist dictators. An unshaken vision of international democracy in coordination with the deep desire of individuals across the world to be free has led to elections across the Middle East and the former Soviet Union.

In Georgia, a fraud-infested election led to peaceful protests by thousands against President Eduard Shevardnadze. President Shevardnadze forced to succumb to the rightful demand of the people, stepped down paving the way for elections in the former Soviet state. The revolution in Georgia (the Rose Revolution) opened the gateway for several subsequent democratic revolts within the region. President Bush’s visit to Georgia this month was welcomed by hundreds of thousands who’d labeled him the ‘Great Liberator’.

In Ukraine, fraudulent election results in November led to a mass popular movement around opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko. Peter Ackerman of the Boston Globe wrote “in the wake of what was widely perceived as a corrupt election on Nov. 21, Ukrainians took to the streets -- wearing orange clothing as a symbol of solidarity with Yushchenko’s campaign -- and demanded a new vote. Public figures ranging from policemen to news broadcasters defected from the government’s party line and openly expressed agreement with Yushchenko’s movement.” Largely welcomed by the Bush Administration, Yushchenko was elected President of Ukraine in a free and fair democratic election in December.

In Kyrgyzstan, pro-democracy demonstrations were touched off due to popular outrage over unfair election results. President Askar Akayev after fifteen years of autocratic rule was confronted by tens of thousands of demonstrators demanding his resignation and the implementation of free elections. President Askar Akayev would later flee to Russia where he has taken refugee as a lamed dictator. Democratic presidential elections under the control of designated Prime Minister, Kurmanbek Bakiyev are set to take place in June.

In Kuwait, women received the right to vote for the first time after four decades of parliamentary government. Granting women the right to vote was one of the most significant events in the history of the Kuwaiti nation and a proud push towards a free society. The first lady Laura Bush praised the initiative as a “proud step towards democracy.”

In Saudi Arabia, the gulf nation agreed to hold the first historical municipal election. The election was part of a large plan to bring democracy to the Gulf kingdom. According to AFP over seventy percent of registered voters turned out, putting the tally far ahead of most western nations, insidiously opening the once iron gate to society.

In Azerbaijan, pro-democracy forces previously emboldened by the revolutionary trend in the former Soviet Union region took the streets by the thousands to take on President Ilham Aliyev. This month, thousands gathered to call for free-and fair elections in November before being beaten with batons. Many of these demonstrators were seen carrying portraits of US President George W. Bush. During a May 10 speech in Georgia, President Bush guaranteed that the United States would back democratic change in all former Soviet states.

In Iran, pro-democracy students have taken to the streets several times during the past couple of years. A poll conducted this month by student activists at Amir Kabir University the countries second largest university provided a discomfiting message for the reigning Ayatollahs. The University poll chronicled a mere five to ten percent support for the mullahs and eighty-five percent support for a secular democratic government. President Bush has consistently reached out to this nation that Michael Rubin of the Washington Enterprise Institute dubbed the “most pro-American in the entire region, if not the world”, and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called “the ultimate red state. . .”

Dictatorial tyrants are enthusiastically trying to suffocate the window of opportunity for democratic freedom fighters. The specifics of this confrontation are often difficult to follow, especially for those lacking a knack for regional politics; however the conflict is best characterized as a battle between good and evil. In this battle of good versus evil, the good wields a powerful weapon, their natural born right to in a free, democratic society where the basic tenants of human rights are not only accepted, but widely embraced.

The unconditional support of an administration determined to spread the foundations of democracy will in the end lead to the victory of the brave freedom fighters. Unfortunately, several vindictive and irrational groups will not succumb to their failure in predicting the beneficial consequences of the Bush Doctrine. As an extra monkey tactic, they have backtracked to their usual innate conspiracy of blaming President Bush for everything. Several countries are free and democratic with many more to come, but let us not forget -- it is Bush’s fault.

Miss Canada writes a song about Iran

Nazanin Afshin-Jam, the former Miss Canada, singer and songwriter, was born in Tehran, Iran and now she sings about her motherlands freedom.

Lyrics:

VERSE I
They were on the march then
In 1978
They filled our minds with hate
They deceived the nation
In the name of religion
And soon it was too late
When the soldiers came
We were on the run
Our lives forever changed
That was no solution
Regressive Revolution
Together we must stand

CHORUS
Someday
We will find a way
Someday
Someday
Someday
Someday
The darkness fades away
Someday
Someday READ MORE

VERSE II
I'm calling all the children
Now that were all grown up
Is it time to make a change?
Take this old oppression
With a new aggression
Redeem our rightful place

REPEAT CHORUS

BRIDGE (SPOKEN)
I have a new solution
Its called Progressive Revolution
And someday is right now

CHORUS


Listen to the song HERE

PIMES blog seeks Contributors

We intend to expand and broaden our staff. If you feel your up for it read this and let us know. Yes we know there are many middle east related blogs but we feel PIMES is gonna be among the best weeding out the more watery and posting the meaty ONLY! The only requirement is you subscribe to the PIMES agenda.

20 bloggers and journalists were detained in Iran

In 2004, more than 20 bloggers and journalists were detained on the orders of Tehran’s chief prosecutor. The detainees were held in solitary confinement and were routinely tortured and forced to make false confessions. The authorities hoped to silence and intimidate activists who rely on the Internet to communicate their viewpoints. Human Rights Watch campaigned actively to expose the ill-treatment of the detainees and called for their immediate release. In December 2004, the detainees were released following intense international protests. However the judiciary continues to persecute bloggers. On Feb. 22, 2004, a well-known blogger, Arash Cigarchi, was sentenced to 14 years in prison for his writings. Charges brought against Cigarchi included “insulting the leader.”

Source

Iran pledges $50 million to Hamas

Wanna know where the $72 a barrel oil money of the Islamic Republic is giong? well not to the needy of Iran, but to a foreign terrorist group!

