Iranian Alert -- October 31, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD PING LIST

The US media almost entirely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, “this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year.” But most American’s are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East.

There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. Starting June 10th of this year, Iranians have begun taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy. Many even want the US to over throw their government.

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.

In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.

This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.

I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.

If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.

If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.

PS I have a daily ping list and a breaking news ping list. If you would like to receive alerts to these stories please let me know which list you would like to join.

Iran on Course to Force Its Way Into the Nuclear Club

October 31, 2003
Arab News
Amir Taheri

Remember you first read it here. Iran is now on course to force its way into the nuclear club within the next two to three years. When it does, it will owe part of its success to a European Union diplomatic maneuver that has spared Iran the prospect of direct confrontation over its illicit nuclear program, with the international community.

The maneuver which led to the signing of a memorandum between the Islamic Republic and three European Union members earlier this month appears to have defused the latest crisis over Iran’s secret nuclear program.

As things stand it is almost certain that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will soft pedal the procedure that could have led to a confrontation between Tehran and the United Nations over Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The European Union initiative has exacted no more than a vague promise from the leadership in Tehran to temporarily halt a secret project to enrich uranium and produce plutonium. The temporary halt, if it does materialize, may be partly linked to Iranian domestic politics than a sudden desire on the part of the regime to honor the terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is already in a campaign mode in anticipation of the general election next March. A foreign policy crisis at this time could upset the plans of the establishment that appears determined to purge the so-called reformist faction and impose a “Chinese-style” system of political repression and economic opening.

The establishment feared that the nuclear issue might force the EU to line up behind the tougher Iran policy preached by certain elements in the Bush administration. One other factor may have contributed to Tehran’s decision to play the European card again. The choice of Mrs. Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human rights lawyer as this year’s Nobel Peace laureate, is seen in Tehran as a signal that Europe’s “soft powers” may have signaled their readiness to help provide a “soft” face for the opposition against the Khomeinist regime. Such an opposition could make it easier for the European powers to win the support of their own public opinion for a policy of regime change in Tehran.

Thus the piece of paper that Tehran has just signed with three European foreign ministers is unlikely to affect the regime’s strategy of building a capacity to produce an arsenal of nuclear weapons within the next two to three years. There is little doubt that the Europeans know this. So why did the three European wise men, traveling west to east, agree to take part in a maneuver to get the Khomeinist regime off the hook?

Each of the three had his reason.

France’s Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is looking for any opportunity to show that Paris still has a say in the Middle East’s complex politics. He would love to be able to claim that his “soft power” diplomacy did in Iran what the American “ hard power” tried to do against Saddam Hussein in Iraq and, according to de Villepin, failed.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer had a slightly different motive. While continuing his country’s close alliance with France, Fischer is also anxious to avoid a situation in which Berlin finds itself alone with Paris. The presence of the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in the trio helps Fischer avoid such a situation. At the same time Fischer would be able to tell the German public that the Schroeder government is still capable of playing a role in diffusing regional crises. Fischer and de Villepin also harbor the hope of seeing a change of occupant at the White House in 2005.

Straw’s motives are equally complicated. Tony Blair’s government is passing through its worst crisis since it first came to power in 1997. At a moment of crisis over Iran, Blair might find himself facing a choice he wishes to avoid: parting ways with the Americans or risking a political revolt within his Cabinet.

All this means is that Tehran may well get yet another chance to have its cake and eat it. As already indicated by Hassan Ruhani, a mullah who speaks for the High Council of National security in Tehran, Iran’s determination to dot itself with “ the entire range of nuclear science and technology at all levels”.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=34411&d=31&m=10&y=2003

UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran report appears comprehensive

Channelnewsasia
10.31.2003

OTTAWA : Iran's declaration on its nuclear programme appears comprehensive after an initial read, the chief of the UN nuclear watchdog said.

"At first glance, it looks comprehensive," Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters after meeting with Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham.

