Iranian Nobelist reminded again of her Historic Mission
SMCCDI (Information Service)
Oct 25, 2003
The Iranian Nobelist, Ms. Shirin Ebadi, was reminded of her Historic Mission during a radio program broadcasted, this evening, for Iran by the LA based famous "Radio Voice of Iran" (KRSI). The subject of the program which follows Ms. Ebadi's controversial interview with Associated Press (AP), was intended to warn the nobelist on how she can join Mr. Khatami in his rejectable and un-popular position if she commits the mistake to become the advocate of the sham "reforms from within".
Ms. Ebadi has been reported, by the AP interviewer, as stating that "She would have voted, again, for Khatami if he could have run again for the regime's presidency's position" and that "the only solution is the reforms 'from within'".
The program started by Mr. Siavash Azari, of KRSI, reading the SMCCDI's statement dated October 13th and entitled "The Noble Prize and an Historic Mission". The Movement's analytic statement, of which a copy was remitted to Ms. Ebadi before her departure to Iran, was already read by several abroad based Satellite TV and radio networks, such as ,the famous NITV, Pars TV and Azadi TV.
Mr. Azari reminded the auditors of the remittance of the SMCCDI statement to Ms. Ebadi and per consequence of her knowledge of its content.
SMCCDI was warning Ms. Ebadi on the consequences of deceiving the Iranians by failing to respond to her new duties or to help the regime's sham reformists in their demagogue activities as she did it few years ago.
Several callers from Iran declared, as well, their disappointment with Ms. Ebadi's controversial comments and backing Khatami's gang while undermining the legacy of Iranians demonstrations and calls for freedom.
Last week also, "Azadi TV" re-broadcasted at three occasions, the interview made with Aryo Pirouznia, speaking on behalf of SMCCDI, on this subject. The initial live program was the day before the historic departure of Ms. Ebadi for Tehran and was seen in Iran, Europe and the N. American continent.
Aryo B. Pirouznia, interviewed by Mr. Cyrus Sharafshahi of Azadi TV and the head editor of the Los Angeles based "Sobh e Emrooz", had stated:" While cheering this nomination, as mentioned in the Movement's Public Statement entitled "The Nobel Prize and an Historic Mission" and of which a copy was remitted to Ms. Ebadi herself, we request from our Nobelist to be very careful of avoiding to fall in the trap of any factions of the regime and especially its so-called reformists....
...We believe that Ms. Ebadi, who was a purged Judge and later a victim of the regime's sham reforms, must be now aware that mixing religion and state will never result in Democracy and Justice... She shall avoid giving up to the calls by some individuals to make of her a candidate for the future presidency of the republic and shall focus as like as Gandhi to fight for the promotion of Freedom and Secularity...
... Iranians have placed a big hope in her and as she'll notice, tomorrow evening they'll show their support by gathering at the Airport and in several areas of the Capital... If she remains true to them, then, they'll support her till the Day of Freedom...."
"...It's only by choosing such way that her name will appear in the Golden Book of Rights activists beside other illustre Nobelist names, such as the late Andrei Sakharov in the former USSR and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar" Pirouznia added in other parts of the interview. http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_3181.shtml
Paul-Marie de La Gorce: US illusion about Iraqi Shiite community is being dispelled
Special to Gulf News, 26-10-2003
Since Thursday October 9 not a shadow of doubt remains: the Iraqi Shiite community is mobilising and participating in large numbers in the organised resistance to American occupation. To recapitulate: in the predominantly Shiite residential area of Al Sadr City, a car bomb exploded just outside a police station, killing nine people and injuring 30 to 30 others, according to sources.
Shortly afterwards, thousands of demonstrators chanting "Death to America! America out!" were only just held back and contained by the barbed wire defences hastily erected by American soldiers. Then at the end of the day, Iman Moqtada Al Sadr's militia started another demonstration.
This time the militants were armed and the American Military Police opened fire, killing one and injuring two. An hour later an American patrol was ambushed and lost six men of which two were died and four injured.
The illusions that have long been sustained in the US about the Iraqi Shiite community are finally dispelled. In reality they were based on two misconceptions.
The first being that American experts did not understand the strength of Shiite Iraqi nationalism, lending too much weight to the hostility, undeniably real, from this community towards Saddam Hussain's regime.
Second, and even more importantly, far from being homogeneous, the Shiites are divided between those with pro-Iran tendencies, favouring a modern democratic state and those of the former nationalist party and those who support an Islamic republic.
