Iranian Alert -- October 29, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD PING LIST

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

Armitage Informs Senate of U.S. Policy Toward Iran

October 29, 2003
U.S. Department of States
Washington File

The United States intends to pursue a "flexible, dynamic and multifaceted" policy toward Iran in order to encourage the Iranian people's desire for greater freedom while countering negative policies of their government, such as pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee October 28 that Iran "is a country in the midst of a tremendous transformation, and I believe American policy can affect the direction Iran will take."

In his prepared remarks, Armitage said the Iranian people were now "engaged in a very rich and lively debate about the kind of society they want for themselves and for their children," including the desire for substantial economic and democratic reforms

With most of the population under the age of 30, Armitage said the Iranian people are "far more concerned about Iran's chronic unemployment than they are about Iran's past."

"The Iranian people should know of our support for their aspirations, but also that the full rewards of that support will only be realized once their government ends its destructive external and internal policies. We look forward to the day when the will of the people of Iran prevails," he said.

The deputy secretary listed U.S. concerns over what he termed the "negative and destructive policies and actions" taken by the Iranian government, namely its poor human rights record, its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, and its support for terrorist organizations.

These behaviors, said Armitage, undermine regional and international stability and security. He asserted that they "shake the confidence of the international community and deny the Iranian people the quality of life commensurate with the country's rich human and natural resources."

Iranian authorities use torture, arbitrary detention and excessive force to repress the freedoms of speech, association and religion, said Armitage.

Iran's pursuit and development of weapons of mass destruction have aroused international concern, said Armitage. Iran also "continues to be the world's foremost state supporter of terrorism," not only through support of organizations such as Hizballah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but the United States also believes elements of the Iranian government have helped members of al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam "transit and find safe haven in Iran," he said.

Iran must change its course on support for terrorism, said Armitage. "[R]esolution of this issue would be an important step in U.S.-Iranian relations and we cannot move forward without this step," he explained.

The United States, he said, does not seek conflict with Iran. However, to counter negative Iranian activities, the United States is employing sanctions, interdiction, law enforcement, diplomacy, and international public opinion, said Armitage. He said such measures "will be especially effective" if other countries participate in a sustained effort.

The deputy secretary also said that despite "significant unhelpful interference," Iran has taken steps to promote stability in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. He praised Tehran's pledges of material support to both countries and said the Iranians "continue to cooperate with regional counter-narcotics and refugee repatriation efforts."

The United States, he said, has encouraged such behavior by engaging in direct dialogue with Iranian authorities "on issues of mutual and immediate concern."

If it serves U.S. interests, "[w]e are prepared to meet again in the future," said Armitage.

The deputy secretary added that the United States is "always prepared" to change its policies toward Iran if the country ceases its support for terrorism and abandons its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Following is the text of Armitage's prepared remarks:

(begin text)

U.S. Policy and Iran

Richard L. Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State
Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC
October 28, 2003

As Prepared

Chairman Lugar, Senator Biden, Members of the Committee, as always, I welcome the opportunity to appear before this body to discuss the foreign policy priorities and challenges of the day. I particularly appreciate this opportunity to discuss Iran, given the high stakes of this very fluid situation and the importance and influence of U.S. policy on this matter. I look forward to a dialogue with you.

Iran is a country in the midst of a tremendous transformation, and I believe American policy can affect the direction Iran will take. This is a complex situation, but if you will allow a simplification: today in Iran, there is a struggle between destructive elements of Iran's society and leadership, who want to keep the country mired in a violent, corrupt, and insular past, and a forward-looking popular movement, which wants a more engaged and modern Iran to emerge. The fact that the Nobel Peace Prize was just awarded to an Iranian citizen is no aberration; rather it is a sign of the sweeping desire for change across Iranian society. Indeed, all Iranians stand to benefit from a modern state, one that draws on the strengths of free minds and free markets. American and international security and well being also stand to benefit. United States policy is, therefore, to support the Iranian people in their aspirations for a democratic, prosperous country that is a trusted member of the international community.

Given the complexities of the situation, it is no surprise that there is a range of views including on this Committee about how to best implement that policy. That is entirely appropriate. Indeed, a single, static, one-size-fits-all policy would not be appropriate in the circumstances. In order to best protect and advance U.S. interests, our policy needs to be flexible, dynamic, and multifaceted. That is why the President and this Administration are pursuing a policy that weighs the full range of options available to us, both through bilateral and multilateral means. We seek to counter the government of Iran s negative and destructive policies and actions, while encouraging constructive policies and actions and engaging in a direct dialogue with the Iranian people about the freedoms they want for their own country.