"We have our inspectors in Iran now, verifying that declaration," the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief added. "I think we are making good progress."

The IAEA had given Iran until Friday to provide full disclosure of its nuclear program and to prove to the UN nuclear watchdog it is not secretly making atomic weapons.

Iran seized the diplomatic initiative when it delivered a report to the IAEA on October 23 that it said answered all the agency's questions, one week ahead of the deadline.

The IAEA has been investigating Iran's nuclear program since February but Tehran only issued the report after reaching an agreement with three leading EU foreign ministers.

"Iran has been more forthcoming than recently" on the nuclear issue, Graham told reporters, but also warned "there are a lot of very technical questions that have to be asked."

Although nothing definitive will happen Friday, the UN agency is to begin writing a report on Iranian compliance, with the matter to be considered at an IAEA board of governors meeting in Vienna on November 20.

At stake is whether the IAEA judges Iran to be in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and sends the issue to the UN Security Council, which could then impose sanctions on the country.

The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany visited Tehran earlier this month to persuade Iran to come clean on its nuclear programme and allow tougher inspections of nuclear sites.

Iran has promised to suspend uranium enrichment that can produce highly enriched uranium useable for nuclear fuel but also to make atomic bombs.

It is currently working through the modalities of suspending uranium enrichment - a key IAEA demand which Iran's clerical leaders agreed to meet during the visit by Britain's Jack Straw, Dominique de Villepin of France and Germany's Joschka Fischer.

The US said on Wednesday that Washington expects Iran to accept increased inspections of its nuclear installations and to meet its international commitments.

"We've said that there are three key aspects involved here for Iran to meet its obligations," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "They need to implement - sign and implement the additional protocol; cooperate fully with the IAEA; and once and for all, suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities."

Iran has said it will sign the additional protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty allowing virtually unannounced inspections of nuclear sites. - AFP

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/54896/1/.html

UN: El-Baradei Says Questions Remain On Iran's Nuclear Programs

Radio Free Europe

Vienna, 31 October 2003 (RFE/RL) -- The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, Mohammad el-Baradei, says his International Atomic Energy Agency is analyzing Iran's report on its nuclear programs, and that many questions remain.

El-Baradei's comments, reported today in the German daily "Frankfurter Allgemeine," came on the day set as the deadline for Iran to fully disclose all the details of its nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) set 31 October as the final chance for Iran to provide evidence that it is not secretly trying to build nuclear weapons.

El-Baradei yesterday said the Iranian report, submitted to the IAEA on 23 October, appears to be comprehensive, but that investigations will continue.

"On first glance, the report [from Iran] is comprehensive, but we still have to do a lot of fine-tuning, we still have to do a lot of questioning, and that is why we are there right now, and we will continue to be there doing inspections for quite a few months, in fact," he said.

Iran last week said it will allow unrestricted inspections of its nuclear facilities by the UN watchdog. The IAEA is expected to address the Iranian nuclear issue at a meeting opening 20 November in Vienna.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/10/31102003114011.asp

Time to Pressure Iran
By Peter Brookes
CNSNews.com Commentary
October 31, 2003

Don't break out the champagne and caviar yet. The European Union's recent deal with Iran's mullahs over their "peaceful nuclear energy program" is unlikely to be the last we hear of Tehran's nuclear transgressions.

Sure: The agreement appears to be a step in the right direction. But the E.U. deal may, in fact, bolster Tehran's strategy of keeping the international community at bay (and isolating Washington) while clandestinely racing toward the nuclear weapons finish line. (Israel claims Iran is but a year away from having nukes.)

Further, by cutting a deal with the E.U., Tehran keeps the thermonuclear tiff from being thrashed out in the U.N. Security Council, which might easily have levied sanctions on Iran, severely damaging the prospects of its pending trade deal with the European Union. In this light, Iranian concessions don't seem so generous after all.