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran may win Arab friends by pledging $50 million to the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority, but at home the Islamic Republic's largesse received a mixed response on Monday.

"I wish they had thought of the likes of me before they went lavishing Iranian money on others," said Farideh, as she sought donations in a south Tehran street to buy her dead son a gravestone.

"Do the Palestinians look more needy than I do?" said the 65-year-old, who like others asked for her full name not be used when criticizing the government on a sensitive political issue.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, speaking at a conference on the Palestinian cause in Tehran, said on Sunday his government was giving $50 million to the Palestinian Authority to fill gaps left by Western aid cuts.

"As they say, a lantern that can light your home, should not be donated, even to the mosque," said 60-year-old retired government worker Kourosh, adding that the Iranian government would be better spending its money at home.

Source

Oil hits $72 on Iran concerns

Oil surged to a record high above $72 today on concern that Iran's nuclear stand-off with the West could cut oil exports from the world's fourth-largest crude exporter.

Well last time it was higher than that also had to do with Iran and it was the 1980 Islamic Revolution, then it was $80. This really highlights Irans unique strategic importance.


Source

THE IRAN PLANS

Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2006-04-17
The New Yorker


The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred.

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

Read more

The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb

I’ve always said Islamic extremism is more of an evil than Nazi ideology. Why might one ask; well Nazism had as an example no concept of afterlife. You could not order suicide battalions of Hitlerjunge to its death. Why? Well there was not a viable promise of a better afterlife. What truly is obscene about Islamic extremism is that its hate coupled with theology and that is the deadliest combination as this brilliant article eloquently demonstrates.



By Amir Taheri

Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.


According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind's existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad's more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.

The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame-duck", unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

Thus do not be surprised if, by the end of the 12 days still left of the United Nations' Security Council "deadline", Ahmadinejad announces a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment as a "confidence building measure". Also, don't be surprised if some time in June he agrees to ask the Majlis (the Islamic parliament) to consider signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Such manoeuvres would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director, Muhammad El-Baradei, and Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to congratulate Iran for its "positive gestures" and denounce talk of sanctions, let alone military action. The confidence building measures would never amount to anything, but their announcement would be enough to prevent the G8 summit, hosted by Russia in July, from moving against Iran.

While waiting Bush out, the Islamic Republic is intent on doing all it can to consolidate its gains in the region. Regime changes in Kabul and Baghdad have altered the status quo in the Middle East. While Bush is determined to create a Middle East that is democratic and pro-Western, Ahmadinejad is equally determined that the region should remain Islamic but pro-Iranian. Iran is now the strongest presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the US. It has turned Syria and Lebanon into its outer defences, which means that, for the first time since the 7th century, Iran is militarily present on the coast of the Mediterranean. In a massive political jamboree in Teheran last week, Ahmadinejad also assumed control of the "Jerusalem Cause", which includes annihilating Israel "in one storm", while launching a take-over bid for the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza.

Ahmadinejad has also reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return. For the Imam's return will coincide with an apocalyptic battle between the forces of evil and righteousness, with evil ultimately routed. If the infidel loses its nuclear advantage, it could be worn down in a long, low-intensity war at the end of which surrender to Islam would appear the least bad of options. And that could be a signal for the Imam to reappear.

At the same time, not to forget the task of hastening the Mahdi's second coming, Ahamdinejad will pursue his provocations. On Monday, he was as candid as ever: "To those who are angry with us, we have one thing to say: be angry until you die of anger!"

His adviser, Hassan Abassi, is rather more eloquent. "The Americans are impatient," he says, "at the first sight of a setback, they run away. We, however, know how to be patient. We have been weaving carpets for thousands of years."

Amir Taheri is a former Executive Editor of Kayhan, Iran's largest daily newspaper, but now lives in Europe

In Iraq, brave troops and a noble cause

By: Maj. Kevin Kelly

I have seen many incredible sights living and flying in Iraq the last two months. Two things, the bravery of our soldiers and the importance of completing our mission and building a free Iraq, prompt me to write today.

Let me first tell you about my visit to the hospital on the base at Balad, where all serious casualties, both American and Iraqi, are treated. An increasing number of the casualties are new Iraqi soldiers and policemen, as well as civilians. Viewing the wounded was very difficult and left me a bit shaken.

We took some Tastykakes (thanks, Mom) for the injured soldiers. I wanted to thank the troops on the ground that have been bearing the brunt of our efforts in Iraq.

We talked with several of the American soldiers, and, thank God, none of them were critically injured. One of the Army privates had been shot through the hand by a sniper while he was drinking a Coke. The bullet went right through the can and then through his hand. We joked about how angry the sniper must have been when he saw the Coke explode. The private then thanked me, because, he said, "When you guys show up overhead, we all breathe a little bit easier because we know the bad guys are scared."

Here's a guy who takes a bullet that misses his head by inches, and he's sitting there thanking me? It put things into perspective and, quite frankly, made me feel a little unworthy. The kids who are serving over here are the best America has to offer. Their bravery is evident in their capacity to perform professionally even when scared half to death. They make me proud.

We then went to the ward that cared for the Iraqi citizens. To describe it as "horrible" would not be adequate. The ward was filled with police and civilian casualties from a car-bomb attack that left almost every patient missing at least one limb, and many missing several. Despite the heavy sedation and pain medication, most were conscious, screaming and groaning in agony.

Now, if you ever have any doubt that you live in a thoroughly good, decent and moral country, just recall what I'm about to tell you: In the next ward, doctors and nurses were working just as diligently on the very animals who commit these despicable attacks. I scratch my head when so many back home are unable to make the moral distinction between the ideology that gave birth to the greatest country on Earth and the ideology of our enemy in Iraq. I am sometimes fearful that this moral blindness may one day lead to the downfall of our republic. I only hope I'm wrong.

