Replies

HOW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN

By AMIR TAHERI
NY Post
November 10, 2003

WILL they stay the course? This is the question that many in the Middle East are again asking with regard to the U.S. presence in Iraq. In recent weeks, the number of observers answering in the negative has grown daily.
The assumption is that the American public, prompted by the antiwar section of the media, is having second thoughts about the wisdom of intervention in Iraq. Basing their strategy on that assumption, Arab radical groups of various ideological shades are mobilizing their resources in support of the terrorist campaign in Iraq.

A new coalition is emerging whose aim is not only to drive the United States out, but also to prevent the emergence of a democracy in Iraq. Diehard Saddamites, remnants of the pan-Arabist movement and various Islamist terrorist outfits, including some linked with Al Qaeda, form the new anti-democracy coalition in Iraq.

"Our aim is not only to drive the forces of occupation [out of Iraq]," reads a statement issued by the Ansar al-Sunnah (Victors of Sunnism), a group that claims to be behind some of the attacks against U.S. forces near Baghdad. "The real issue is to prevent the Americans from imposing [a system] on Iraq in which mortal men claim powers that belong to the Almighty."

It seems that President Bush understands "the real issue."

In his speech at the National Endowment for Democracy Thursday, Bush ignored the conjectural issues that dominate the Iraq debate and put the conflict in the broader context of the war that democracy has fought against despotism for over 2,500 years.

He presented intervention in Iraq as part of the same pattern of moral and military commitment that the United States, as a standard-bearer of democracy in the modern world, showed in helping rebuild and defend the democratic nations of post-war Western Europe, protecting them from Communism during the Cold War and combating Communism in Latin America, Europe and Asia.

The president made two important points.

The first is that the promotion of democracy is an imperative of U.S. national security. As long as there are despotic states that shelter, and often sponsor, terrorists, America will remain threatened in its own heartland.

The second is that it is impossible to turn Iraq into a lone democracy in a dangerous neighborhood of despotic and predatory regimes. Such an Iraq would have to devote the lion's share of its resources to developing a military machine to discourage bullying and/or direct attack by some of those neighbors. That would, in turn, throw the economy off balance, tempt the military to intervene in politics and lead to the return of the "moustaches" to power, albeit in a lighter version.

For Iraq to become a stable democracy, it is imperative that other nations in the region also embark on democratization.

Bush is right in saying that Muslims are no less entitled to freedom from despotism than the nations liberated from Fascism and Communism.

He is also right in asserting that different countries could be guided toward democracy in different ways. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was an exception because he had destroyed all internal mechanisms for reform. This is not the case in most other Middle Eastern nations that suffer under undemocratic regimes.

In other words, there is no need for direct U.S. military intervention to break the logjam created by systems that belong to another age.

WITHOUT practical policies to speed up democratization in the Middle East, however, this new "Bush Doctrine" will remain a pious hope. To translate his vision into realities on the ground, the president must make a number of moves.

To start with, he must unite his administration behind a Middle East policy that puts democratization at the top of the agenda. This is not now the case.

The State Department is still obsessed with the status quo and the dream of secret deals with Tehran and Damascus. It also shies away from anything that might offend Saudi and Egyptian governments.

The Pentagon, for its part, is so focused on the military aspects of the transition in Iraq that, despite Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's intellectual input, it often loses sight of the political aspects of the president's grander strategy.

The next move should be a reassessment of relations with the nations of the region. These can be divided into three groups:

* Friends of America who have embarked upon democratization. Mauritania, Morocco, Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman fall into this category. None could be described as a proper democracy. But each in its own way is engaged in a process that could, in time, produce an acceptable democratic system.

The United States must deepen relations with nations in this group, both individually and collectively, and press for speedier reform.

* Countries whose ruling elites profess U.S. friendship while their policies provoke or even encourage anti-Americanism. These include Tunisia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. There are genuine constituencies for democratization in all three, including inside the ruling elites.

The United States should identify those constituencies, establish working relations with them, and cancel the blank checks it had had to sign during the Cold War.

* Countries whose regimes regard America as their strategic enemy, while the people are sympathetic to American values as they perceive them. The Sudan, Libya, Syria and Iran fall into this category.

These regimes must be treated as pariahs, with the United States and its allies throwing their moral and political support behind pro-democracy opposition movements.