It was therefore difficult for the Americans to envisage a scenario in which they could count on the Shiite community as a whole as it is subject to so many contradictory influences. But they cannot avoid facing today the fact that the vast majority of the Shiites are against occupation of their country.
Nevertheless there remains one question concerning the current level of Iraqi Shiite commitment: is it, for the most part, the result of a change of politics in Iran?
As has already been said, and as I have seen for myself on a recent trip to Tehran, Iranian leaders across the spectrum, deliberately put aside all idea of encouraging the installation of an Islamic Republic in Iraq. In their opinion this would have the inevitable consequence of dividing the Shiite community, of creating strong opposition within other communities, and therefore giving the US the pretext to prolong its occupation.
An early end to this occupation being in Iran's interests, they were pushing the pro-Iranian movements within Iraq to reach an agreement amongst all the communities so as to form a single national movement that would have enough authority and be sufficiently representative to oblige the occupying forces to quit the country as soon as possible. This was exactly the policy that the Imam Bakr Al Hakim in Iraq was pursuing before his assassination.
He was at the head of the main Shiite movement, supported by Iran for the past 20 years, even living for a long time in Tehran where he had become (as with his brother and now successor) the personal friend of the revolution's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei.
There are many signs that could lead one to think that this policy has changed, or rather, that the Iranian leaders think that it is no longer applicable. First, they are now convinced that the US has decided to maintain its forces in Iraq for a very long time in order to maintain the political, economical and strategic advantages that its presence there has afforded them.
Further, regardless of Iranian policies, Iraqi resistance has emerged nationwide and now affects the whole of the country.
It first arose amongst the former Ba'ath nationalist movement within the Sunni community, and in the Shiite neighbourhoods of Baghdad and the southern Shiite cities where the Imam Maqtada Al Sadr's movement is fully engaged in armed resistance.
There are also external Islamic groups that have joined forces, but above all, it seems that there are men from the former Iraqi army who have been able to maintain much of the old hierarchy in hiding. It is therefore impossible nowadays for the Iranian leaders and their partisans in Iraq, to remain uninvolved.
Finally, in Tehran there is a feeling that the moment of truth with the US has finally come, and that matters have evolved beyond the point of planning alone. The American government must understand fully the risks it runs if Iran, in retaliation to an attack on its nuclear installations, were to put into action its influence and logistical capabilities within the region.
Today, we can understand the American reaction to Iran's new direction. Washington thinks that one of the sources of the Iraqi resistance is Iran, and therefore this is one more reason for them to consider Iran as an enemy.
Of course publicly the objectives are the prevention, if need be by force, of all Iranian military developments, whilst in reality this is a far more reaching trial of strength with a greater potential than one might think.
In order to measure the risks incurred by the whole region, the very close links that currently and in the nature of things unite the US interests with those of Israel must be taken into consideration.
The last bombardment in Syria was a warning to Syria and even Iran of the reprisals to which both countries would be exposed should they further support the Iraqi Resistance as well as the Palestinian one. The most revealing episode came about on Saturday October 11, when the US press, obviously benefiting from deliberate leaks, announced that Israel now possessed of nuclear warhead cruise missiles that could be launched from submarines.
Amplified the news
Immediately the Israeli press, by means of an army spokesman, reiterated and amplified the news: it concerned American Harpoon cruiser missiles, modified by Israeli technicians which could be fired from five conventional submarines, with nuclear warheads taken from the stock of between one and two hundred warheads built by Israel.
The renowned strategic institute, the Jafee Center in Tel-Aviv, has already published the list of the twelve targets in Iran that should be destroyed in order to block all nuclear development with a military purpose.
To clarify matters even further, its expert on Iranian affairs, Ephraim Kam wrote in the periodical Middle East Strategic Balance "Iran appears to recognise the possibility of an American and/or Israeli attack on its nuclear installations"
The most important point in this matter is the thesis immediately put forward by the official Israeli spokesperson: "it is in retaliation to an eventual Iranian nuclear attack against Israel that the Israeli nuclear warhead missiles would be launched against Iran."
As everyone understands, this hypothesis of an Iranian attack is judged to be completely unacceptable by the US as well as by Israel from the start. Therefore, a "pre-emptive action" would be justified, that is, a preventive war, such as the new strategic American doctrine openly indicates.
No one doubts that the Iranian government will want to deflect the risks it is running, by negotiating as long as possible with the International Agency of Atomic Energy. But, the fact is, that it no longer has much room to manoeuvre.
Paul-Marie de La Gorce is a French writer and journalist on Middle East problems and strategic international affairs. http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=101234