Let me mention one other thing. When we lose one of our brave Americans, before their bodies are carefully loaded on a C-130 aircraft for transport home, an e-mail goes out for volunteers to serve as the honor guard. Along with the members of his unit, volunteers have the privilege of assisting with the conveyance of the flag-draped casket. It typically happens late at night, on the flight line, with the C-130's rear platform lowered and the engines off. Unless you respond immediately to the e-mail, many others beat you to the chance.

As the supervisor of flying the other night, I was able to witness the ceremony. The silence was deafening, the precision was astounding, and the reverence and veneration were complete. I was moved beyond words. I wept openly. Our soldiers are sacrificing to build a strong democratic Iraq and to help ensure the security of all Americans.

Contrary to what you may hear in the media, there is no "civil war"! I fly over every inch of this country both day and night. Is there serious political tension? Yes. Is there sporadic sectarian violence? Yes. Are there those who are willing to blow themselves and innocent Iraqis up in order to prevent a democratic Iraq from becoming a reality? Yes. Should that be the determining factor as to whether we throw up our hands and give up? Hell, no!

Since when has America been intimidated by bullies? We have a responsibility to the people of Iraq and our own greatness as Americans to finish this righteous cause. This is to say nothing of the myriad other reasons why it was a spectacularly good thing to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his rapist heirs.

The vast majority of Iraqi people are incredibly grateful to the United States for saving them from a bloody and brutal dictatorship. There are, granted, those who do not share this same gratitude, namely the former regime and those who benefited from it, as well as foreign militant Islamists who see Iraq as the battleground for their extremism. That's who we're fighting, not the majority of the people of Iraq.

The democratically elected government of Iraq is our ally, and we are helping the Iraqis with their fledgling democracy, just as we helped Japan and Germany after the Second World War. What we have done in Iraq and what we are doing here now are among the noblest things we have ever done as a country.

We truly are the last best hope of the world. We dare not quash that hope in Iraq, and, in the process, destroy our valiant, struggling friends - and their desire for peace and happiness.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maj. Kevin Kelly of Philadelphia, an F-16 fighter pilot with the New Jersey Air National Guard, is deployed in Iraq. Contact him at kevin.kelly522@gmail.com

PIMES Blog joins Blog Iran

The movement's objective is to unite in support of the Iranian people by providing the readership of web-logs (blogs) with a weekly dose of news, views and other movement-related goodies. Bloggers who join the "Blog-Iran" movement vow to write a weekly log, article, or movement update in an effort to gradually raise not only the level of awareness/knowledge of the people, but also to build unity in support of the Iranian people who are struggling for freedom day in and day out.

The BLOG was selected as the medium for this grassroots project because it has become one of the world's most free forms of expression. "Blog-Iran" is the link between every blogger that supports the Iranian movement for freedom.

'America' no longer a dirty word in Iran

Are the government sponsored anti US rallies that we see on a representative view of the average Iranian? No! By no stretch of imagination. Persians historically has been friends of all nations. And America has had a special place in the Iranian pysche as suggested in the cult movie “Mammal Amerikaee”. In hope of Iran once again becomes ‘friends’ of all nations from Japan to Israel and from Israel to Argentina to the United States.

By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY

The "real thing" returned here a few months ago, when Coca-Cola began production in the city of Mashhad. Until then, Iranians made do with a less popular local cola.

The re-emergence of one of the most recognizable icons of American culture shows how much attitudes in this country have changed 23 years after an Islamic revolution vowed to stamp out all vestiges of the "Great Satan."

Instead of putting U.S. hostages on display, burning the Stars and Stripes and chanting anti-American slogans, many of today's Iranians are participating in pro-U.S. demonstrations and wishing Iran could be more like the United States. Such sentiments in the streets could help nudge the two countries closer, although Iran's government remains controlled by conservatives wary of improved ties.

"The United States is the first country in the world, and if we have relations, it will be good for us," says an 18-year-old dental student who gave only her first name, Arghavan.

A middle-aged former government official says he cannot remember a time when the United States was more popular in Iran.

The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks brought the two countries closer together because it gave them a common enemy: the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which had murdered a dozen Iranian diplomats in 1998, and now harbored terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

The rising tide of good feelings about America among Iranians, who are Muslims but not Arabs, is in stark contrast to attitudes of Muslims in the Arab world. U.S. popularity there is sinking because of Washington's support for Israel as its conflict with the Palestinians worsens. Even Iranians who oppose U.S. policies in the Middle East have a positive impression of the United States.

Transferring that popular sentiment into positive action by the Tehran government won't come easily. The regime isn't comfortable acknowledging that it has aided the U.S. war in neighboring Afghanistan by providing intelligence and encouraging Iranian-backed Afghan warlords to join the anti-Taliban resistance. But Iran has endorsed the new pro-U.S. Afghan government of Hamid Karzai.

Factional squabbles between social reformers and conservatives are also slowing rapprochement. Even so, the voices in favor of reopening the old U.S. embassy — where radical students held 52 U.S. hostages for 444 days from 1979-81 — are growing louder.

"The equation has changed since Sept. 11," says Gholamheidar Ebrahimby-Salami, a member of parliament from a town near the Afghan border. He says that Iran should "definitely" restore formal relations with the United States. Washington severed ties in 1980.

Pro-U.S. rallies

Some Iranians compare the two countries, which were close allies under the autocratic rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi from 1941 to 1979, to a husband and wife eager to fall into each other's arms after a long separation, but still nursing old grudges.

For three days after Sept. 11, scores of young Iranians held spontaneous candlelight vigils on Mirdamad Boulevard in northern Tehran to show solidarity with the U.S. victims of the terrorist attacks. In October, celebrations after Iranian soccer victories turned into anti-government demonstrations with pro-U.S. overtones.

Many here also watched with envy as the Bush administration lifted economic sanctions on Pakistan in September and hoisted the American flag over the old U.S. embassy in Kabul last month.