We have left three countries out. One is Turkey, a developing democracy and longterm U.S. ally. Another is Algeria, where pro-democracy forces are strong but have virtually no contact with the United States. The third is Lebanon which, once it shakes off the Syrian military presence, would join the group of developing democracies in the region.

Next, the United States should promote a diplomatic process aimed at committing the nations of the region to a system of values and a set of rules in the conduct of both domestic and foreign policies.

Those that enter the process and sign accords, similar to the Helsinki Accords between the West and the Communist bloc in the final phase of the Cold War, would receive greater diplomatic deference, economic aid, preferential trade agreements, and the privilege of political consultation on regional affairs.

Those that do not will be isolated, subjected to political, cultural and economic sanctions - and, when necessary, faced with credible military pressure.

IRAQ is but one piece, albeit an important one, in a jigsaw puzzle that, when completed, would produce a Middle East committed to new system of governance based on the rule of law, human rights, pluralistic politics and an enterprise-based economy.

That would free over 300 million Muslims from tyranny, terror and poverty - and also enhance America's security. This is a cause worth fighting for.

E-mail: amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/10365.htm

Iran frees Berkeley lecturer
Teacher had been held on spy charges

SF Chronicle
Charlie Goodyear, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, November 10, 2003

A UC Berkeley lecturer held for nearly four months in an Iranian prison on espionage charges was released on Sunday and is prepared to fight a legal battle to clear his name, his friends and family members said.

Dariush Zahedi, 37, was freed on $250,000 bail paid by his family and is still subject to a criminal prosecution. He was arrested on July 10 while on an annual trip to visit relatives.

Although Zahedi, a vocal critic of the Iranian government, is now technically free to leave his native country, friends and family said Sunday that he intends to hire a lawyer and stay to face his accusers.

"That's his mind-set,'' said Hooshang Amirahmadi, a Rutgers University professor who spoke with Zahedi on Sunday. "He thinks that he's innocent and he needs to clean his record.

"I think Dr. Zahedi will be cleared. If the case of spying was really serious, no amount of bail would have gotten him released. They just wanted to keep his mouth shut.''

Authorities at the Iranian mission to the United Nations in New York did not return calls seeking to confirm Zahedi's release and to comment on Sunday. The U.S. State Department also did not confirm his release.

Zahedi was arrested when he agreed to speak with a political freedom movement in Iran. His arrest came as student protests and international criticism of Iran's nuclear weapons program were placing increased pressure on the Islamic regime in Tehran.

According to news reports, Zahedi was suspected of masterminding student protests. He had traveled to Iran on dates that coincided with anniversaries of the 1999 pro-democracy student demonstrations, according to the reports.

Zahedi was jailed at Evin prison, north of Tehran, where Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian Canadian journalist, died in custody in July following her arrest for taking photos of student protests.

Careful in conversation

On Sunday, Zahedi was careful not to discuss details of his detention in several phone calls to relatives and friends for fear that Iranian authorities might be listening, according to those who spoke with him.

"He has been under pressure, all kinds of threats and so on,'' Amirahmadi said. "I personally cannot confirm whether he was tortured or not. I asked him how it was. He basically said it was suitable -- OK. He is doing quite well, to my surprise. His spirits are quite high.''

He knows of no trial date set in the case.

Zahedi, a naturalized U.S. citizen who lives in Lafayette, is the author of "The Iranian Revolution Then and Now: Indicators of Regime Instability." A graduate of UC Davis and the University of Southern California, he teaches Middle Eastern politics at UC Berkeley and Santa Clara University.

Officials at UC Berkeley could not be reached for comment Sunday.

Zahedi and Amirahmadi are active in the American Iranian Council, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group devoted to improving U.S. relations with Iran. Amirahmadi is the founder and president and Zahedi is the West Coast director of operations for the group, whose honorary chairman is former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance.

Zahedi's stepfather, who lives in the Bay Area and asked not to be named, got a call from Zahedi early Sunday morning just after his release.

"He sounded OK to me,'' the stepfather said. "I am happy to hear his voice.''

Another relative, who had a brief conversation with Zahedi, said, "I just asked him how he was. I don't think he was comfortable talking on the phone. I asked him if he could come back here. He said he didn't know.''

