Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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”

1 posted on 11/08/2003 12:01:05 AM PST by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
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”

2 posted on 11/08/2003 12:03:34 AM PST by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn
Bush's Middle East shift

BBC World Service - By Roger Hardy
Nov 7, 2003

In a major foreign policy speech in Washington, US President George W Bush has challenged the countries of the Middle East to adopt democracy.

By advocating the spread of democracy to the Muslim Middle East, President Bush is embracing one of the big ideas of the "neo-conservatives" - the radical Republicans whose influence has grown so markedly since he entered the White House.

For the neo-conservatives, the end of the Cold War should have marked the opening of the floodgates of democracy all over the world.

Critics are sceptical that the US has staying power
But some areas, the Middle East notable among them, remained stubbornly resistant to the trend.

The neo-conservatives believe successive American presidents, essentially because of their need for oil, allowed the region's rulers to stick to their old authoritarian ways.

The folly of this, they argue, was dramatically exposed by the attacks of 11 September 2001. And, crucially, those attacks gave the neo-conservatives a unique opportunity to put things right, as they see them.

Radical departure

In his speech in Washington, President Bush was blunt in castigating what he (and the neo-conservatives) regard as the mistakes of the past.

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," he declared.

If Mr Bush is as good as his word, it will mark a radical departure from the traditional realpolitik of American foreign policy.

But will he follow through? Already commentators around the world are pointing to the most obvious difficulties.

How to convince Middle Easterners you are serious about human rights and democracy when, in Arab and Muslim eyes, a whole people - the Palestinians - are being denied their rights?

How to be consistent and avoid the inevitable charge of double standards? Will Washington be indulgent, say, to the military-backed government in Algeria - whose human-rights abuses are well documented - because that government can be useful in the "war on terror"?

Will the US put equal pressure on allies and enemies? Though Mr Bush said two allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, had to do more, will he end up treating them with kid gloves, while reserving the bludgeon for Iran and Syria?

If elections brought to power anti-US governments, would the US administration change its mind?
There is much scepticism about whether Mr Bush's goal is achievable and whether the administration, or for that matter the American people, have the staying power necessary for success.

But at the same time what is clear to anyone who visits the Middle East is that there is a huge pent-up demand for greater freedom.

For all their mistrust of the United States, many in the region will be hoping that, if there is sustained American pressure, their rulers will at last get serious about reform.
3 posted on 11/08/2003 12:10:12 AM PST by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn
In Iran, powerlessness feeds on itself

International Herald Tribune - By A. William Samii
Nov 8, 2003

PRAGUE - Iran's next parliamentary election is scheduled to take place in February, but the reformists who swept into office almost four years ago have already lost. While they deal with powerlessness, political infighting and a lack of credibility, their conservative rivals are busy manipulating the system and working their considerable powers to ensure that they can hang on. The only practical hope for a more moderate regime in Iran is in the election process, but public recognition of the reformists' weaknesses is all too likely to keep voters at home on Election Day, despairing that their votes can do anything to change their lives.

A year has passed since President Mohammad Khatami's administration introduced legislation, called the twin bills, to increase the power of the elected president and Parliament.

One of the bills would eliminate the unelected National Security Council's power to reject candidates for elected office and overturn election results. The other would give the president power to reverse some decisions of the judiciary to close independent newspapers, imprison journalists and attempt to imprison parliamentarians. Both the council and the judiciary are made up of appointees of the supreme religious leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or other leaders close to him, and they are part of the structure of unelected institutions that really runs Iran.

Because the National Security Council has powers over all legislation, it might seem quixotic to introduce legislation that would reduce its powers. And indeed, the council has rejected both bills and negotiations have failed to produce a compromise. President Khatami conceded in a September speech to provincial governors, "We must assume that the new election law will not be ratified or will be rejected." Meanwhile the security council is creating permanent supervisory offices to prepare dossiers on prospective candidates. Iran's reformists are also divided among themselves. Some parliamentarians have threatened to resign over frustrations with their powerlessness. Some are seen as opportunists jockeying for power. Some reformist groups have met with conservative elements about possible coalitions. This overall situation - the legislative impasse, the institutional conflicts, the political jockeying - is frustrating for the public as well as the politicians, and that frustration is likely to keep voters home from the polls in 2004. Turnout in the most recent election, a vote last February for municipal councils, was just 28 percent, compared with 69 percent in the 2000 parliamentary election. The protests and demonstrations of the last year are another indication of a lack of confidence in the electoral system - people who can express themselves through the vote do not need to resort to the street.

If the Iranian political system is set up so that unelected officials can overrule elected ones, does it really matter if Iranians vote? It matters to the regime. The ruling forces bus voters to polling places, encourage the participation of public employees and consistently extend the polling hours. The government stakes some of its legitimacy on holding regular and well-attended elections.
It should matter to outside observers, too. The political system heavily favors entrenched conservative forces, but it is flexible, and short of a full-scale military invasion, elections are the only hope for replacing an Iranian leadership that is hostile to the United States and its allies, pursues an adventurist foreign policy in its region and is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. .