As President Bush noted when talking about Iran last week, not every policy issue needs to be dealt with by force. Secretary Powell also noted last week that we do not seek conflict with Iran. We will continue to pursue nonproliferation and other such control measures as necessary and we must keep all available options on the table, given the lack of clarity about Iran's future direction and ultimate destination. At the same time, we are prepared to engage in limited discussions with the government of Iran about areas of mutual interest, as appropriate. We have not, however, entered into any broad dialogue with the aim of normalizing relations.

There is no question that Iran is engaged in a number of destructive policies and actions. Our most pressing concerns are Iran's poor human rights record, nuclear weapons program, as well as chemical and biological weapons programs, support for terrorism, and interference in regional politics, particularly in the Arab-Israeli peace process. These behaviors, along with the government's oppressive and corrupt centralized economic policy, shake the confidence of the international community and deny the Iranian people the quality of life commensurate with the country's rich human and natural resources. These behaviors also undermine regional stability and have ripple effects across U.S. and international security. We are taking and will take the necessary measures to protect U.S. interests.

Across the board, the United States is actively countering such Iranian activities through a variety of tools, including sanctions, interdiction, law enforcement, diplomacy, and international public opinion. When necessary, we will act alone. The United States, for example, has a broad array of sanctions on Iran. This includes prohibitions on a range of exports and assistance, particularly to the military and to the oil industry, strict regulations on economic transactions, and targeted sanctions against specific entities in other countries that aid Iran's weapons of mass destruction programs.

We believe, however, that international and multilateral responses if sustained will be especially effective in meeting the challenges Iran poses to regional stability, disarmament and nonproliferation regimes, and the rights of its own citizens. As President Bush said last week, we have confidence in the power of patience and the collective voice of the international community to resolve disputes peacefully.

We are working with the international community to effect change in Iran's abysmal human rights record, for example. According to our own documentation and to international organizations, the government of Iran uses torture, excessive and lethal police force, and arbitrary detention to repress free speech, freedom of association, and religious freedom, among other abuses. We are actively seeking a resolution on the human rights situation in Iran in the U.N. General Assembly s Third Committee or at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

We believe a united international front is especially critical in dealing with Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program, about which there is widespread concern across the international community. We also remain concerned about Iran's biological and chemical weapons and ballistic missile programs. Our efforts to counter these programs include bilateral discussions with allies and friends, such as President Bush's meeting with Russian President Putin at Camp David, where the two leaders agreed on the goal of an Iran free of nuclear weapons. We consistently have urged our friends and allies to condition any improvements in their bilateral or trade relations with Iran on concrete, sustained, and verifiable changes in Iran's policies in this and other areas of concern. We think it is appropriate, for instance, that the European Union has conditioned progress in its Trade and Cooperation Agreement with Iran on movement in these areas.

Our international efforts also include the use of innovative and established multilateral tools. The Proliferation Security Initiative, for example, is a new counterproliferation initiative to interdict weapons of mass destruction-related shipments to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. The nations involved in this initiative have singled out Iran and North Korea as countries of particular concern. We are, of course, also working through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to resolve critical international concerns about Iran s nuclear program.

Indeed, our close cooperation with Russia, the European Union, and a host of other countries has led to two very strong IAEA Board of Governors resolutions on Iran. Last week, the French, German, and British Foreign Ministers traveled to Iran in support of those resolutions. As a result of that mission, Iran declared its intention to sign an Additional Protocol to the safeguards agreement with the IAEA, provide full cooperation to the IAEA, and temporarily suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. We welcome this progress, but as British Foreign Minister Straw said, the proof of the value of the European agreement with Iran will depend above all on the implementation of what has been agreed. We are waiting to see if the information Tehran provided the IAEA last week will substantively meet the IAEA Board of Governors October 31st deadline for coming clean on its nuclear program. Our consultations with our allies on this matter are continuing.

We are also engaged in bilateral and multilateral efforts, from sanctions to direct appeals, to put a stop to Iran's support for terrorist organizations, which we believe includes al-Qaida. We believe that elements of the Iranian regime have helped al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam transit and find safe haven in Iran, despite Iran's official condemnation of these groups. Despite public statements that they would cooperate with other countries, the Iranians have refused repeated requests to turn over or share intelligence about all al-Qaida members and leaders they claim to have in custody. As the President made clear last week, Iran must change its course on this front; resolution of this issue would be an important step in U.S.-Iranian relations and we cannot move forward without this step. We will continue to press this issue from the highest levels of our government, as well as to encourage our friends and allies to press the Iranians.