The problem is that this deal reeks of the 1994 compact with North Korea, known as the Agreed Framework. In that deal, Pyongyang agreed to end its nuclear weapons program in exchange for heavy oil and civilian nuclear energy assistance. (Sound familiar?) But within four years, North Korea began cheating. (It took us another four years to figure that out.)

If we're not careful, we'll end up facing the same situation in Iran we face in North Korea today. Be nervous about Iran for a couple of reasons:

Countries do what is in their own best interest, and nukes bring a lot of prestige and political clout. And a nuclear weapon is a great equalizer in international politics: It'll be a lot harder to muscle Tehran into abandoning its support for terror groups such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas when it sits astride the bomb.

With the world's third-largest oil reserves, Iran has plenty of cheap energy; it has no peaceful need for nuclear plants. Nor are a peaceful nuclear-energy program and one for nuclear weapons mutually exclusive. The fuel produced by a civilian program can be turned into the fissile material used in nuclear weapons.

And don't put too much faith in the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA couldn't find Saddam's nuclear program until after the first Gulf War-despite having looked for it for 10 years. There's no reason to think they'd have better luck unearthing a furtive Iranian nuke program.

Worse, the Iranian nuclear program poses a security dilemma for other Middle East states. Why? Whenever one country makes itself more secure by improving its military posture, its neighbors feel less secure-and try to do something about it. So begins an arms race. It's like keeping up with the Joneses, only with nuclear weapons.

This brings us to Saudi Arabia. The newest rumor is that the Saudis are cooperating with Pakistan on a nuclear-weapons program. Inconceivable, some argue: Riyadh already has the ultimate weapon, the United States, as its protector. But it's not that simple:

- Saudi-U.S. relations are now quite strained. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudis, and the kingdom has been a major financier of terrorism and hate-mongering Islamists. Washington has been pressuring Riyadh pretty hard on the terrorism front. If you were a Saudi prince, you might well think that it would be a good idea to get those Americans off your back once and for all by providing for your own defense.

- From across the Persian Gulf, (Sunni Arab) Saudi Arabia regards (Shi'a Persian) Iran with suspicion. Keenly aware of Iran's desire to dominate the gulf, the Saudis may well wonder: With Saddam gone, who will keep the mullahs in check? Again, the princes might see having a nuke or two in their back pocket as a good idea.

Let's move on to Israel. Is Tel Aviv nervous about all of this? You bet-and rightly so. Iran's national policy calls for the destruction of the two Great Satans: the United States and Israel. And Israel is well within range of Iran's nuclear-capable Shahab-3 missile.

Can Israel do something about it? Sure. After all, it crippled Saddam's nuclear program with a strike on the Osirak reactor in 1983. But Iraq is a lot closer than Iran, and Israeli fighters would have to fly over Iraq or Saudi Arabia to get to Iran. Though not impossible, it would be a far riskier mission than the Osirak strike.

And what about the United States? American interests can't be subjugated to the whims of the European Union. Washington must remain skeptical of Iran's intentions to uphold its end of the E.U.-brokered deal until it is verified that this was, indeed, a breakthrough for nuclear nonproliferation and not for Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Until we can be sure of that, it's best to keep the champagne and caviar on ice.

(Peter Brookes, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, is a senior fellow for national security affairs at The Heritage Foundation.)

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200310%5CCOM20031031a.html

Today: October 31, 2003 at 5:19:26 PST

Iran Faces Pressure at Home to Hold Line
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
ASSOCIATED PRESS

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -

Iran faced growing hard-line pressure not to make further compromises with the passing of a Friday deadline to prove its nuclear program is peaceful.

If the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency decides Iran has not proven its peaceful nuclear intentions - a determination expected to take weeks - it could refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

Last week, Iran pledged to suspend uranium enrichment and allow inspectors from the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency unfettered access to its nuclear facilities. Iran also handed over to the IAEA a dossier on its nuclear programs.