Staying with family

Zahedi is staying in Tehran with his mother and brother, relatives said. He is reportedly reluctant to talk publicly about his arrest to avoid damaging his chances of winning in court.

His case has been closely watched by human rights organizations and the U.S. government, although a spokeswoman for the State Department said on Sunday she could not comment on Zahedi's release.

And his arrest appears to have intensified divisions within the Iranian government between reformists and fundamentalist clerics.

Amirahmadi said Iran's Ministry of Information, which first arrested Zahedi, ultimately cleared him of spying. But the country's hard-line Department of Justice then took over the case. Amirahmadi said Zahedi's release could signal that the Iranian government is looking for a face-saving way to drop the matter altogether.

"He is not a spy,'' the professor added. "But he is certainly a critic of the regime.''

E-mail Charlie Goodyear at cgoodyear@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/10/ZAHEDI.TMP

Iranian Confirms Iran Responsible For Argentinian Bombing Attack

TruthNews.net
Gary Fitleberg, November 9, 2003

Iran, one of America’s declared "axis of evil" nations, is one of the top state sponsors of terrorism internationally. Its influence internationally reaches not only Israel and the Middle East but even extends to South America. Like Iraq, will Iran eventually face a military attack? If it continues on a destructive path it definitely will. It is only a matter of time!!!

An Iranian witness confirmed the government of Iran was exclusively responsible for the 1994 bombing of the Jewish AMIA community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and wounded hundreds, court sources said.

Abolgasem Mesbahi, known as "Witness C," testified via a video conference from the Argentine Embassy in Berlin, Germany, in the public trial being held in Buenos Aires on the alleged local connection in the attack.

Mesbahi, former chief of the Iranian intelligence service, said "nobody" in Argentina was involved or collaborated "in the logistics or in information in the attack." He said the van stashed with explosives used in the attack had been hired for the purpose.

Iran "did not use local workers" for these attacks, Mesbahi said.

Mesbahi a year ago told the Argentine judiciary about an alleged payment of 10 million dollars made to an emissary of then-president Carlos Menem for him to cover up Teheran's alleged role in the AMIA attack.

In his testimony, Mesbahi reiterated his charge, saying a "special envoy" sent to Iran by Menem, president of Argentina from 1989-1999, arranged the 10-million-dollar cover-up payment.

The money "was to go to the pockets of [ex] president Menem to halt the campaign" against Iran, Mesbahi said.

However, Mesbahi said he was not aware that the payment had actually been made. He tried to soften his statements saying everything about the payment had been told to him by a person who later died.

Mesbahi said he "had never in his life seen" Menem's alleged envoy. Mesbahi's testimony appeared to contradict what he said last year when he gave a detailed description of the alleged emissary.

Mesbahi said the AMIA center was targeted because the Iranian cultural envoy in Buenos Aires at the time, Moshen Rabbani, had information that it served as a base for the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad.

Mesbahi said it was Rabbani who hired the van used in the attack.

"It's a rule that in terrorist operations local sources of the chosen country can never be trusted. It is not possible that anyone who lived in Argentina was involved in or informed about the attack," Mesbahi said.

His testimony could favor Argentine defendants accused of preparing and handing in the vehicle used in the attack and of other details.

He said that after the attack, lobby groups were used in Argentina to block negative propaganda against Iran, which was of great concern for Teheran.

Iran must learn a lesson that it can no longer afford to be a state supporter of terrorism anywhere. Iran must be held accountable for all its actions internationally.

Iran, defiant and self-destructive, can change its course of heading down the same road as its neighbor and nemesis Iraq before it is to late to change its eventual fate!!!

Gary Fitleberg is a Political Analyst specializing in International Relations with emphasis on Middle East affairs.

Copyright © 2003 Gary Fitleberg

http://www.truthnews.net/world/2003110029.htm

Iran's nuclear ambitions spark growing domestic debate

Channel NewsAsia's
Iran Correspondent Roxana Saberi
11.10.2003

Tehran : Iran is waiting for a response from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is reviewing Tehran's nuclear programme.

The UN's nuclear watchdog says it will take a while to analyse documents handed over by Tehran, which are intended to prove Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful.

Meanwhile, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, debate is growing over the nation's nuclear ambitions.

These hardliners in the Iranian capital claim Reformists in their government are bowing to international demands.