However, the government, which staged the first Islamic revolution of the 20th century, still organizes anti-American protests. That explains the freshly repainted anti-American slogans that festoon the former U.S. embassy, dubbed "the nest of spies." It is now a museum that recently had an exhibit on CIA meddling in Iranian affairs.

At Friday prayers, supreme leader Ali Khamenei once again leads crowds in ritual chants of "Death to America," a practice suspended for two weeks after Sept. 11 in deference to U.S. feelings.

At a government-organized rally last month to express solidarity with the Palestinians, participants criticized U.S. support for Israel. Yasin Shokrani, 20, one of several hundred university students bused in to demonstrate, said America must take the first step to better relations because "Iran has been the subject of injustice from the United States." Spectators snickered openly at the marchers.

Driving the growing popularity of the United States is unhappiness with 30% unemployment and a falling standard of living in an oil-rich country that used to be one of the developing world's wealthiest. Enthusiasm for a U.S.-style democracy is also on the rise.

Relations with the United States, many Iranians say, would boost the economy and help the nation's dilapidated oil industry raise $50 billion in foreign investment needed to modernize. Iranian businessmen would no longer have to pay premiums for U.S. technology that must be bought through middlemen. And direct flights would cut the time it takes for nearly 2 million Iranians in the United States and their relatives in Iran to visit.

Victoria's Secret opens

The craving for things American — from Coke to lingerie from a new Victoria's Secret boutique — is a sign of discontent with clerical rule. Dozens of Iranians, ranging from students to cab drivers to professionals and shopkeepers, told an American visitor recently, not entirely in jest, that they wished the United States would come and bomb their "Taliban" and restore a secular government.

For others, admiration for America is mixed with anxiety about it as the lone superpower. "Iranians' attitude toward Americans is very complex," says Mohammad Javad Gholam Reza Kashi, a Tehran University political scientist.

"Because the government chants 'Death to America,' the people have a very positive attitude toward the United States. But there are also negative memories stirred up by the bombing in Afghanistan."

The attitudes are similar to the feelings Soviet citizens had toward the United States a decade before the fall of communism.

Beliefs about the wisdom of restoring relations with the United States vary among Iranian officials. Reformers who back Iran's elected parliament and president, Mohammad Khatami, have been outspoken about improving ties. Conservatives headed by spiritual leader Khamenei, chosen by an elected council of regime loyalists, have been ambiguous. Khamenei has the final say on policy.

In a major speech on Oct. 30, Khamenei said it was not in Iran's interests to re-establish U.S. ties. Diplomats noted, however, that he did not include his standard charge that such relations would violate Islam or the Iranian revolution. The latter two are supposed to be immutable, but national "interests" can be redefined, the envoys say.

In fact, Khamenei's camp is more oriented toward free-market economics than many Khatami supporters, who are more concerned with social reform. And Khamenei's backers leaned toward rapprochement with the United States until Khatami swept the 1997 elections. Now, they are reluctant to hand a foreign policy victory to Khatami.

U.S.-Iran conflicts

The Bush administration has yet to unveil a policy toward Iran beyond short-term coordination with Tehran on Afghanistan.

State Department officials have praised Iran's "constructive" approach toward Afghanistan, but still express concern over Iran's support for Palestinian terrorists who have stepped up attacks on Israel in the past year. A debate has sprung up within the administration on whether to extend an olive branch toward the Iranian government or wait for popular sentiment to force reforms on the clerical regime. U.S. officials also are divided on how to deal with Iran's past support for terrorist attacks on U.S. targets overseas. Iran is accused of aiding Saudi terrorists who blew up a U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Nineteen U.S. servicemen died in that attack.

Many ordinary Iranians say they are embarrassed by their government's sponsorship of terrorism and fed up with what they see as drain on resources needed at home. Iranian patriots first, Muslims second, Iranians point to 2,500 years of recorded history and are angered when they are confused with Arabs.

"The Iranian street is much more pro-American than the Arab street," says Afshin Molavi, an Iranian-American and author of a forthcoming book called Persian Pilgrimages. "The government professes to care about the Palestinians but the people don't."

Iranian officials have long said they would accept any peace agreement endorsed by the Palestinians. Former deputy foreign minister Abbas Maleki, an influential conservative, said in an interview that Iran cannot demand more than Palestinian leaders. "The bowl cannot be hotter than the soup," he said.

Iran has its own list of grievances against the United States that stands in the way of better relations. They include a 1995 U.S. embargo that bars trade in almost everything but food and medicine. Another is the U.S. practice of fingerprinting Iranian visitors.

Insecure and deeply suspicious of U.S. motives, Iranian officials say they are afraid they will be humiliated if they resume ties and anti-Iranian measures stay in place.

"Suppose we sit in a dialogue with the United States and they still say they are opposed to oil pipelines through Iran," says Maleki, who now heads Iran's International Institute for Caspian Studies. "We would lose the image of Iran in the Islamic world."

Taking modest steps

Others suggest more modest steps that Washington could take to show its support for the Iranian people, if not the regime. The United States could contribute more funds through the United Nations to anti-drug programs that would help curtail shipments of Afghan opium that plague both countries. And Washington could stop opposing Iran's application to join the World Trade Organization, which governs international commerce. Economists say changes needed to qualify for membership would bolster reforms that could allow Iran to join the global economy.

"If we want to be friends, we shouldn't bare our teeth to each other," says Amir Mohebian, a columnist for a pro-Khamenei newspaper, Resalat.

Some Iranian politicians say Washington should do little while Iranians sort out their internal differences.

"As long as democracy is not institutionalized here, it is irrelevant whether there are relations with other countries or not," says Abbas Abdi, who was among the leaders of the Iranian students who seized the U.S. embassy in 1979. Now a social scientist, Abdi says a survey of 1,300 Tehranis conducted a month after the Sept. 11 attacks — just as U.S. bombs began raining down on Afghanistan — showed that a slight majority felt the time was not ripe to restore relations with the United States.