The move eased international pressure on Iran. But on Friday, thousands of hard-liners in Tehran protested what they perceived as a bowing to international pressure by the reform-inclined government.

Last week, two dozen clerics demonstrated outside the Foreign Ministry, some wearing white shrouds to symbolize their readiness to die for the cause and shouting: "Death to compromisers!"

Ebrahim Shamshiri, a leader of the hard-line Students' Islamic Association told The Associated Press Thursday the government should expect more people to take to the streets if it signs an additional protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty allowing unfettered inspections.

Shamshiri said Iran should pursue nuclear weapons to "deter the U.S. from threatening or attacking us." Iranian officials say nuclear weapons have no place in their defense strategy.

The nuclear agency's board will meet Nov. 20 to assess the situation, spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told The Associated Press at its headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

Iran has faced stiff opposition from the United States and political isolation from much of the world dating to its 1979 Islamic revolution and a weak economy. Yet with Russian help, Iran is nearing completion of its first nuclear reactor, scheduled to begin operation in 2005

In early February, President Mohammad Khatami announced Iran had started mining uranium for the first time and would soon open a facility to process the ore into fuel. Iran says its goal is to develop a complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining its own uranium to enriching the ore, without having to rely on any other country.

Uranium enriched to low levels has energy uses, while highly enriched uranium can be used in bombs. IAEA experts have found traces of highly enriched uranium at Iranian sites on equipment Iran says was "contaminated" before it was purchased.

The United States accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and has pressed for the IAEA to declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Washington, though, does not believe Iran has yet made nuclear weapons, citing a lack of fissile material - either enriched uranium or plutonium.

To answer domestic criticism, Iranian officials have portrayed their pledges to suspend enriching uranium and open up sites to wider inspections as part of a strategy to gain access to nuclear energy technology.

The pledges came in an agreement with Britain, France and Germany, who had offered greater cooperation on nuclear energy and nonmilitary technology. The pledges may also help ease tensions with the United States, a goal for some Iranians.

Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's representative to the IAEA, told The Associated Press Thursday the deal with the three European countries was a "historic" diplomatic coup that isolated Washington.

Iran officials, though, have not made clear when they would keep any of their nuclear promises. Earlier this week, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters enrichment had already been suspended, then reversed himself, saying Iran was still "studying" suspension.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2003/oct/31/103107268.html

Is Hezbollah Waging War on Americans?

October 30, 2003
National Review Online
Aaron Mannes

The October 15 attack against U.S. diplomatic personnel in Gaza may have been a signal that Hezbollah, a highly effective terrorist organization (and, after al Qaeda, the number one terrorist killer of Americans), has reinitiated hostilities with the United States after a lull in anti-U.S. attacks since the 1980s. If so, there are important implications for the United States, and particularly its relationships with Hezbollah's patrons: Iran and Syria.

While the joint Palestinian-American investigation has not come to any conclusions (and, predictably, Palestinian cooperation has been less than satisfactory), the October 15 attack, in which three American security personnel were killed, has all the trademarks of a Hezbollah operation.

The idea that Hezbollah was involved in the attack — in which a mine buried under a road destroyed a vehicle with U.S. diplomatic plates — is, admittedly, a conjecture. But it is a plausible one. The attack required high-level technical skills to construct the mine (which was detonated by remote) and effective intelligence work to plan and carry out the attack. Few groups apart from Hezbollah have such resources.

Hezbollah gained experience ambushing Israeli vehicles in its long war with Israel in Lebanon. It has shared its expertise with several Palestinian groups, which have successfully used buried mines to destroy or damage Israeli Merkava tanks. But the major Palestinian terrorist groups have denied participating in the October 15 attack, and Hezbollah is known to be building its own network in the West Bank, Gaza, and among Israeli Arabs.

Separately, two days later, a convoy of U.S. diplomats in Lebanon was intercepted by Hezbollah fighters and prevented from inspecting sites on the Lebanese-Israeli border. Hezbollah effectively controls southern Lebanon. Reportedly, the Hezbollah fighters permitted U.N. personnel to continue on, but forced the Americans to turn back, tailing and harassing the U.S. convoy. Hezbollah and the Lebanese government insist that the U.S. embassy did not coordinate the trip with them beforehand.

The proximity of this incident to the Gaza attack may only be a coincidence. But if Hezbollah were involved in the Gaza attack, these two events are noteworthy, and may be indicative of a new Hezbollah strategy against Americans.

If Hezbollah is targeting Americans, it is doing so in close coordination with its patron states, Iran and Syria. Syria has been under increased U.S. pressure to prevent the passage of jihadists across its border into Iraq and to shut down Palestinian terrorist groups headquartered in Damascus. The U.S. supported an Israeli air raid on Syrian territory, and the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Syrian Accountability Act (the Senate is expected to do so later this month), which requires the president to expand sanctions against Syria. While Syria is weak in conventional military terms, the Syrian regime seems certain that U.S. forces are overcommitted and unable to undertake a full-scale military confrontation. Therefore, they might reason, Hezbollah terrorism is a convenient stick to use against the United States.

Iran, on the other hand, is seeking any means possible to distract the United States from thwarting its nuclear ambitions. A new wave of terrorism against Americans might serve that purpose. Iran is also seeking to extend its influence, particularly in the Palestinian-Israeli arena.

Hezbollah attacks on Americans could ignite a tinderbox. Because of American support for Israel, the U.S. is hated as much as Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinians celebrated 9/11; and, when American investigators arrived on the scene of the October 15 bombing, a Palestinian crowd tried to attack them. Hezbollah could characterize attacks on Americans as part of the Intifada, encouraging other Palestinian terrorist groups to join in seeking American targets — possibly beyond the bounds of Israel.

If Hezbollah and its patrons are challenging the United States, they are ushering in a new stage in the war on terror. A first priority must be defanging Hezbollah by breaking up its cells around the world and pursuing sanctions against Iran and Syria, its state backers. U.S.-Israeli intelligence cooperation will be a crucial asset in this fight. These steps may lead to further confrontation — but, if past experience teaches anything, retreat will only embolden the terrorists.

— Aaron Mannes is the author of Profiles in Terror: The Reference Guide to Middle East Terrorist Organizations & Affiliated Groups, to be released in the spring of 2004.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mannes200310300730.asp

Hope vs. Fear: Comparing European and American Policies toward Iran, M. Mohamadi, The Daily Star

Gooya English News
Majid Mohammadi

Mrs. Ebadi's 2003 Peace Nobel Prize is a wonderful event for reformists and
human rights activist in Iran. There is no doubt that the awarding of the
prize to Ms. Ebadi was intended as a positive signal to Iranians while they
are in the nadir of their political struggle toward non-violent
transformation to democracy. Such recognitions as this prize convey a
broader message from Europeans that the outside world is not totally
indifferent to issues which are of concern to ordinary people in Iran. By
contrast, neo-cons in the U.S. and their friends in Israel are beating on
the drums of war and threaten to smash Iran's nuclear power plants by war or
its political extensions, that is by striking Bushehr facilities or sending
the case to the UN Security Council. There is also talk of attacking Iran in
the Bush's second term. Shirin Ebadi's Nobel highlights the differences
between the U.S and European policies toward Iran and the Middle East in
general.

The signal that is usually sent by the U.S. administrations and media to
Iranian people and government is little more than threats. There is nothing
about hope. Iranian people watch the White House briefings, decisions of the
U.S. Congress and the editorials of US magazines and all they can see is a
giant iron fist. The European signal, however, is one of support and
constructive criticism for the Iranian people and their reformers.
This Ebadi's prize is a message to the Iranian people and to the Muslim
world that the fight for rights is at the center for matters to the
Europeans-their civil society institutions and governments. The fight for
human rights is unfortunately a second hand instrument for justifying war
for the U.S. administrations. European leaders appeared jubilant over the
selection of an Iranian woman who works as an advocate for promoting the
rights of women and children in Iran. They celebrated Ebadi's dedication to
"tolerant coexistence and an understanding between cultures." In the
meanwhile, the spokesmen at the White House and the State Department
contented themselves with issued dry congratulations.
The voice of most of the Iranian reformist artist's and intellectual's
voices can be heard in European media. By contrast one hears in the American
mainstream media only about Mojahedin Khalq, Reza Pahlavi, and Rafsanjani's
and Khomeini's family members. Top American journalists usually interview
"political nobodies" as the new voices of Iranians, ignoring Iranian
intellectuals and political activists who are under pressure and at the same
time have critical approach to the U.S. foreign policies i.e. "attacking and
puppet making." American polity prefers building political alternatives or
puppets for "rogue" regimes among forces that are located outside the Muslim
societies (Chalabi for Iraq, Karzai for Afghanistan, or Reza Pahalvi for
Iran), while Europeans have more knowledge and respect for forces inside
these societies. The main European actors consider internal forces more
effective than immigrants in the transitional periods.
The U.S. administrations and media hosts and guests do not usually prefer
talking about or criticizing Iran's internal and external policies in a
space of dialogue and interactive understanding. Rather they prefer the tone
of arrogance and ultimatums. Europeans do talk and criticize besides sending
eventual arrogant messages. The U.S. usually unilaterally negotiates with
representatives of appointed political bodies for her own interests in the
region, while Europeans negotiate with representatives of both appointed and
elected bodies. The Iran-U.S. negotiations are usually held in darkness,
while Europeans negotiate in broad daylight.
Europe now is more open to "others" and more secure, and the U.S. is more
closed and less secure. The foreign policy discourse in the U.S. is centered
on fear. WMD is the monster to scare citizens of the West and threat others
who "are not with us". But the developing nations don't need threats but
hope to promote democracy, civil society and human rights. European
discourse in foreign policy is more focused on human rights and democracy
discourse leading to dialogue and non-violent action, while the WMD
discourse of the U.S. is directed to containment, intervention, and military
attack, leading first to demonization and then occupation.
Without vindication of human rights, substantial peace and security is
impossible, while in WMD discourse security comes before the rights.
Europeans mostly push the Muslim world into recognizing that Islam and
modern ideas like human rights and democracy could go hand in hand. The
Europeans and Iranian public spheres have similar ideas about the forces and
methods of changes, sharing this idea that Iranian people should fight for
their rights and democracy. Both sides are also against any foreign
intervention; they both emphasize on adopting lawful and peaceful means for
radical changes. American administrations usually do not care about
international and internal laws. The main U.S. policy toward her so-called
enemies is the " do-not-care" policy.
Europeans had been closely watching social and cultural events in Iran,
while Americans are mostly interested in political events. The difference
between 'society-oriented' and 'power-oriented' approaches can be seen in
their media. Europeans have a cultural and civilizational approach besides
political and economic approaches to the Middle East while most of the
politicians and players in the U.S. have only political and economic
interests, and look at Islam as a monolithic religion to legitimize their
causes and interests. American citizens can rarely hear about different
readings of Islam and Muslims' cultural heritage in their mainstream media.
The looting of Iraq's cultural heritage is a good example of the
consequences of this approach for the Middle East.

http://news.gooya.com/english/archives/001162.php

'Death to Compromisers': Hardliners Protest Govt's Nuke Compliance

October 31, 2003
The Associated Press
The Jerusalem Post

Thousands of Iranian hard-liners rallied in several cities Friday against a government decision allowing inspection of its nuclear facilities and suspending uranium enrichment.

The protests, larger than hard-line demonstrations in the capital last Friday, came on the day the United Nations set as a deadline for Iran to prove its nuclear activities are not aimed at building atomic weapons, as the United States contends.