In its support for terrorism, including by arming violent factions, Iran is interfering in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and Iraq, and especially in the fate of the Palestinian people. Indeed, Iran continues to be the world's foremost state supporter of terrorism, offering financial and logistical support to both Shia and Sunni terrorist organizations, including Hizballah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Through these abhorrent groups, Iran destabilizes the region and tries to stymie any movement toward peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict.

On the other hand, Iran says it wants a stable, unified neighbor in both Afghanistan and Iraq and despite significant unhelpful interference, has taken a few steps in that direction. This includes rhetorical support, by welcoming the end of the oppressive regime of the Taliban, which exported drugs, violence, and millions of refugees across the border into Iran. Iran also welcomed the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council. The Iranians have backed up that rhetoric with pledges of material support at both the Bonn and Madrid Donors Conferences and they continue to cooperate with regional counter-narcotics and refugee repatriation efforts.

Although we make no conclusions about the nature of Iranian intent, we have encouraged such constructive behavior by engaging in direct dialogue on issues of mutual and immediate concern. This dialogue has been limited in scope and produced some success in the Afghanistan context. The last such meeting was canceled after the May 12 Riyadh bombings, however, due to Iran's unwillingness to cooperate on the al-Qaida issue. The Secretary made clear at the time that we canceled only a meeting, not the process of discussing these issues with Iran. We are prepared to meet again in the future, but only if that would serve U.S. interests. Of course, we can remove any country from the list of state supporters of terrorism if that country is prepared to take the necessary steps. We are always prepared to respond if Iran changes its ways, in particular ceasing its support for terrorism and abandoning its weapons of mass destruction programs, by making corresponding changes in our own policies.

An important aspect of ongoing U.S. efforts to influence the direction of Iranian policy is encouraging the healthy development of Iran's civil society. We see many signs that the people of Iran want a different life and a more responsive government, and we believe we can encourage such developments through direct engagement with the Iranian public. An estimated 70 percent of the 68 million people in Iran are under the age of 30, and they are far more concerned about Iran's chronic unemployment than they are about Iran's past. Iranian displays of sympathy after the September 11th attacks and polls showing overwhelming desire for improved relations with the U.S. reflect strong popular sentiment, as do demonstrations and elections in support of reform. The government tries to blame any sign of dissent on outside agitators, but it is clear that the agitation in Iran is a genuine expression of a homegrown desire for change. Consider that thousands of ordinary Iranians spontaneously flocked to the airport to greet Shirin Ebadi two weeks ago when she returned to Tehran after the announcement of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.

We believe we can encourage the triumph of public resolve by engaging in direct communication with the people of Iran. We are doing this through Radio Farda, which operates 24 hours a day, and Voice of America (VOA) radio and television broadcasts into Iran. VOA has recently instituted a daily Persian television news program to Iran, in addition to its two weekly television feature programs. In May, the State Department brought on line a website in Persian and we continue to explore opportunities to incorporate Iran-related projects into our broader Middle East Partnership Initiative. Our Education and Cultural Affairs Bureau also supports cultural, educational, and professional exchanges.

We know our message is getting through. An average of 3,000 people already views our Persian website every day, for example. It is challenging to come by concrete measures of the audience for our television and radio programming inside Iran, but we do have evidence of a broad consumer base. The United States has no direct diplomatic presence in Iran, but we do have what we call a virtual embassy in the surrounding nations and beyond. Foreign Service Officers talk to Iranian citizens living and traveling across the region and around the world, collecting and sharing with us their observations. Based on such anecdotal evidence and on the direct contacts we get, particularly through the Internet, we know we have an attentive audience in Iran.

I firmly believe that our strategy will succeed in helping to push and pull Iran in the right direction, particularly with the close cooperation of other nations. But it is not up to the United States to choose Iran's future. Ultimately, I am most hopeful for that future because it is the people of Iran themselves who are providing the key impetus for change. Despite living under a regime that limits or denies its people even basic human rights, Iranians are engaged in a very rich and lively debate about the kind of society they want for themselves and for their children. They have made it clear that they want democratic and economic reform, accountability and transparency from their government, an end to corruption, religious moderation, and reintegration with the international community. The Iranian people should know of our support for their aspirations, but also that the full rewards of that support will only be realized once their government ends its destructive external and internal policies. We look forward to the day when the will of the people of Iran prevails.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2003&m=October&x=20031028170142namfuaks0.9644892&t=usinfo/wf-latest.html