They believe other countries will seize what they say is Iran's sovereign right to pursue nuclear technology.

This stance has led to tension within the international community, which wants Iran to spell out its position on the nuclear question.

The IAEA had given Iran until October 31st to clarify what is going on.

That deadline helped prompt Tehran to reach an agreement last month in Iran with the foreign ministers of England, France, and Germany.

Hassan Rohani, Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said: "Agreements between Europe and Iran will lead us to overcome the current tensions over Iran's nuclear matters."

At the time, Iran announced it will sign up to stricter international inspections of its nuclear sites and temporarily suspend its uranium enrichment programme key demands of the UN Nuclear Agency.

International pressure had grown after inspectors found traces of weapons-grade enriched uranium at two sites in Iran.

Tehran blames contaminated equipment it bought from abroad.

Under the deal, the European ministers agreed Iran can expect help with civilian nuclear technology it has been requesting.

Dominiqe de Villepin, French Foreign Minister, said: "This is a promising start in which everyone has to play his part."

If the IAEA decides Iran has not proven its peaceful nuclear intentions, it could refer Iran's case to the UN Security Council.

That could mean sanctions which has put Iran in a tight spot, squeezed by international pressure and a growing debate at home.

"What's clear is that Iran has surrendered, under international pressure. And they're losing a point," said one Iranian in Tehran.

"I think that our leaders used good diplomacy. And no, we can't interpret it this way that we have surrendered," said another.

Iran claims it is pursuing nuclear energy simply to meet the demands of its growing population.

But if the UN's nuclear watchdog agency finds otherwise when it meets on November 20th, the situation will likely intensify. - CNA

Copyright © 2003 MCN International Pte Ltd

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/middleeast/view/56501/1/.html

Iran accepts IAEA nuclear demands

Al Jazerra.net
Monday 10 November 2003, 16:43 Makka Time, 13:43 GMT

Under intense international pressure, Iran has temporarily halted uranium enrichment and will sign the additional protocol to allow snap nuclear inspections, an official said on Monday.

Hasan Ruhani, who handles Iran's nuclear affairs, told Russian President Vladimir Putin that the Islamic republic had agreed to the UN nuclear watchdog's conditions.

"Before your government I officially announce that today we are giving to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) a letter agreeing with the additional protocol.

From today we are temporarily suspending our process of uranium enrichment," Ruhani, the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told Putin.

The halting of uranium enrichment, a process to create material that can be used to make an atomic bomb, is one of a number of demands set by the IAEA for Iran to allay fears about its nuclear activities.

At a meeting with IAEA chief Muhammad ElBaradai on Saturday, Ruhani had promised to hand over the letters accepting the UN body's demands.

"They (the IAEA) gave us to understand that they had no further questions that Iran had not already answered," added Ruhani at his Kremlin meeting with Putin.

Putin's 'pleasure'

Putin responded that Iran had a right to a uranium enrichment programme, but was happy to hear news that it was being suspended.

"With regard to the enrichment of uranium, Iran has a right to carry out these kinds of activities but we note with pleasure that Iran has itself resolved to limit itself," Putin said.

By signing the key additional protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran allows snap inspections of its nuclear sites.

It would be a major step forward to solving a months-long standoff with the IAEA over its nuclear programme.

Despite US accusations that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, Russia is helping Tehran build an $800 million nuclear reactor in Bushehr. Iran says its atomic programme is entirely peaceful.

Putin added, "I do not see any obstacles to cooperating with Iran in the nuclear sphere."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79917BDC-A07B-4EAB-93C7-C12E751B299C.htm

OF MULLAHS AND THEIR NUKES

A deadly problem out of Iran

by Amir Taheri
NATIONAL REVIEW
November 10, 2003

Until last spring, it seemed as if Iran and the United States were moving toward a discreet dialogue designed to defuse more than two decades of antagonism. Now, however, with the release of fresh evidence that Iran may be pursuing nuclear weapons, tensions between the old adversaries have reached a new high.

Ask any official in Tehran and you will hear the same thing: Iran does not plan to manufacture nuclear weapons but wants to reserve the right to do so. This is almost word for word what the late shah told a group of scientists and officials in Tehran in 1970, shortly after Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. A few weeks later, the Iranian Atomic Agency was reorganized into a major government department headed by a deputy prime minister.