"Additional protocol, never, never!" the protesters shouted as they marched through downtown Tehran. Others chanted: "Death to compromisers!" Some wore white shrouds to symbolize their readiness to die for their cause.

Iran's hard-line conservatives, who back the country's supreme ruler, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, oppose international demands that Iran allow unfettered inspections of its nuclear facilities.

Reformist elements of the government, however, pledged last week to suspend uranium enrichment and allow the UN International Atomic Energy Agency unfettered access to nuclear sites. It was not clear when Iran would take those promised steps.

Iran has also given the Vienna-based agency a dossier on its nuclear programs. An IAEA spokesman, Mark Gwozdecky, told The Associated Press in New York on Friday that the documents appeared to be "comprehensive," but that experts must still compare them with evidence they are collecting.

At a Tehran mosque, hard-line cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati told worshippers that Iran would not respect commitments it has made unless Britain, France and Germany keep promises to offer greater cooperation on nuclear energy and nonmilitary technology.

If the IAEA decides Iran has not proven its peaceful nuclear intentions, it could refer Iran to the UN Security Council, which could impose sanctions. For now, international pressure on Iran has eased, with focus shifting from Friday's deadline to a Nov. 20 IAEA board of governors meeting.

Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's representative to the IAEA, said Friday that Iran's working with the UN agency was not due to the deadline.

"Iran has cooperated ... only on the basis of the growing trend of bilateral cooperation," state-run Tehran radio quoted Salehi as saying.

Many within Iran's conservative camp have joined reformists in agreeing to allow spot checks of nuclear facilities, and officials say the decision had approval by supreme leader Khamenei.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1067583067699&p=1008596981749

ElBaradei: Too Soon to Say if Iran Met UN Demands

October 31, 2003
Reuters
Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS -- Chief U.N. nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei said on Friday it would take him at least two weeks to determine whether Iran had complied with his demand to prove it had no nuclear weapons program.

''Sometime towards the end of the second week of November, I will be issuing a report to the (International Atomic Energy Agency) Board of Governors with the results at that time of this verification process,'' he said.

''I don't think we will be able to complete our work by that time, but I hope we'll have made substantial progress,'' he told reporters at U.N. headquarters in New York, where he was attending meetings.

The IAEA board planned to take up the report at its next meeting, scheduled for Nov. 20, IAEA officials said.

ElBaradei, director-general of the Vienna-based IAEA, gave Tehran a Friday deadline to prove it had no nuclear arms program or be reported to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

Iran submitted a declaration to the IAEA on Oct. 23, detailing its nuclear activities, which Washington suspects are a smokescreen for building atomic weapons.

''We are still going through a lot of activities, we have inspection teams in Iran. It is too early, but I hope that we will be able to verify what the Iranians have assured us -- that this is a comprehensive and accurate declaration,'' ElBaradei told Reuters.

''They are cooperating, but again, we still have a lot of work to do, and I hope the cooperation will continue,'' ElBaradei said. ''This is a work in progress.''

In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said he expected everyone, including the U.S. government, to withhold judgment on whether Iran was in compliance until ElBaradei had submitted his report.

''We're not making any new judgments. As you know, we've all along held that Iran has been in noncompliance. But we look forward to seeing the report, to find out if Iran has brought itself into compliance by fulfilling all these requirements of the resolution,'' he told reporters.

''We will find out from the director-general's report whether those promises have been fulfilled and fulfilled to the extent that they actually meet the requirements that were laid down by the board,'' Boucher said.

In Tehran, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Akbar Salehi, assured an Iranian news agency that the U.N. body had been given all the information it needed to produce a report showing Iran was pursuing a purely civilian nuclear energy program.

''Iran's will is to remove all the agency's ambiguities and to take all necessary steps to enable the agency to present a positive report to its governor's board,'' Salehi told the student news agency ISNA.

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters10-31-131258.asp?reg=MIDEAST

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.