Pasargadae Institute Blog

Haltation of this blog

2006-08-19T01:18:00.000+02:00

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)

2006-05-29T19:39:00.000+02:00

Government forces kill six in north-west Iran riots

2006-05-27T01:15:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-27T00:48:00.000+02:00

Translation:

Authorities; pseudo-students were arrested

Students; security forces has occupied the campus

Source

Protests at Tehran universities

2006-05-24T14:29:00.000+02:00

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!

2006-05-23T19:20:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-23T18:54:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-20T15:18:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-20T15:09:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-20T15:00:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-15T21:53:00.000+02:00

Source

Iran's economy struggling, sanctions or no

2006-05-15T21:51:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-15T20:44:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-10T21:20:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-10T20:39:00.000+02:00

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 exposÃ©. 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

2006-05-10T01:15:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-08T23:49:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-08T22:18:00.000+02:00

"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

2006-05-06T21:21:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-04T23:50:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-03T03:11:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-03T02:13:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-03T02:11:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-03T02:07:00.000+02:00

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"

2006-05-02T01:18:00.000+02:00

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