At the time, the shah's goal was to build 20 nuclear power stations over a ten-year period, producing a total of 30,000 megawatts of atomic energy. The reason was that Iran's energy consumption was expected to triple by the year 2000. At that rate, Iran would have been forced to use practically all of its oil output to generate electricity for domestic consumption, thus losing its single-largest source of foreign currency. The shah also invested in a new company, Eurodif, to find and market uranium in partnership with France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Gabon. (It was not until the late 1970s that uranium deposits were found in Iran itself, and thus Tehran initially looked to West Africa as a source of supply.)

By 1976, work on the first of the projected nuclear power stations had started at Bushehr, a peninsula on the Persian Gulf. The station was slated for completion in 1980. In 1977, research began at another nuclear power station at Dar-Khuywayyen, near Ahvaz, in the oil-rich province of Khuzistan. But in 1979, the shah's regime collapsed as Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini seized power in Tehran.

One of Khomeini's first acts was to scrap the entirety of the shah's grandiose modernization program — including the nuclear project. In 1983, a squadron of French heavy bombers attacked the Bushehr nuclear power station, damaging its abandoned infrastructure. The planes, painted in Iraqi colors, had been "lent" to Saddam Hussein by the French government and were flown by retired French and Belgian pilots. The raid was presented by then-president Saddam Hussein as retaliation for the destruction of the Iraqi nuclear power station at Osirak in 1981, though everyone knew that Osirak had been knocked out by Israeli Phantom jets painted in Iranian colors.

After Khomeini's death in 1989, his successors decided to revive the late shah's modernization programs. An inspection team dispatched in 1990 by the German company Siemens, which had started building the Bushehr plant before the revolution, reported that it could be revived and completed: Apparently the French pilots had not done as good a job at Bushehr as the Israelis had at Osirak.

Under pressure from Washington, however, the Germans quickly withdrew their offer to complete Bushehr. For almost three years, Iran shopped around, looking for partners to help finish the project. Russia agreed to help, in exchange for an $800 million contract. And so, by the year 2000, Bushehr was a bustling construction site. Nuclear power from Bushehr is scheduled to enter the nation's electrical network by March 2004.

The U.S. has alleged for some time that Iran has already begun manufacturing atomic bombs and may have up to ten such bombs by 2005. Until recently, international opinion was prepared to give Iran the benefit of the doubt, seeing Washington's position as "typical American bullying." A series of incidents has changed that view. Last March, satellite photos were released showing secret facilities linked to Iran's nuclear program. At one location near Natanz, close to the central Iranian desert, stands a sophisticated facility that produces high-speed centrifuges needed for enriching uranium. To produce a Hiroshima-sized bomb, it takes a maximum of 25 kilos of enriched uranium — for which 1,000 centrifuges are needed. It is estimated that the Natanz facility, when completed, will have the capacity to produce up to 5,000 centrifuges every year.

Even more interestingly, it appears that Iran wants to expand its nuclear options, limited currently to enriched uranium, to include the capacity to produce plutonium — a revival of the two-track strategy devised in the 1970s. To do this, Iran would need to produce heavy water. And the latest satellite photos and other intelligence material show that Iran has built a heavy-water facility at Arak, west of Tehran.

Both the Natanz and Arak facilities represent upper links in a chain of nuclear technology. The first link of that chain is raw uranium, which Iran discovered in the late 1970s in large quantities at Sarcheshmeh, near Kerman, and Magas, in Baluchestan. According to some estimates, Iran has one of the world's largest uranium deposits — large enough to satisfy the country's energy needs and to sustain any weapons programs it might wish to undertake for up to 200 years.

The middle link of the chain consists of nuclear stations like Bushehr, which — using uranium to produce electricity — also manufacture spent nuclear fuel, the raw material for enriched uranium. The highest link, of course, is a bomb-making factory, which Iran may or may not already have. One theory is that Iran will not build such a facility until it has accumulated enough enriched uranium and plutonium for a substantial number of nuclear warheads. Some experts believe that the go-ahead could be given as early as 2005. Others suggest slightly later dates, such as 2010.