But Mahmoud Kashani, an independent who ran unsuccessfully for president in June, says that if he had been elected, "that day would have been the beginning of direct negotiations" with the United States.

It used to be rare for politicians to be so outspoken.

Says Hadi Semati, a Tehran University professor of political science: "We are like a bride and a groom walking down the aisle very slowly."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/01/03/usatcov-iranchanges.htm

© Copyright 2002 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Ahmadinejad's Demons

The New Republic
Matthias Küntzel



During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran's forces were no match for Saddam Hussein's professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child's neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.

At one point, however, the earthly gore became a matter of concern. "In the past," wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettelaat as the war raged on, "we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the minefields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone." Such scenes would henceforth be avoided, Ettelaat assured its readers. "Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves."

These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 and militarized after the war started in order to supplement his beleaguered army.The Basij Mostazafan--or "mobilization of the oppressed"--was essentially a volunteer militia, most of whose members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically, and by the thousands, to their own destruction. "The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," one veteran of the Iran-Iraq War recalled in 2002 to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."

The sacrifice of the Basiji was ghastly. And yet, today, it is a source not of national shame, but of growing pride. Since the end of hostilities against Iraq in 1988, the Basiji have grown both in numbers and influence. They have been deployed, above all, as a vice squad to enforce religious law in Iran, and their elite "special units" have been used as shock troops against anti-government forces. In both 1999 and 2003, for instance, the Basiji were used to suppress student unrest. And, last year, they formed the potent core of the political base that propelled Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-- a man who reportedly served as a Basij instructor during the Iran-Iraq War--to the presidency.

Ahmadinejad revels in his alliance with the Basiji. He regularly appears in public wearing a black-and-white Basij scarf, and, in his speeches, he routinely praises "Basij culture" and "Basij power," with which he says "Iran today makes its presence felt on the international and diplomatic stage." Ahmadinejad's ascendance on the shoulders of the Basiji means that the Iranian Revolution, launched almost three decades ago, has entered a new and disturbing phase. A younger generation of Iranians, whose worldviews were forged in the atrocities of the Iran-Iraq War, have come to power, wielding a more fervently ideological approach to politics than their predecessors. The children of the Revolution are now its leaders.

In 1980, the Ayatollah Khomeini called the Iraqi invasion of Iran a "divine blessing," because the war provided him the perfect opportunity to Islamize both Iranian society and the institutions of the Iranian state. As Saddam's troops pushed into Iran, Khomeini's fanatically devoted Revolutionary Guard moved rapidly to mobilize and prepare their air and sea forces. At the same time, the regime hastened to develop the Basiji as a popular militia.

Whereas the Revolutionary Guard consisted of professionally trained adult soldiers, the Basiji was essentially composed of boys between twelve and 17 and men over 45. They received only a few weeks of training--less in weapons and tactics than in theology. Most Basiji came from the countryside and were often illiterate. When their training was done, each Basiji received a blood-red headband that designated him a volunteer for martyrdom. According to Sepehr Zabih's The Iranian Military in Revolution and War, such volunteers made up nearly one-third of the Iranian army--and the majority of its infantry.

The chief combat tactic employed by the Basiji was the human wave attack, whereby barely armed children and teenagers would move continuously toward the enemy in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies: The important thing was that the Basiji continue to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their deaths in wave after wave. Once a path to the Iraqi forces had been opened up, Iranian commanders would send in their more valuable and skilled Revolutionary Guard troops.

This approach produced some undeniable successes. "They come toward our positions in huge hordes with their fists swinging," one Iraqi officer complained in the summer of 1982. "You can shoot down the first wave and then the second. But at some point the corpses are piling up in front of you, and all you want to do is scream and throw away your weapon. Those are human beings, after all!" By the spring of 1983, some 450,000 Basiji had been sent to the front. After three months, those who survived deployment were sent back to their schools or workplaces.

But three months was a long time on the front lines. In 1982, during the retaking of the city of Khorramshahr, 10,000 Iranians died. Following "Operation Kheiber," in February 1984, the corpses of some 20,000 fallen Iranians were left on the battlefield. The "Karbala Four" offensive in 1986 cost the lives of more than 10,000 Iranians. All told, some 100,000 men and boys are said to have been killed during Basiji operations. Why did the Basiji volunteer for such duty?

Most of them were recruited by members of the Revolutionary Guards, which commanded the Basiji. These "special educators" would visit schools and handpick their martyrs from the paramilitary exercises in which all Iranian youth were required to participate. Propaganda films--like the 1986 TV film A Contribution to the War--praised this alliance between students and the regime and undermined those parents who tried to save their children's lives. (At the time, Iranian law allowed children to serve even if their families objected.) Some parents, however, were lured by incentives. In a campaign called "Sacrifice a Child for the Imam," every family that lost a child on the battlefield was offered interest-free credit and other generous benefits. Moreover, enrollment in the Basiji gave the poorest of the poor a chance for social advancement.

Still others were coerced into "volunteering." In 1982, the German weekly Der Spiegel documented the story of a twelve-year-old boy named Hossein, who enlisted with the Basiji despite having polio:



One day, some unknown imams turned up in the village. They called the whole population to the plaza in front of the police station, and they announced that they came with good news from Imam Khomeini: The Islamic Army of Iran had been chosen to liberate the holy city Al Quds--Jerusalem--from the infidels. ... The local mullah had decided that every family with children would have to furnish one soldier of God. Because Hossein was the most easily expendable for his family, and because, in light of his illness, he could in any case not expect much happiness in this life, he was chosen by his father to represent the family in the struggle against the infidel devils.



Of the 20 children that went into battle with Hossein, only he and two others survived.