Time for a "Helsinki Accords" for Iran

October 29, 2003
Iran va Jahan
Shaheen Fatemi

While on a panel discussion with two prominent members of the 'Deutscher Bundestag' in Berlin last week I was challenged to suggest an alternative to the current so-called "constructive dialogue" which I had said was going nowhere. During my entire recent visit to Germany which included talking to important and influential German government officials, leading members of the ruling party (SPD) as well as the opposition party (CDU), I was under the impression that while trade with Iran is very important for them, they do seem to be aware of the 'human rights' dilemma. I certainly believe that selection of Dr. Shirin Ebadi by Nobel Peace Award committee has further exacerbated this contradiction for all those who profess respect for human dignity while dealing with the Mullahs in Iran. Time and again, the same argument has been raised, "we know how bad things are in Iran, we hope to improve the situation by 'engaging' the government in our dialogue."

The questions that were raised by members of the audience at this gathering where the panel discussion took place were not much different from those that repeatedly have been asked by the members of the Iranian community in Europe from the leaders of the European Union:

What do you have to show for your years of "constructive dialogue" with this murderous, dishonest and totalitarian regime?

Why do you overlook the fact that leaders of this regime have been indicted for murder of innocent people in Germany, France, Switzerland and Argentina?

How do you expect "the post-liberation" Iranian nation to forget your continued moral and material support for this regime?

When I was challenged at this meeting to come up with an alternative for the present practice, I reminded the German deputies of another era when another generation of Western leaders was faced with an earlier version of totalitarian monsters in the Soviet Union and its Satellite States. At that time representatives of thirty-five nations gathered in Helsinki, Finland, in 1975 for a Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Final Act of the Conference, known as the Helsinki Accords, set forth a number of basic human rights by guaranteeing that:

"The participating States will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

They will promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and other rights and freedoms all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free and full development.

Within this framework the participating States will recognize and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practise, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.

The participating States on whose territory national minorities exist will respect the right of persons belonging to such minorities to equality before the law, will afford them the full opportunity for the actual enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms and will, in this manner, protect their legitimate interests in this sphere.

The participating States recognize the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for which is an essential factor for the peace, justice and well-being necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and co-operation among themselves as among all States."

This accord was backed up with an organization of representatives of virtually all the states of Europe-with the exception of Albania-as well as the United States and Canada, committed to formalizing decisions on important questions affecting the security and stability of European continent as a whole. The Soviets wanted security of the post-WW II borders. The West, in return, was interested in obtaining safeguards for the observance of human rights behind the Iron Curtain. This major diplomatic agreement signed in Helsinki, Finland on August 1, 1975, by President Gerald Ford, General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Andrei Gromyko, was perhaps the most important first step towards liberation of Russia and Eastern European countries.

We see a clear historical parallel. The Iranian regime needs the Europeans for trade and diplomatic respectability in order to get out of its virtual isolation. Europe can in return ask for written and codified guarantees for the observance of human rights in Iran.

This seems to be the minimum decent thing to do.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=10&d=29&a=1

Iran and Syria told to stop foreign fighters going to Iraq

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
29 October 2003

President Bush yesterday demanded that Iran and Syria close porous borders that he claimed were allowing "foreign fighters" to enter Iraq and carry out terrorist strikes.

On a day which brought a fresh spate of attacks, including a suicide bombing that killed six, and the news that one of Baghdad's deputy mayors had been assassinated, President Bush blamed Ba'ath Party loyalists and foreign operatives for the ongoing violence.

"It is dangerous in Iraq because there are some who believe we are soft, that the will of the United States can be shaken by suiciders," Mr Bush said. "We are working closely [with Syria and Iran] to let them know we expect them to enforce borders to stop people coming across."

Earlier, his spokesman, Scott McClellan, said he would not want to speculate on who was behind the recent attacks, but added: "We're making it very clear to [Syria and Iran] that they need to also take action to stop that cross-border infiltration. And they know what those concerns are and we expect them to act to address those issues."

Military and intelligence officials are divided over who is responsible for the increasingly organised and coordinated attacks, which on Monday targeted the Baghdad offices of the Red Crossand several police stations. Thirty-five people were killed and 230 injured in Baghdad's bloodiest day since Saddam Hussein was ousted.

Mr Bush and his senior officials are involved in a determined PR campaign to try to persuade the American public that progress is being made in Iraq and that much of the positive news in not getting through the "media filter".