As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is obliged to undergo inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Last summer, Iran's credibility was badly shaken when IAEA inspectors found traces of enriched uranium at one of the sites they visited. The Iranians could not explain the presence of special-grade enriched uranium in a country that does not wish to manufacture nuclear warheads. Things worsened when the IAEA was confronted with evidence of the existence of the Natanz and Arak facilities. The question had to be asked: If Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, why all the secrecy? Consider Arak. Heavy water has well-known civilian uses: If the production at Arak was entirely innocent, why did Iran choose to conceal its existence? IAEA director Mohamed El-Baradei asked Iran to explain the latest findings.

El-Baradei's plea was followed by a letter signed by the British, French, and German foreign ministers calling on Iran to cooperate with the IAEA and to sign an additional protocol to the NPT allowing impromptu inspections of all suspected sites. The European Union also intervened, promising Iran financial and technological aid for its energy project in exchange for an immediate end to all military-related nuclear programs. Failing that, the EU could employ economic and diplomatic sanctions. Ironically, Washington adopted a softer position: The Bush administration said it would be satisfied if Iran signed the additional protocol to the NPT.

Faced with the EU's surprisingly tough stance, the Iranian leadership met with the foreign ministers of Britain, France, and Germany in Tehran on October 21. The result was an announcement by Hasan Rowhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, that Iran would sign the additional protocol allowing unlimited access to inspectors. Furthermore, Rowhani announced that Iran would, for an "interim period," suspend uranium enrichment "to express its goodwill and create a new atmosphere of trust."

Whether the regime is prepared to alter its long-term nuclear strategy is still an open question. In nuclear policy, the Iranian leadership is facing its toughest dilemma in more than 20 years. On one hand, there is a strong desire to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons as a national deterrent: Iran is located in a rough neighborhood that includes at least five states with nuclear weapons. On the other hand, pursuing a nuclear program will isolate Iran, lead to new sanctions, and give the United States a pretext not only to destroy Iran's nuclear centers, but even to use a mixture of military and political pressure to topple the regime itself.

That fear is well grounded: Reports suggest that covert action could be used against Iran's nuclear installations. The U.S. has already recruited a number of Mujahedin Khalq elements in Iraq and won a pledge from their leader, Massoud Rajavi, to help with sabotage attacks inside Iran if necessary. If the U.S. and/or Israel were to strike areas in Iran, Tehran would be unable to retaliate except through Lebanese and Palestinian radical groups. The regime would appear weak and vulnerable, thus encouraging domestic opponents who dream of its overthrow.

Imagined as the ultimate weapon to ensure the safety of the mullahs' regime, Tehran's nuclear program is fast developing into a serious threat to the Islamic Republic itself.

Mr. Taheri is an Iranian author of ten books on the Middle East and Islam. He was executive editor of Kayhan, Iran's main daily newspaper, from 1972 to 1979

Email Benador Associates: eb@benadorassociates.com

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/644

Article from 7-7-03 Nat'l Review

The Anti-Mullah MUJAHEDEEN
Iraq’s Iranian opposition.

By Hussain Hindawi & John R. Thomson (7-7-03)

It's difficult to imagine a more indigestible aspect of the Middle Eastern maelstrom than one country's armed opposition hosted by its neighbor. But there is: when the reverse situation simultaneously applies; that is, when the armed opposition to the first host government is succored and supported by the neighbor.

Such is the case between Iran and Iraq. As Iran faces a widely popular revolution stimulated by its restive youth, and Iraq struggles to regain its civil footing, the situation threatens to further destabilize two already tottering societies.

Iran's nurturing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and its leader Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr al-Hakim has been anything but a one-way terror transaction. For the past 17 years, the most powerful opposition group to the mullahs, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, has been parked across the border in eastern Iraq.

The collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime removed the protected position of the Mujahedeen (a different set of guerrillas from the mostly Arab mujahedeen in Afghanistan) and has correspondingly ushered in new variables in the Iranian power struggle. What follows promises to be a bitter contest among the entrenched clerics of the Islamic Republic, the armed Mujahedeen opposition and the overwhelming majority of Iranians, led by their youth and encouraged by the United States.

America must weigh new strategic options vis-à-vis Iran, concerning its commitment to prevent establishment of an Islamist state in Iraq as well as reform or replacement of Tehran's terror-prone, autocratic ayatollahs. Some argue that America's democratic objectives would be furthered by allowing an Iranian opposition led by Massoud Rajavi, head of Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (literally, "The People's Struggle"), to play a role similar to the exiled Iraqi opposition, brought together under the umbrella of the "Iraqi National Congress." Whereas the INC had some claim to diversified legitimacy, the Mujahedeen's purported allied groups are mostly made up of paper organizations established by Massoud Rajavi, with titles but few players.