But, if such methods explained some of why they volunteered, it did not explain the fervor with which they rushed to their destruction. That can only be elucidated by the Iranian Revolution's peculiar brand of Islam.

At the beginning of the war, Iran's ruling mullahs did not send human beings into the minefields, but rather animals: donkeys, horses, and dogs. But the tactic proved useless: "After a few donkeys had been blown up, the rest ran off in terror," Mostafa Arki reports in his book Eight Years of War in the Middle East. The donkeys reacted normally--fear of death is natural. The Basiji, on the other hand, marched fearlessly and without complaint to their deaths. The curious slogans that they chanted while entering the battlefields are of note: "Against the Yazid of our time!"; "Hussein's caravan is moving on!"; "A new Karbala awaits us!"

Yazid, Hussein, Karbala--these are all references to the founding myth of Shia Islam. In the late seventh century, Islam was split between those loyal to the Caliph Yazid--the predecessors of Sunni Islam--and the founders of Shia Islam, who thought that the Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, should govern the Muslims. In 680, Hussein led an uprising against the "illegitimate" caliph, but he was betrayed. On the plain of Karbala, on the tenth day of the month of Muharram, Yazid's forces attacked Hussein and his entourage and killed them. Hussein's corpse bore the marks of 33 lance punctures and 34 blows of the sword.

His head was cut off and his body was trampled by horses. Ever since, the martyrdom of Hussein has formed the core of Shia theology, and the Ashura Festival that commemorates his death is Shiism's holiest day. On that day, men beat themselves with their fists or flagellate themselves with iron chains to approximate Hussein's sufferings. At times throughout the centuries, the ritual has grown obscenely violent. In his study Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti recounts a firsthand report of the Ashura Festival as it occurred in mid-nineteenth-century Tehran:



500,000 people, in the grip of delirium, cover their heads with ashes and beat their foreheads against the ground. They want to subject themselves voluntarily to torments: to commit suicide en masse, to mutilate themselves with refinement. ... Hundreds of men in white shirts come by, their faces ecstatically raised toward the sky. Of these, several will be dead this evening, many will be maimed and mutilated, and the white shirts, dyed red, will be burial shrouds. ... There is no more beautiful destiny than to die on the Festival of Ashura. The gates of the eight Paradises are wide open for the holy and everyone tries to get through them.



Bloody excesses of this sort are prohibited in contemporary Iran, but, during the Iran-Iraq War, Khomeini appropriated the essence of the ritual as a symbolic act and politicized it. He took the inward-directed fervor and channeled it toward the external enemy. He transformed the passive lamentation into active protest. He made the Battle of Karbala the prototype of any fight against tyranny. Indeed, this technique had been used during political demonstrations in 1978, when many Iranian protestors wore funeral shrouds in order to tie the battle of 680 to the contemporary struggle against the shah. In the war against Iraq, the allusions to Karbala were given still greater significance: On the one hand, the scoundrel Yazid, now in the form of Saddam Hussein; on the other, the Prophet's grandson, Hussein, for whose suffering the time of Shia revenge had finally come.

The power of this story was further reinforced by a theological twist that Khomeini gave it. According to Khomeini, life is worthless and death is the beginning of genuine existence. "The natural world," he explained in October 1980, "is the lowest element, the scum of creation. "What is decisive is the beyond: The "divine world, that is eternal." This latter world is accessible to martyrs. Their death is no death, but merely the transition from this world to the world beyond, where they will live on eternally and in splendor. Whether the warrior wins the battle or loses it and dies a Martyr--in both cases, his victory is assured: either a mundane or a spiritual one.

This attitude had a fatal implication for the Basiji: Whether they survived or not was irrelevant. Not even the tactical utility of their sacrifice mattered. Military victories are secondary, Khomeini explained in September 1980.The Basiji must "understand that he is a 'soldier of God' for whom it is not so much the outcome of the conflict as the mere participation in it that provides fulfillment and gratification." Could Khomeini's antipathy for life have had as much effect in the war against Iraq without the Karbala myth? Probably not.With the word "Karbala" on their lips, the Basiji went elatedly into battle.

For those whose courage still waned in the face of death, the regime put on a show. A mysterious horseman on a magnificent steed would suddenly appear on the front lines. His face--covered in phosphorous--would shine. His costume was that of a medieval prince. A child soldier, Reza Behrouzi, whose story was documented in 1985 by French writer Freidoune Sehabjam, reported that the soldiers reacted with a mixture of panic and rapture.



Everyone wanted to run toward the horseman. But he drove them away. "Don't come to me!" he shouted, "Charge into battle against the infidels! ... Revenge the death of our Imam Hussein and strike down the progeny of Yazid!" As the figure disappears, the soldiers cry: "Oh, Imam Zaman, where are you?" They throw themselves on their knees, and pray and wail. When the figure appears again, they get to their feet as a single man. Those whose forces are not yet exhausted charge the enemy lines.



The mysterious apparition who was able to trigger such emotions is the "hidden imam," a mythical figure who influences the thought and action of Ahmadinejad to this day. The Shia call all the male descendants of the Prophet Muhammad "imams" and ascribe to them a quasidivine status. Hussein, who was killed at Karbala by Yazid, was the third Imam. His son and grandson were the fourth and fifth. At the end of this line, there is the "Twelfth Imam," who is named Muhammad. Some call him the Mahdi (the "divinely guided one"), though others say imam Zaman (from sahib-e zaman: "the ruler of time"). He was born in 869, the only son of the eleventh Imam. In 874, he disappeared without a trace, thereby bringing Muhammad's lineage to a close. In Shia mythology, however, the Twelfth Imam survived. The Shia believe that he merely withdrew from public view when he was five and that he will sooner or later emerge from his "occultation" in order to liberate the world from evil.