The writer is the senior regional analyst for Southwest Asia at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and prepares the weekly "RFE/RL Iran Report" (
4 posted on 11/08/2003 12:13:07 AM PST by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn
Freedom sweet for a fortunate father

Age - By Penelope Debelle
Nov 8, 2003

Out of the blue on Thursday, with less than an hour to spare, Ebrahim Sammaki was told to shower, change and collect his possessions. Two-and-a-half years after arriving at the Woomera detention centre, and more than a year after losing his wife, Endang, in the Bali bombings, the wheels of freedom moved swiftly.

He was on a charter flight from Port Augusta to Adelaide on Thursday afternoon, cleared by immigration at 5pm and dined in Adelaide late that night with friends and supporters on a halal chicken and yiros.

"I just started crying and crying," Mr Sammaki said yesterday. "A permanent visa..."

Mr Sammaki, 36, an Australian courtesy of Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone, who released him on a humanitarian visa, glowed yesterday at the prospect of being reunited soon with his Indonesian-born children, Safdar, 8, and Sara, 4, who was just a baby when he left. He has not seen them for more than two years and was finding it hard to communicate with them in their Indonesian dialect.

Mr Sammaki's path to Australia has been more complex than most. Nine years ago he left Iran and lived illegally in Indonesia for seven years where he married Endang and had two children. But a year after he arrived in Australia to seek asylum, she died of burns incurred in the Bali bombing, leaving their children stranded in Indonesia without citizenship. Former immigration minister Phillip Ruddock refused to let them come here.

Yesterday, Mr Sammaki had no comment about Senator Vanstone's act of compassion. He preferred to talk about his children whom he spoke to in Bali, telling them this time they really would be seeing him soon.

"I have already told them more than 100 times, 'sweetie, it may be tomorrow, maybe next week, maybe next week... now I am proud because I am not any more lying to them," he said yesterday.

"Now they will come as soon as possible."

He left the Baxter detention centre at Port Augusta so quickly he had no time to farewell his friends, he said.

But he will take his children to visit Baxter, he says, and will fight for his friends' release as others fought for his.

"I feel very bad," he said. "Now is a very good time but I will never forget them, wherever I am."

He has been told it will be a few weeks before he will see his children and is counting off the hours and minutes. The paperwork was in place but passports and travel documents were being arranged by the Red Cross.

Mr Sammaki said he would stay in Adelaide, where he was among friends, and look for work.

He was a textile and fabric merchant by trade and would look for a job as soon he could, even though he still felt in a dream.

"Everyone is dreaming to be a resident of this country," he said. "My children will be good for this country, they will be positive for this country."

Inside Woomera and Baxter, Mr Sammaki said he occasionally despaired but said he never gave up hope. "I always had hope, never give up," he said.
5 posted on 11/08/2003 12:14:44 AM PST by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn
Asefi condemns Bush's recent comments on Iran

Saturday, November 08, 2003 - ©2003

Tehran, Nov 7, IRNA -- Iran condemned the recent remarks made by the US President George W. Bush, labeling them as "Obvious interference in Iran's internal affairs".

The spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hamid-Reza Asefi in a communique, a copy of which was faxed to IRNA, added, "Such adventurism is in direct contrast with the United States' commitments, stated in the text of the Algeria Declaration and proves that the US is not respecting its own international commitments."

Elsewhere in the communique, Asefi says, "No individual, or group, has ever commissioned Mr. Bush to safeguard their rights, nor is he responsible for supporting anyone here, and basically, keeping in mind the dark record of the United States in suppressing the democratic movements around the globe, he is not in a position to talk about such issues."

The communique ends advising the US President to heed the mounting disapproval of the American public opinion regarding the war launched against the Iraqi people, respect their righteous demand, and not contribute to further destabilization and insecurity in the region.
6 posted on 11/08/2003 12:19:10 AM PST by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn
"Interference" in Iran's Internal Affairs

November 08, 2003
The Associated Press

Syria does not doubt that President Bush is sincere in his urging a more stable Middle East but believes his policies are spoiling American relations with Arabs and Muslims worldwide, a Syrian Cabinet minister said Saturday.

The comment in a government newspaper was the first official Syrian reaction to Bush's speech Thursday in which he called for greater democracy in the Middle East and criticized Syria and Iran in particular, accusing them of torture and oppression.

Iran was harsher in its response, calling Bush's speech an "interference" in Iran's internal affairs and saying the American leader had no business preaching democracy after U.S. support of authoritarian leaders in the Mideast and elsewhere.

Syrian Minister of Immigrant Affairs Buthayna Shaaban addressed Bush, saying, "We do not doubt your intentions (that) you are really desirous to make the Middle East a safer and more stable place."