At the start of the invasion of Iraq, American forces had warned Mujahedeen-e-Khalq to disarm or be attacked. However, the ultimatum was withdrawn postwar, with announcement of a ceasefire that included the members of the group giving up their weapons, mostly supplied by Saddam Hussein, as well as their checkpoints (read, shakedown stations), in return for the Coalition allowing the Mujahedeen to remain temporarily in Iraq. The rebel group insisted it had reached "agreement, and not surrender" with the American forces, falsely implying an understanding of mutual interests between the two parties.

Massoud Rajavi's next objective: to persuade the U.S. State Department and the European Union to remove the undoubtedly terror-based group's name from their lists of terrorist organizations, a designation it richly deserves.

Founded in 1965 as a Marxist doctrinaire group with a Shiite religious veneer to gain support, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq participated in the 1979 overthrow of the shah of Iran. The group was subsequently expelled from the country, following bloody confrontations with the new government's forces that left thousands of Mujahedeen killed. The organization continued to confront the mullahs in Tehran, carrying out armed attacks and assassinations inside Iran at the height of Saddam's eight-year war with Iran, from bases in neighboring Iraq. These increased after the first election of Mohammad Khatami as president in 1997, but have reduced greatly in recent months.

Rajavi formed the Iranian Liberation Popular Army, which numbered perhaps 5-8,000 (vs. the publicly claimed 15,000) fighters, perhaps a third of them women. Most of its weaponry, including Soviet-made M-8 helicopters, tanks and mortar launchers, was handed over by the Iraqi army, which had seized it from Iranian forces during the 1980-88 war.

The government in Tehran has asked countries to hand over Mujahedeen-e-Khalq leaders for trial, promising to grant non-leadership cadres amnesty. Tehran has recently claimed the surrender of hundreds of Mujahedeen, but the group's spokesman has denied it.

Variously reported to be in France, Russia, or Jordan, Massoud Rajavi's precise whereabouts are kept purposely unclear, evidently owing to fears of Iraqi hostility towards him and his organization. Iraqis have long accused the Mujahedeen of participating with Saddam's Republican Guard in suppressing the Shia and Kurd uprisings in 1991, which Rajavi has denied but is undoubtedly accurate.

In an unusual move designed to broaden its weak base of support, one of several front groups controlled by Rajavi, the so-called National Council of Resistance in Iran designated his wife Maryam, president-elect of Iran in 1993. The resolution called for the longtime anti-shah and anti-mullah activist to be installed immediately following the overthrow of the current regime. (Rajavi had ordered Maryam's first husband, Mehdi Abrishamchi, to divorce her in 1987, to make way for what would be Massoud's third marriage "for the sake of the cultural revolution." Forced divorces, forced removal of children from their families, and old-fashioned brain washing are hallmarks of Rajavi's would be Stalinist operation.)

Recently arrested with 150 followers in Paris, Tehran contacts report Maryam Rajavi has as little domestic popular backing as the charismatic, corrupted Massoud. (Paradoxically, the French police action against Mujahedeen-e-Khalq had the double effect of mollifying the mullahs in Tehran and the Bush administration. This action coincided with a general move by Europe to re-align more closely with U.S. policy, very much unlike the Quai d'Orsay's sharply worded admonition to Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to court the Palestinians' corrupted president, Yasser Arafat, and not Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.)

Because of its cooperation with Iraq during the 1980-88 war and ongoing support for Saddam Hussein's hated regime — including the murder of thousands of fellow Shiite rebels — the entire Mujahedeen-e-Khalq movement has minimal strength in Iran. The Mujahedeen are particularly weak with dissident 20- and 30-somethings across the land, critical to any group's success with 60 percent of Iranians under the age of 25.

Nevertheless, in the Byzantine bypaths of Middle Eastern politics, Massoud, Maryam, and their Mujahedeen mates continue to fight twin battles: overthrow the regime in Tehran and gain recognition of Mujahedeen-e-Khalq as legitimate leaders of the opposition. To win either contest, they must first convince their countrymen that their newly professed belief in democracy is genuine. And that appears very unlikely, indeed.