Writing in the early '80s, V. S. Naipaul showed how deeply rooted the belief in the coming of the Shia messiah is among the Iranian population. In Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey, he described seeing posters in post-Revolutionary Tehran bearing motifs similar to those of Maoist China: crowds, for instance, with rifles and machine guns raised in the air as if in greeting. The posters always bore the same phrase: twelfth imam, we are waiting for you. Naipaul writes that he could grasp intellectually the veneration for Khomeini. "But the idea of the revolution as something more, as an offering to the Twelfth Imam, the man who had vanished ... and remained 'in occultation,' was harder to seize." According to Shia tradition, legitimate Islamic rule can only be established following the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. Until that time, the Shia have only to wait, to keep their peace with illegitimate rule, and to remember the Prophet's grandson, Hussein, in sorrow. Khomeini, however, had no intention of waiting. He vested the myth with an entirely new sense: The Twelfth Imam will only emerge when the believers have vanquished evil. To speed up the Mahdi's return, Muslims had to shake off their torpor and fight.

This activism had more in common with the revolutionary ideas of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood than with Shia traditions. Khomeini had been familiar with the texts of the Muslim Brothers since the 1930s, and he agreed with the Brothers' conception of what had to be considered "evil": namely, all the achievements of modernity that replaced divine providence with individual self-determination, blind faith with doubt, and the stern morality of sharia with sensual pleasures. According to legend, Yazid was the embodiment of everything that was forbidden: He drank wine, enjoyed music and song, and played with dogs and monkeys. And was not Saddam just the same? In the war against Iraq, "evil" was clearly defined, and vanquishing evil was the precondition for hastening the return of the beloved Twelfth Imam. When he let himself be seen for a few minutes riding his white steed, the readiness to die a martyr's death increased considerably.

It was this culture that nurtured Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's worldview. Born outside Tehran in 1956, the son of blacksmith, he trained as a civil engineer, and, during the Iran-Iraq War, he joined the Revolutionary Guards. His biography remains strangely elliptical. Did he play a role in the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy, as some charge? What exactly did he do during the war? These are questions for which we have no definite answers. His presidential website says simply that he was "on active service as a Basij volunteer up to the end of the holy defense [the war against Iraq] and served as a combat engineer in different spheres of duty."

We do know that, after the war's end, he served as the governor of Ardebil Province and as an organizer of Ansar-e Hezbollah, a radical gang of violent Islamic vigilantes. After becoming mayor of Tehran in April 2003, Ahmadinejad used his position to build up a strong network of radical Islamic fundamentalists known as Abadgaran-e Iran-e Islami, or Developers of an Islamic Iran. It was in that role that he won his reputation--and popularity--as a hardliner devoted to rolling back the liberal reforms of then-President Muhammad Khatami. Ahmadinejad positioned himself as the leader of a "second revolution" to eradicate corruption and Western influences from Iranian society. And the Basiji, whose numbers had grown dramatically since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, embraced him. Recruited from the more conservative and impoverished parts of the population, the Basiji fall under the direction of--and swear absolute loyalty to--the Supreme Leader Ali Khameini, Khomeini's successor. During Ahmadinejad's run for the presidency in 2005, the millions of Basiji--in every Iranian town, neighborhood, and mosque--became his unofficial campaign workers.

Since Ahmadinejad became president, the influence of the Basiji has grown. In November, the new Iranian president opened the annual "Basiji Week," which commemorates the martyrs of the Iran-Iraq War. According to a report in Kayan, a publication loyal to Khameini, some nine million Basiji--12 percent of the Iranian population--turned out to demonstrate in favor of Ahmadinejad's anti-liberal platform. The article claimed that the demonstrators "form[ed] a human chain some 8,700 kilometers long. ... In Tehran alone, some 1,250,000 people turned out." Barely noticed by the Western media, this mobilization attests to Ahmadinejad's determination to impose his "second revolution" and to extinguish the few sparks of freedom in Iran.

At the end of July 2005, the Basij movement announced plans to increase its membership from ten million to 15 million by 2010. The elite special units are supposed to comprise some 150,000 people by then. Accordingly, the Basiji have received new powers in their function as an unofficial division of the police. What this means in practice became clear in February 2006, when the Basiji attacked the leader of the bus-drivers' union, Massoud Osanlou. They held Osanlou prisoner in his apartment, and they cut off the tip of his tongue in order to convince him to keep quiet. No Basiji needs to fear prosecution for such terrorists tactics before a court of law.

As Basij ideology and influence enjoy a renaissance under Ahmadinejad, the movement's belief in the virtues of violent self-sacrifice remains intact. There is no "truth commission" in Iran to investigate the state-planned collective suicide that took place from 1980 to 1988. Instead, every Iranian is taught the virtues of martyrdom from childhood. Obviously, many of them reject the Basij teachings. Still, everyone knows the name of Hossein Fahmideh, who, as a 13-year-old boy during the war, blew himself up in front of an Iraqi tank. His image follows Iranians throughout their day: whether on postage stamps or the currency. If you hold up a 500 Rial bill to the light, it is his face you will see in the watermark. The self-destruction of Fahmideh is depicted as a model of profound faith by the Iranian press. It has been the subject of both an animated film and an episode of the TV series "Children of Paradise." As a symbol of their readiness to die for the Revolution, Basij groups wear white funeral shrouds over their uniforms during public appearances.

During this year's Ashura Festival, school classes were taken on excursions to a "Martyrs' Cemetery." "They wear headbands painted with the name Hussein," The New York Times reported, "and march beneath banners that read: 'Remembering the Martyrs today is as important as becoming a Martyr' and 'The Nation for whom Martyrdom means happiness, will always be Victorious.' " Since 2004, the mobilization of Iranians for suicide brigades has intensified, with recruits being trained for foreign missions. Thus, a special military unit has been created bearing the name "Commando of Voluntary Martyrs. "According to its own statistics, this force has so far recruited some 52,000 Iranians to the suicidal cause. It aims to form a "martyrdom unit" in every Iranian province.