But he is not having it all his way. Last week he suffered an embarrassing defeat on Capitol Hill when the Senate voted to turn part of an $87bn request for Iraqi reconstruction into loans rather than grants. At the international donors conference in Madrid at the weekend much of the money pledged by other countries was also in the form of loans

Perhaps partly as a result of Mr Bush's visible difficulties in obtaining international support, recent polls suggested the American public is losing trust in the President's ability to deal with the situation in Iraq and prevent the US from being immersed in a quagmire similar to the situation in Vietnam 25 years ago.

Aware of the danger that both this and the escalating violence in Iraq represent to his re-election fortunes, Mr Bush used his Rose Garden press conference at the White House yesterday to repeat what has become a regular theme: that the so-called war on terror launched in the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September, 2001, now has its focus in Iraq.

"Basically, what they [the attackers] are trying to do is cause people to run," he said. "They want to kill and create chaos. That's the nature of a terrorist. That's what terrorists do. They're not going to intimidate America. The terrorists rely on the death of innocent people to create the conditions of fear that therefore will cause people to lose their will. That's their strategy. And it's a pretty clear strategy to me. It's in our interest that we do our job for the free world."

Mr Bush twice compared the assaults in Iraq to the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, though he did not claim Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the hijackings. He said: "It's the same mentality, by the way, that attacked us on 11 September 2001. Just destroy innocent life and watch the great United States and their friends and allies, you know, crater in the face of hardship. [We] must never forget the lessons of 11 September.''

One of the biggest challenges facing Mr Bush and his senior military advisers is the development of a realistic exit strategy from Iraq. While the White House has indicated it would like to reduce the current US military presence from 130,000 troops to around 50,000 within 12 months, most analysts say that is probably unrealistic given the current violence.

Mr Bush is regularly asked about his comments at the beginning of May when he announced an end to "major combat operations" in Iraq. Yesterday he declined to be drawn on when the US may be in a position to pull out of Iraq. "I think you ought to look at my speech," he said. "I said Iraq's a dangerous place. We got hard work to do, there's still more to be done."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=458316

U.S. Takes Softer Tone on Iran, Once in the 'Axis of Evil'

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: October 29, 2003

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 — The Bush administration assured Iran on Tuesday that the United States did not favor "regime change" in Tehran and signaled a new willingness to engage in a dialogue with Iran over its nuclear program, its alleged support of terrorism and other issues.

The administration's newly conciliatory approach toward Iran, enunciated by Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, resolved at least part of a contentious internal debate among aides to President Bush, administration officials said.

The officials said Iran's nuclear program and the safe haven it is said to have offered members of Al Qaeda remain major obstacles to improving relations but that entering into conversations with Iran on those and other issues was also considered urgent.

The change in tone comes slightly less than two years after Mr. Bush, in his 2002 State of the Union address, grouped Iran with Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil."

American envoys still held occasional talks with Iran until May, when Washington cut them off after a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia linked to groups based in Iran.

In his Senate testimony, Mr. Armitage said the United States "must keep all available options on the table" toward Iran. He did not specify these options, but they were understood to include the use of force if necessary.

"At the same time," he added, "we are prepared to engage in limited discussions with the government of Iran about areas of mutual interest, as appropriate. We have not, however, entered into any broad dialogue with the aim of normalizing relations."

Like North Korea, Iran has provoked an intense debate between hard-liners and advocates of diplomacy within the Bush administration. Many at the State Department favor diplomatic contacts because of the range of issues requiring cooperation with Iran.

The biggest point of contention within the administration is over Iran's nuclear program. Hard-liners, many of them at the Defense Department, favor a more confrontational policy toward Tehran, including sending the issue to the United Nations Security Council for consideration of possible sanctions.

Last week, however, a delegation of envoys from France, Russia and Britain won Iran's agreement to accept new international inspections of some of its nuclear facilities and to suspend production of enriched uranium, a fuel for potential use in making weapons.

The administration has been careful to say that these steps must be verified. A similarly skeptical response has followed Iran's promises to avoid contact with Al Qaeda.

Mr. Armitage said the administration believed that "elements of the Iranian regime" helped both Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam, which the administration links to Al Qaeda, "transit and find safe haven in Iran, despite Iran's official condemnation of these groups."

Administration officials say that, with anti-American violence rising in Iraq, it is imperative to deal with Iran over the future makeup of Iraq. The Iranian government wields influence on Shiite groups seeking to establish an Islamic government.

American officials have labeled as "unhelpful" some of Iran's recent actions in support of these groups.