— Hussain Hindawi is a native Iraqi historian, humanitarian, and journalist who currently serves as editor of United Press International's Arabic News Service. John R. Thomson has been involved in the Middle East since 1966 as businessman, diplomat, and journalist. This was written for UPI and is reprinted with permission.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hindawi-thomson070703.asp

IRAN GAVE IAEA OFFICIAL LETTER ON ADDITIONAL PROTOCOLS

MOSCOW-VIENNA 10 Nov. (IPS)

Iran submitted Monday to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the long awaited official letter stating that it had signed the Additional Protocols to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), opening the way for snap inspections of its nuclear-related installations by international inspectors.

"I officially announce that we are giving the International Atomic Energy Agency a letter agreeing with the Additional Protocol today", Hojjatoleslam Hasan Rohani, the powerful Secretary Iran's Supreme National Security Council announced in Kremlin, meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"From today, we are temporarily suspending our process of uranium enrichment", he added, as Iran’s Ambassador to IAEA, Dr Ali Akbar Salehi was giving the letter to Dr Mohammad el-Barade’i, the IAEA Egyptian Chief.

"Based on the voluntary measure, which is another step towards international confidence-building, the Islamic Republic of Iran would start suspending the process of uranium enrichment activities as of Tuesday 11 November", a source at Iran’s IAEA office confirmed.

Iran’s commitments, plus a report by report by IAEA inspectors capped by a letter from Mr. El-Bradeh’i would studied on 20 November by the 35 members of the Agency’s Board of Directors, deciding whether to call for international sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

As Iran handed over its official engagement to the IAEA, the British news agency Reuters quoted diplomats in Vienna saying that the U.N. nuclear watchdog will say it has found no signs of a secret atomic weapons program in Iran.

"They don't have any indications of a weapons program", a Western diplomat, who follows the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) closely, told Reuters.

Iran first accepted to sign the Additional Protocols after foreign affairs ministers of Britain, France and Germany travelled to Tehran on 20 October to warn Tehran that if it refuses to go along with IAEA demands, the United Nations’ Security Council could decide imposing harsh economic sanctions.

After the meeting Mr. Rohani, who is Iran’s chief negotiator, announced Iran’s acceptance of both the Protocols and also suspend its uranium enriching programs.

Mr. Rohani, who had travelled to Moscow on Sunday after meeting Mr. El-Brade’i in Vienna, described his talks with Russian President, Foreign Affairs Minister Igor Ivanov and Secretary of the Russian Security Council Vladimir Rushaylo as "quite fruitful", adding that the meeting focused on bilateral, regional and international relations between the two states as well as their nuclear cooperation.

Mr. Rohani repeated that Iran’s nuclear program is aimed towards peaceful purposes, observing the decision to sign the Protocol and suspend its uranium enrichment process temporarily had to do with its intention to build up the confidence of the international community in itself.

Moscow is assisting the Islamic Republic to build 1000 megawatts atomic-powered electric plant in the Persian Gulf city of Booshehr.

Quoted by the official news agency IRNA, the SNSC Secretary stated that Russia has promised to finish the Booshehr power station "the soonest possible" and that talks for a second unit were also "expected".

The present Booshehr project was to go into stream this year, but Russian experts now they say the plant would not produce electricity before 2005.

Iranian and western experts say with the world’s second largest proven gas reserves after Russia, Iran does not need nuclear-powered electricity stations.

On the issue of fight against international terrorism, Mr. Rohani, who is a close aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamneh’i, the leader of the Islamic Republic, confirmed that his country had arrested 500 members of al-Qa’eda and returned to them to their countries of origin.

Ivanov told reporters that Iran’s fight against terrorism, as demonstrated by the arrest of the al-Qa’eda operatives, was "a sign of good and close cooperation with other states", a reference to Washington and Israel’s allegations that Iran is after building an atomic arsenal.

In his view, Iran’s joining the Protocol and open up its nuclear projects ended the concerns of different countries and paved the way for launching cooperation in new fields.

Mr. Rohani handed over to Mr. Putin a letter from his Iranian counterpart, inviting him to visit Iran officially, an invitation that has been accepted, IRNA said. ENDS IRAN IAEA 101103

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2003/Nov-2003/iran_iaea_101103.htm