The Basiji's cult of self-destruction would be chilling in any country. In the context of the Iranian nuclear program, however, its obsession with martyrdom amounts to a lit fuse. Nowadays, Basiji are sent not into the desert, but rather into the laboratory. Basij students are encouraged to enroll in technical and scientific disciplines. According to a spokesperson for the Revolutionary Guard, the aim is to use the "technical factor" in order to augment "national security."

What exactly does that mean? Consider that, in December 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani explained that "the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." On the other hand, if Israel responded with its own nuclear weapons, it "will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." Rafsanjani thus spelled out a macabre cost-benefit analysis. It might not be possible to destroy Israel without suffering retaliation. But, for Islam, the level of damage Israel could inflict is bearable--only 100,000 or so additional martyrs for Islam.

And Rafsanjani is a member of the moderate, pragmatic wing of the Iranian Revolution; he believes that any conflict ought to have a "worthwhile" outcome. Ahmadinejad, by contrast, is predisposed toward apocalyptic thinking. In one of his first TV interviews after being elected president, he enthused: "Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr's death?" In September 2005, he concluded his first speech before the United Nations by imploring God to bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam. He finances a research institute in Tehran whose sole purpose is to study, and, if possible, accelerate the coming of the imam. And, at a theology conference in November 2005, he stressed, "The most important task of our Revolution is to prepare the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam."

A politics pursued in alliance with a supernatural force is necessarily unpredictable. Why should an Iranian president engage in pragmatic politics when his assumption is that, in three or four years, the savior will appear? If the messiah is coming, why compromise? That is why, up to now, Ahmadinejad has pursued confrontational policies with evident pleasure.

The history of the Basiji shows that we must expect monstrosities from the current Iranian regime. Already, what began in the early '80s with the clearing of minefields by human detonators has spread throughout the Middle East, as suicide bombing has become the terrorist tactic of choice. The motivational shows in the desert--with hired actors in the role of the hidden imam--have evolved into a showdown between a zealous Iranian president and the Western world. And the Basiji who once upon a time wandered the desert armed only with a walking stick is today working as a chemist in a uranium enrichment facility.

Matthias Küntzel is a political scientist in Hamburg, Germany, and author of Djihad und Judenhass (or Jihad and Jew-Hatred).

The Origins of Middle Eastern upheavals

Where we are today with Islamic extremism running rampant is largely due to the Islamic Revolution of Iran with its Islamic fundamentalism exporting habits. The American Democratic Party with Carter administration deserves a lot of credit for the rise of Middle Eastern instability. Here is an excerpt of William Engdahl's A Century of War;

"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.

Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.


The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.

During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated:

In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran … Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself.

London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day. This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence. In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production.

As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah.

British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking community. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah. The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah's government.


Reflecting on his downfall months later, shortly before his death, the Shah noted from exile,

I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted … What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? … Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.[1]

With the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of the fanatical Khomeini adherents in Iran, chaos was unleashed. By May 1979, the new Khomeini regime had singled out the country's nuclear power development plans and announced cancellation of the entire program for French and German nuclear reactor construction.

Iran's oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million barrels per day. Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in the critical days of January 1979 was also cut by some 2 million barrels per day. To add to the pressures on world oil supply, British Petroleum declared force majeure and cancelled major contracts for oil supply. Prices on the Rotterdam spot market, heavily influenced by BP and Royal Cutch Shell as the largest oil traders, soared in early 1979 as a result. The second oil shock of the 1970s was fully under way.

Indications are that the actual planners of the Iranian Khomeini coup in London and within the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment decided to keep President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives. The ensuing energy crisis in the United States was a major factor in bringing about Carter's defeat a year later.

There was never a real shortage in the world supply of petroleum. Existing Saudi and Kuwaiti production capacities could at any time have met the 5-6 million barrels per day temporary shortfall, as a U.S. congressional investigation by the General Accounting Office months later confirmed.

Unusually low reserve stocks of oil held by the Seven Sisters oil multinationals contributed to creating a devastating world oil price shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per barrel in 1978 towards the astronomical heights of $40 per barrel for some grades of crude on the spot market. Long gasoline lines across America contributed to a general sense of panic, and Carter energy secretary and former CIA director, James R. Schlesinger, did not help calm matters when he told Congress and the media in February 1979 that the Iranian oil shortfall was 'prospectively more serious' than the 1973 Arab oil embargo.[2]

The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray.

Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy, spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the perimeter around the Soviet Union. Throughout the Islamic perimeter from Pakistan to Iran, U.S. initiatives created instability or worse."

-- William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, © 1992, 2004. Pluto Press Ltd. Pages 171-174.

[1] In 1978, the Iranian Ettelaat published an article accusing Khomeini of being a British agent. The clerics organized violent demonstrations in response, which led to the flight of the Shah months later. See U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies, Iran. The Coming of the Revolution. December 1987. The role of BBC Persian broadcasts in the ousting of the Shah is detailed in Hossein Shahidi. 'BBC Persian Service 60 years on.' The Iranian. September 24, 2001. The BBC was so much identified with Khomeini that it won the name 'Ayatollah BBC.'

[2] Comptroller General of the United States. 'Iranian Oil Cutoff: Reduced Petroleum Supplies and Inadequate U.S. Government Response.' Report to Congress by General Accounting Office. 1979.

PIMES launches Blog

In preparations for a full out launch of Pasargadae Institute of Middle Eastern Studies (PIMES in short) a blog has been setup to more fully address related issues. All praise to the creators of blogger.com and Google (their parent company) for propelling the blogger revolution into hyper drive. PIMES believes blogging will a be a major factor in opening up information avenues for totalitarian regimes like Iran and China; which in turn will ripen the grassroots for an overhaul.

PS In the comming months a big part of the PIMES effort will be geared towards current developmentsts of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the international community. This due to I.R. Iran is these days de facto & de jure of Middle Eastern concerns.