Many administration officials say a Shiite-dominated government is inevitable in Iraq, partly because Shiites predominate. Some fear that a Shiite government that imposed its will on the Sunni minority would accelerate the violence in central Iraq.

Administration officials said Mr. Armitage's testimony was approved by the White House after a number of recent small steps by Iran, including reports over the weekend that it had released a list of Qaeda members, formerly based in Iran, who had been returned to their countries of origin.

There appeared to be disagreement in the administration over the significance of the list. One senior American official said that it indicated a small but positive step by Iran to address American concerns.

But another said it was merely a list of militants returned to Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries, with no indication of what happened to them after that.

Mr. Armitage said that, on the positive side, Iran had supported the American-led ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council, whose members were chosen by the American occupation authorities.

Iran also surprised some American officials by showing up last week at the Madrid conference of international donors to Iraq and contributing aid.

The Governing Council is discussing a deal to ship oil to Iran and receive electricity in return, one administration official said, a step that L. Paul Bremer III, the occupation administrator, has not yet sought to block.

Mr. Armitage was asked Tuesday by Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, if "regime change" was American policy in Iran. "No, sir," Mr. Armitage replied, adding that "our policy is to try to eliminate the ability of Iran to carry forward with disruptive policies."

Administration officials said one reason the United States does not favor changing governments as a solution in Iran is that any government — even a secular Western-oriented one — would probably continue the quest for nuclear weapons.

Mr. Armitage said that was a product of Iran's longstanding ambition to be a major force in the region and its self-regard as the modern heir to ancient Persian longings for greatness — what he called "an innate grandeur still in the dreams of Persepolis and all of that."

The other major issue is Iran's support of Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Islamic militant groups that have carried out attacks in Israel. Administration officials say they have made no headway on persuading Iran to end its support of these groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/international/middleeast/29DIPL.html?ex=1068008400&en=a3ba7afbf1355c2a&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Amir Taheri: Iranians talk of reforms as constitution fails

Gulf News
29-10-2003

In Iran's fractious politics there is one word on which almost everyone agrees. And it isn't even a Persian word. It is the Latin word "referendum", pronounced by Persians as refrandoom. (The Persian neologism of hameh-porsi, literally : asking everyone, has not replaced the Latin word.) These days almost everyone in Iran is talking about the need for holding a referendum; not always for the same reasons.

The argument is that the current constitution, hastily put together in 1979 in the heated aftermath of the revolution, is not working. The various mechanisms envisaged in the constitution for the exercise of power have produced a gridlock which prevents effective decision-making by a divided government. The only way out is to hold a constitutional referendum to approve amendments that would break the gridlock.

The current constitution is a rough translation of the constitution of the French Fifth Republic introduced by General De Gaulle. It, therefore, envisages a strong executive and a weak legislative with the status of the judiciary left murky.

The problem, however, is that the authors of the Iranian constitution added a number of articles that break the inner logic of the original French version.

The most important of these are articles related to the doctrine of the "Walayat Faqih" (Custodianship of the Jurisconsult). The articles give a single mullah, referred to as "The Supreme Guide", virtually unlimited powers thus rendering the constitution superfluous.

"The Supreme Guide" is elected for life by the so-called Assembly of Experts, a body of 90 mullahs, which also has the authority to remove him under highly unlikely circumstances.

Once elected, "The Supreme Guide" becomes the centre of power in the system. He is the head of state and must approve the heads of all three powers - the legislative, the judiciary and the executive.

Judiciary vs the executive

Some confusion is created because the head of the executive, known as president, is elected by direct universal suffrage. Nevertheless, the elected president cannot take office until an edict from "The Supreme Guide", approves his election. At the same time "The Supreme Guide" can always trigger constitutional mechanisms to dismiss the elected president.

"The Supreme Guide" can also dissolve the elected majlis or parliament. He can even suspend the basic rules of Islam, if and when he deems fit. No ruler in history has been given so much power as the Iranian"Supreme Guide" today.

The constitution contains other anomalies. It provides for a Council of The Guardians of Constitution, the equivalent of the French Constitutional Council. The Iranian council has a right of veto on all laws passed by the parliament. (The French version does not have such a right. It intervenes only if it is asked to determine whether or not any piece of legislation is in violation of the constitution.)

Iran's constitutional problems do not end there. Yet anther body, named The Council for the Discernment of the Interests of the System, can also intervene to stop or cancel laws passed by the parliament. In the past two years the council has even claimed to have the right to pass laws on its own without referring to the elected parliament.

The founder of the Islamic Republic, the late Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini, had initially opposed the enactment of any constitution. Under the system of "Walayat Faqih" that he offered there would be no elections, no parliament and no president. In his system "The Supreme Guide" would rule in the name of Divine Power. He would appoint a prime minister and a council of ministers to act as advisors and executors of his orders.

Khomeini was unable to get all he wanted because, at the time, he still needed the support of democrats, liberals and leftists to consolidate his hold on power. It was as a concession to them that he accepted the idea of having a constitution.

But at no point did he have the slightest intention of creating a constitutional system. And, for as long as he was alive, he acted as an absolute ruler with no regard for any constitutional constraints.

His successor, Ali Khamenehi, lacks the stature to continue the tradition. At the same time, the revolution is now but a faint memory for most Iranians. When Khomeini seized power in 1979, Iran had a population of 38 million. Today there are more than 70 million Iranians. This means that some two-thirds of Iranians were either not born or were too young to vote in the constitutional referendum that Khomeini organised almost a quarter of a century ago.

"A referendum would allow our people to decide what form of government they desire," says Shirin Ebadi, the winner of this year's Nobel Prize for Peace. The idea of holding a referendum has also received support from Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah who now leads the monarchist opposition, and the National Front, a grouping of dissidents built on the memory of Dr. Muhammad Mussadeq, the nationalist prime minister of the 1950s.

Some senior clerics, including Grand Ayatollah Ali Montazeri, are also calling for a referendum as a way out of the political impasse that could lead to violence.

"A referendum is better than a civil war," says Mohsen Kadivar, a pro-democracy mullah.

The idea of holding a referendum is also finding echoes within the ruling establishment. The Participation Front, a grouping that supported President Muhammad Khatami, has already called for constitutional amendment. And efforts are under way to form a new bloc of candidates for next March's general election under the banner of a referendum.

The idea of a referendum has also received support from the remnants of half a dozen leftist parties.

Despite wide agreement that a referendum is necessary, when it comes to what questions should be put to the people's vote, views diverge. The monarchists and the leftists want a referendum that would abolish the Islamic Republic altogether, replacing it either with a "constitutional monarchy" or a "People's Republic" in which religion has no place.

Revision of the constitution

Others, however, want a revision of the existing constitution. They want the position of "The Supreme Guide" abolished so that the Iranian system comes closer to that of its original model: the French Fifth Republic.

The directly-elected President of the Republic will be head of state and would have large powers, including that of naming the prime minister. But he would not have the power to suspend the constitution let alone interfere with the rules of Islam.

The most minimalist position on referendum is that of those who simply want the "Council of the Guardians of the Constitution" and the "Council for the Discernment of he Interest of the System" to be abolished. Such an amendment would leave the powers of "The Supreme Guide" intact while enhancing the powers of the elected president and parliament.

The referendum issue is likely to emerge as the key theme of next March's general election. Right now, however, prospects for a referendum appear rather dim. On the contrary, some hard-line theorists around Khamenehi are publicly calling for a suspension of the constitution and a period of direct rule by "The Supreme Guide". It may take some time before Iran makes a final choice between a peaceful referendum and violent regime change.

The writer, an Iranian author and journalist, is based in Europe. He can be contacted on his e-mail at amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=101492

Armitage Informs Senate of U.S. Policy Toward Iran

October 29, 2003
U.S. Department of States
Washington File

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1010280/posts?page=3#3

Amir Taheri: Iranians talk of reforms as constitution fails

Gulf News
29-10-2003

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1010280/posts?page=7#7

US eyes limited talks with Iran

BBC News
Wednesday, 29 October, 2003

America has said it is prepared to open limited talks with Iran but is against restoring normal diplomatic relations at this stage.

Contacts with the Islamic Republic could be made on issues such as Iraq and drugs, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Congress.

The move came after Iran moved to allay fears it is building a nuclear bomb.

Low-level talks broke off earlier this year after the US accused Iran of harbouring al-Qaeda members.

"We are prepared to engage in limited discussions with the Government of Iran about areas of mutual interest, as appropriate," Mr Armitage told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington.

"We have not entered into any broad dialogue with the aim of normalising relations."

He suggested the talks would not be one-on-one to start with but rather be in some kind of multilateral forum such as the United Nations.

The BBC's state department correspondent, Jon Leyne, says policy towards Iran is fiercely fought over in Washington and Mr Armitage's announcement may not be the end of the matter.

No Iranian reaction to Tuesday's announcement was immediately forthcoming.

Al-Qaeda question

Mr Armitage said Iran was withholding information about suspected members of al-Qaeda - the Islamic group held responsible for the 11 September 2001 attacks on America - on its territory.

"Despite public statements that they would co-operate with other countries, the Iranians have refused repeated requests to turn over or share intelligence about all al-Qaeda members and leaders they claim to have in custody..." he said.

"Resolution of this issue would be an important step in US-Iranian relations and we cannot move forward without this step."

Iran announced on Sunday that it had given the names of extradited al-Qaeda suspects to the UN Security Council but gave no details of detainees still in its custody.

Washington dismissed the announcement, insisting that all al-Qaeda suspects should be extradited to either the US, their country of origin or third countries.

Iran, however, said that the suspects had committed offences in Iran and would be tried in its courts.

Relations between the two countries have further been strained by suspicions that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Tehran agreed this month to enhanced UN inspections and said it would suspend its enrichment of uranium which could be used to make nuclear weapons.

Warning on Iraq

In another development on Tuesday, US President George W Bush warned Iran - along with Syria - not to let militants cross into Iraq from their territory.

"We are working closely with those countries to let them know we expect them to enforce borders," he said.

In his report to Congress, Mr Armitage noted that there had been some progress in ties with Iran.

Tehran, he said, had made pledges for the reconstruction of Iraq at the Madrid donors' conference and Iran had also agreed to move back some border posts that were on Iraqi territory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3222649.stm

Iran MPs hit out over killing

By Behzad Farsian in Teheran
29/10/2003
The Telegraph, UK

A report by Iran's reformist-dominated parliament yesterday condemned a hardline prosecutor over the killing of a Canadian photojournalist.

Zahra Kazemi, 54, a Canadian citizen born in Iran, was arrested in June for taking pictures outside Teheran's Evin prison, where many dissidents are held. She died in custody from a brain haemorrhage caused by a blow to the head.

Yesterday, a parliamentary commission dealing with press freedoms, attacked Teheran's chief prosecutor, Said Mortazavi, who has a reputation for jailing journalists and closing down newspapers. He had accused Ms Kazemi of spying and working without journalistic accreditation, and had blamed her death on a stroke.

"The detention of Kazemi was not justified and was against legal procedures," said the report broadcast on state-run radio.

The reformist MPs criticised Mr Mortazavi for failing to respond to questions. They are demanding a judicial investigation into his role. An intelligence ministry agent, Reza Ahmadi, has been charged with the killing, but MPs are examining a series of irregularities in the judicial investigation which led to him being accused.

The intelligence ministry, part of the reformist camp, claims the charges are politically motivated. In August, MPs said the hardline judiciary was responsible for Ms Kazemi's death and that she had already been struck on the head by the time she was handed over to the intelligence ministry.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/29/wiran29.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/29/ixworld.html

The US Soldiers watch Iranian Border.

Unfortunately.

Iran says won't share al Qaeda information with U.S

Wed 29 October, 03
Reuters

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran says it will not share intelligence with the United States about al Qaeda members held in Iran despite repeated requests from Washington for it to do so.

"We don't have any relations with American security services so there is no reason to do anything on this issue," government spokesman Abdollah Ramazanzadeh told a weekly news conference on Wednesday.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said on Tuesday Washington was prepared to resume limited contacts with the Iranian government but that relations would not improve until Tehran shared intelligence on al Qaeda.

Washington broke off talks with Iranian officials over Afghanistan and Iraq in May after accusing Iran of sheltering al Qaeda members behind bombings in Riyadh on May 12 which killed 35 people, including nine Americans.

Iran denies cooperating with al Qaeda and says it has caught and extradited hundreds of suspected members of Osama bin Laden's network in the last two years.

Iran recently handed over to the United Nations Security Council a list of more than 200 names of al Qaeda members it has recently extradited to their home countries.

But it refuses to publicly announce details of those al Qaeda members it still holds in custody, thought to include some senior members of the organisation.

"Despite public statements that they would cooperate with other countries, the Iranians have refused repeated requests to turn over or share intelligence about all al Qaeda members and leaders they claim to have in custody," Armitage told a Senate committee hearing.

Iran has said it plans to try some of the al Qaeda members it is holding and will extradite the rest to their countries of origin.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=395894&section=news

Come on over to the active thread. You can be added to Doctor ZIn's ping list, if you so desire. Read through the posts, there is always a lot to learn about the situation in Iran, the reform movement and the student protestors.

The other threads are for a MUST READ ARCHIVE, and are separate from the running daily commentary.

ping

You have Freepmail!

Pinging you to the active daily thread. Welcome!

Thanks for your supports!