But "please allow us to tell you that your policy throughout the past years has raised the level of ... hatred, closed all peace horizons and caused big damage to the reputation of the United States," she wrote in the daily Al-Thawra.

Shaaban said solving the Middle East's problems requires dealing with people "on an equal footing" and abandoning "bias, violence, racism, occupation, settlement and repression." The comments were a repetition of Syrian criticism that the United States is biased toward Israel and that the Jewish state oppressed Palestinians and was occupying more Arab land.

Shaaban said persisting in current Middle East policies will cause "a bigger suffering to the region's peoples, widen the gap between the U.S. and the whole world, and also threaten international peace and security."

In his speech Thursday in Washington, Bush said that "the global wave of democracy has barely reached the Arab states. Many countries in the region are mired in poverty and women lack rights and children are denied proper schooling."
12 posted on 11/08/2003 8:36:11 AM PST by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn
Partial strikes of Petroleum Industry paralyze several provinces

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Nov 8, 2003

Partial strikes in Iran's Petroleum Industry and especially in the Petrochemical factories are paralyzing several provincial cities in Iran. The areas, most hit by these strikes, are the Northern and Southern parts of the country where fuel and necessary heating combustibles are missing and are resulting in the formation of long lines in front of the official distribution centers.

The distribution of the low available quantities are often leading to local and sporadic protests and slogans against the regime and many residents are starting to draw an analogy with the strikes which paralyzed Iran's Petroleum Industry and lead to the Islamic revolution of 1979.

It's to note that the strikes are following the controversial decision of the authorities to detach Iran's Petrochemical entities from the country's Petroleum Industry in an effort to privatize this sector. Many Iranians, especially the Petroleum workers, are considering such decision as part of the general policy of looting Iran's National Assets and their transfers to foreign companies or to the ruling political and economical Mafia.
13 posted on 11/08/2003 8:51:09 AM PST by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn
Iran Promises Co-operate on Nuclear Issue

November 08, 2003
News Staff

Iran will allow detailed inspections of its nuclear facilities and will stop enriching uranium to stop suspicions it is developing nuclear weapons.

The commitment was made by Hasan Rowhani, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council.

An official announcement is expected next week.

Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told journalists Rowhani made the commitments to him during a meeting they had Saturday.

The IAEA will be meeting Nov. 20 to discuss a report by ElBaradei on Iran's past nuclear activities.

The U.S. in particular has said that activity points to a covert nuclear weapons program.

The meeting between ElBaradei and Rowhani came just das before that report was to be distributed to the board.

A finding that Iran has violated the the Nonproliferation Treaty cold lead to the United Nations imposing sanctions.

Iran has admitted to enriching uranium, but only to non-weapons-grade levels and only for electricity generation.
21 posted on 11/08/2003 10:28:45 AM PST by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn
A new day is dawning. Just as the RATS here are in total freefall and acting desperately, so are those in the Middle East who have oppressed their people. Freedom is in the air.

As Barry Goldwater might have said it: No, you Islamofascist terrorists, our grandchildren will not live under Islamic terror; your grandchildren will live under freedom.

22 posted on 11/08/2003 11:00:55 AM PST by doug from upland (Why aren't the Clintons living out their remaining years on Alcatraz?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn
I will be proven right on this. Iran should have been the initial target of the coalition;I said this over a year ago and will say it again! Iran poses the most serious challenge to us for a variety of reasons that most planners and strategy experts completely miss. Anyone who reads topographical maps can deleniate the major differences right away. Geographically the land of iran is mountanious and more difficult to attack; it is not like iraq where you have the broad flood plain of the Euphrates River to run Tanks and armored vehiciles freely at will. We should have gone directly at Tehran from the get go!

The russians are totally committed to secureing a warm water port in the Persian Gulf. They have committed themselves to an illegal Nuclear program designed ultimately to deliver fissionable material to make atomic bombs. Plain and simple we shot ourselves squarely in the foot on this one. If we had given the right signals initially we could have successfuly promoted a massive student riot country wide and would have brought down Katami's government right under their noses!

Now we have a burdensome debt and nothing essentially to show for it. Saddam laughs us to derision and continues to direct and harass our troops in the field. If we had gone into iran as we should have in the firsr place they would not have had any opportunity to bury or spirit away illegal WMD's that they surely do have; courtesy of the russians. Now we are forced to fight a rear guard action of massive proportions. The iranians have got to be taken out and their Sunburn Missiles with them that russia supplied. The six Nuclear Reactors need to be neutralized immediately. You don't have to worry guys we will find WMD's in iran even Barney Fife couldn't miss on this one!

24 posted on 11/08/2003 11:54:06 AM PST by winker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn
This thread is now closed.

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”

29 posted on 11/09/2003 12:02:36 AM PST by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson