Iranian Alert -- November 25, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD

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 11/25/2003 12:02:02 AM PST by DoctorZIn

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 11/25/2003 12:04:17 AM PST by DoctorZIn

IRAN’S RULERS STRONGLY CRITICISED BY AHMAD SHIRZAD

By Safa Haeri

PARIS 24 Nov. (IPS)

As the United States and Britain, Germany and France reached agreement on a compromise draft resolution warning Iran to stop violating nuclear non-proliferation safety, a prominent lawmaker questioned the rulers on their choices and methods for acceding to nuclear technologies, triggering a bitter row in the Majles, or Iranian parliament.

The conservative minority and reformist majority clashed verbally on Monday after Mr. Ahmad Shirzad, a deputy from the central city of Esfahan strongly criticized the ruling hard liners for plunging the nation in isolation by having transformed the visage of the Islamic Republic from a "popular, peace-seeking, equalitarian and a society based on Justice into a hub for totalitarism, disdain of human rights, violence, supporter of international terrorism in quest of mass destruction weapons and cut from its people".

Members of the conservative minority interrupted loudly the outspoken Shirzad by shouting "monafeq (hypocrite) and "traitor" but the reformists defended him, criticising Hojjatoleslam Mehdi Karroobi, the Speaker of the House for accusing Mr. Shirzad to have been "more violent" in his criticism of the regime than the "Zionist (Israel) Radio.

"Those who, accused everyone of plotting against the regime, jailed students, intellectuals and journalists, killed) the Iranian-Canadian photographer) Zahra Kazemi in prison, put political prisoners in isolation for weeks and months, shut down newspapers one after another, issued dead verdicts at will must have been waiting for this day", said Mr Shirzad at the Majles open session.

"They (ruling conservatives) offered the imperialist and Zionist’s media the arguments for presenting Iran as an oppressive regime, that violates human rights, opposes freedom of speech and is anti-democratic", Mr. Shirzad continued, adding, among protests some of them plain curses, from the minority seats:

"The day when, naively though, they plunged their heads into the snow, drawing ambitious but aimless projects, chose the least convenient and the most illogical methods to reach nuclear technology, building a huge site fifty metres down underground to place in one of its corners a few centrifuge machines, they did not think that in case this well produce no technology, but would provide food to arrogant (western powers) media, claiming in their front pages that the Islamic Republic lied to the whole world for 19 years, causing an irreplaceable damage to our nation?" he added unabated by the noises.

To those among the deputies who objected to Mr. Shirzad’s remarks of the regime’s nuclear projects, Dr Mohammad Reza Khatami, the younger brother of the lamed President who is also the leader of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, the country’s bigger political organisation reminded that Mr. Shirzad is probably one of the few Iranians specialising in atomic questions.

"If there are three persons in Iran able to address atomic problem from a specialist point of view, Mr. Shirzad is undoubtedly one of them. However, I have to admit that his (Mr. Shirzad’s) speech was a little bit too biting", Mr. Khatami told the official news agency IRNA.

"The basic question is whether we need nuclear energy? The world is talking about this and inside the country; some have also their point of view. This is a serous issue. We must know how much progress we have made, how much we have paid and whether these two match. Surely one day we would have the answers, but for the time being, the question is out of order", he added, describing the atomic energy as a "most complex, economic and technical issue".

For her part, Mrs. Elaaheh Koola’i, a member of the Majles Foreign Affairs and Security Committee took aim at Mr. Karroobi, asking why should people’s representative be prevented from addressing national issues or criticising the regime’s decision-makers when they endanger the nation by possible faulty and questionable decisions?

"May be the literature I used was strong, but I firmly stand by every word I said", Mr. Shirzad told reporters at the Majles, as some political observers told Iran Press Service that they expect Mr. Shirzad be arrested on charges of "offending the regime’s senior leaders, activities against national security and raising issues banned by the authorities on public places".

In fact, Mr. Shirzad’s questions about Iranian nuclear projects touched a sensitive nerve as the subject is the centre of a bitter row at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) between Iran in the one hand and the United States on the other, with the European Union trying to be the in-between.

Washington and Israel -- both nuclear powers -- claims that Iran’s nuclear projects are "fronts" for reaching the atomic bomb, but Tehran insists that all its programmes are for civilian and peaceful purposes, mostly producing electricity, like the one that is under construction in the Persian Gulf port of Booshehr with assistance from Russia.

But Iranian and international experts say if this is the case, why not using the country’s huge natural gas reserves, the second largest in the world after Russia, a source of energy which is cheaper, easier to install and less dangerous than the ageing and risk-trodden technology imported from Russia?

In a report for the Vienna-based IAEA, international nuclear inspectors and experts said though Tehran was in breach of the Non Proliferation Treaty for having concealed from inspections uranium enriching installations and activities, yet they have found no evidence proving that it was using its ongoing nuclear programmes for military aims.

The report angered American delegates at the United Nations nuclear watchdog, questioning the credibility of the report in the one hand and found that a resolution worked out by Britain, France and Germany concerning Iran’s pledges to the IAEA was not "strong enough".

Though Iran had warned that it might reconsider signing the Additional Protocol if such a resolution is issued, but, and in order to prevent the row reaching the UN’s Security Council with the possibility of imposing harsh economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic, Iran backed off on the last minute, when Mr. Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA re-assured on Saturday that his country would sign and respect all the clauses in the Additional Protocols, which authorises UN nuclear inspectors to go to Iran at will and inspect any suspected site or project without slightest restrictions from the Iranian authorities.

The United States and Britain, Germany and France reached agreement on a compromise UN draft resolution warning Iran to stop violating nuclear non-proliferation safeguards, diplomats told the French news Agency AFP.

This is a resolution we can live with," a Western diplomat said of the text that balances the US call to condemn Iran for almost two decades of covert nuclear activities with the Europe’s big three demand that Iran be rewarded for cooperating with the UN nuclear watchdog since October.

After five days of intense discussions with US diplomats, the three main EU countries filed the draft late Monday evening with IAEA, which will discuss it on Wednesday, the diplomats said.

Mr Salehi told AFP his country was pleased with the draft resolution. "Iran is looking for a peaceful resolution of the issue and I think we are on the right track", he said.

ENDS SHIRZAD MAJLES SPEECH 241103

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2003/Nov-2003/shirzad_majles_speech_241103.htm

3 posted on 11/25/2003 12:05:35 AM PST by DoctorZIn

IRANIANS AWARDED THE JAN KARSKI MORAL COURAGE PRIZE

WASAW 24 Nov. (IPS)

Hashem Aqajari and Abbas Amir Entezam, two leading Iranian dissidents won the Jan Karski Award for Moral Courage, the Polish Institute announced on Monday.

Each year, the Foundation honours an individual who has exhibited moral courage through their actions on behalf of others with the Jan Karski Award for Moral Courage.

This award is named in honour of the late Jan Karski, a Polish diplomat during World War II, who risked his life to expose the tragic early years of the Holocaust and met personally with Roosevelt and Churchill to urge their intervention.

"The 2003 Award will be given to imprisoned Iranian dissidents Professor Hashem Aqajari and Abbas Amir Entezam at our 4th Annual Jan Karski Awards Celebration on November 25th at the Embassy of Poland in Washington, D.C.", the Warsaw-based Foundation said.

Professor Aqajari is an Iranian scholar whose calls for a progressive Islam respecting civil rights and separation of Church and State led to his imprisonment by authorities and a death sentence. Massive student protests led to this decree being lifted but he remains in prison. Mr. Abbas Amir Entezam, the longest-serving prisoner of conscience in Iran, has remained in jail for his repeated insistence upon a secular government in Iran.

On 10 October, the Norwegian Nobel Academy bestowed its prestigious Peace Award for 2003 to Iranian lawyer and human rights campaigner Shirin Ebadi, the first Iranian and Muslim woman to get the Prize.

The Foundation's inaugural award for Moral Courage was presented to Karski himself in 2000. The 2001 award was given to Congressman John Lewis for his actions during the Civil Rights Movement. The 2002 award was given posthumously to Father Mychal Judge who died while ministering to fallen firemen in the World Trade Center on September 11th.

In the absence of the two winners, the awards would be handed to Dr Abdolkarim Soroosh, an Iranian scholar and islamist reformist teaching now in Harvard University on behalf of professor Aqajari and to Ms. Elham, a daughter of Mr. Amir Entezam, in the presence of representatives from international human rights organisations like he London-based Amnesty International.

Also some Iranian scholars, including Mrs. Azar Nafisi, a professor at the John Hopkins University and Mrs. Mahnaz Afkhami, from Iranian Studies Institute in Washington D.C. and the President of the Jan Karski Foundation would address the ceremonies.

The foundation also sponsors an international juried film competition which bestows the Jan Karski Film Award each year to a filmmaker whose work documents an act of moral courage. In 2000, the Foundation honoured "School Prayer: A Community at War", by Slawomir Grunberg. In 2001, "A Force More Powerful" by Steve York was selected. Last year, the award went to "9/11" by Jules and Gideon Naudet and James Hanlon.

ENDS JAN KARSKI AWARD 241103

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2003/Nov-2003/iranians_win_jan_karski_award_241103.htm

4 posted on 11/25/2003 12:06:20 AM PST by DoctorZIn

US, Key European Countries Agree on Iran Nuclear Resolution

VOA News
25 Nov 2003, 05:49 UTC

The United States has reached an agreement with key European countries on a draft U.N. nuclear agency resolution condemning Iran's past deception concerning its nuclear program.
Diplomats said Monday that Washington had accepted a compromise, hammered out with Britain, France and Germany. It criticizes Iran for nearly two decades of deception but defers, at least for now, the question of referring the nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council.

The Bush administration had previously insisted that Iran's violations of international nuclear agreements were sufficient to merit a referral of the matter to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions. However, the draft resolution calls on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet immediately to consider all options if further violations of Iran's nuclear obligations are uncovered. It does acknowledge recent openness by Tehran, including a promise to visiting European foreign ministers last month to stop enriching uranium.

A recent IAEA report found that Iran secretly produced small quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium over 18 years.

The governing board of the U.N. nuclear agency is expected to consider the draft resolution when it resumes talks Wednesday in Vienna (Austria).

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=0D748159-1AFC-48BD-A8D8D4724EEF8F45

5 posted on 11/25/2003 12:07:03 AM PST by DoctorZIn

Iran's Nuclear Menace

NY Times
Published: November 25, 2003

The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency failed to agree last week on how best to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Britain, France and Germany favored a diplomatic approach that would encourage Iran to cooperate with the agency's inspectors while the United States pushed for a crackdown through the United Nations Security Council. Wisely, Washington has now backed down and will let the I.A.E.A. test how far Iran is willing to go. There is a struggle in Iran between those who want to cooperate with inspectors and hard-liners who seek a nuclear capability. It would be foolish to undercut the pragmatists.

Iran has long been suspected of nuclear weapons ambitions, but it came as a shock to learn in recent months that it has been pursuing a clandestine nuclear program for almost two decades. Thanks to tips from Iranian opposition groups, sharp sleuthing by I.A.E.A. inspectors and increasing pressure from Western powers, Iran was finally forced to admit that it had been pursuing both uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technologies, at a level of sophistication no one dreamed possible. The Iranians contended, implausibly, that these programs were designed for civilian nuclear fuel, but surely there would be no need to conceal and lie about them if they were truly benign. Some experts think Iran could make a bomb in a couple of years if it pressed ahead vigorously.

The three European powers achieved a breakthrough last month when Iran agreed to suspend its enrichment program, sign a protocol allowing tougher international inspections and resolve all questions raised by the I.A.E.A. Now the same three nations are supporting a resolution before the agency's board of governors that would chastise the Iranians for their past misdeeds but would focus on their recent change of attitude as a way to move forward with additional fact-finding and inspections. The United States, which had been pushing for referral to the Security Council, a path that could lead to economic sanctions, agreed yesterday to back off and let the allies' resolution prevail.

The only clear imperative is that Iran must be pressed to reveal all its nuclear activities, past and present, and cooperate wholeheartedly with international inspectors. That can best be done by allowing the I.A.E.A. to continue demanding answers. When the agency's board reconvenes tomorrow, it should pass a resolution condemning Iran's secret programs and demanding that Iran prove that its programs are peaceful. The resolution should include a trigger mechanism to force international action if Iran reverts to stonewalling or deception.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/opinion/25TUE2.html?ex=1070427600&en=9f6394ffaa111a3b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

6 posted on 11/25/2003 12:08:11 AM PST by DoctorZIn

U.S. Acquiesces to Allies on New Iran Nuclear Resolution

NY Times
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: November 25, 2003

ASHINGTON, Nov. 24 — The United States, bowing to the wishes of its allies, agreed Monday to let the International Atomic Energy Agency adopt a resolution deploring Iran's nuclear program without referring the issue to the United Nations for possible sanctions, administration officials said.

A senior administration official said the resolution, which could be adopted Wednesday in Vienna, would say that the atomic energy agency "strongly deplores" Iran's 18 years of secretly developing a nuclear arms program and hints that further actions might be possible if such activity continued.

Yielding to the insistence of France, Britain and Germany, the administration backed off its demand that Iran be condemned and that allegations of its misconduct be referred to the United Nations Security Council. The three European countries have joined in an unusual coalition to press Iran to cooperate.

Administration officials said that in the end, the United States had little choice but to go along not only with the wishes of its European allies, but also with the urging of the atomic energy agency's leadership, most notably its general director, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei.

The Europeans and Dr. ElBaradei argued that Iran's recent steps, including its announced suspension of its program to enrich uranium, warranted a conciliatory approach. Moreover, they said, confronting Iran would backfire, causing it to cut off any discussion.

"Getting Iran to acknowledge that it has cheated in the past and that it will cooperate in the future may not be everything the United States wants," a European diplomat said. "But to walk away from talking to Iran will block any chance of progress in the future."

On a visit to Washington last week, Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, also argued strenuously for keeping the dialogue with Iran open, telling reporters that it was better to reach out to the government in Tehran than to cut off the possibility of reducing tensions.

As part of the deal negotiated in Vienna, the United States got a clearer indication in the proposed resolution that "all bets are off" if Iran continues to flout the wishes of the world and presses ahead with making nuclear weapons, administration officials said.

"We're pleased that we were able to reach agreement on a text of a resolution," a senior administration official said. "It makes clear that if there are further failures by Iran, all options will be open. This takes care of our requirement to take full account of all of Iran's past breaches."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell negotiated the language over the weekend with senior envoys from Europe and with Dr. ElBaradei.

European diplomats said the negotiations had an unusual sense of familiarity, given the fact that in the months leading up to the war with Iraq, Dr. ElBaradei joined with France and Germany in demanding that Iraq be given more time to come clean on its illicit weapons programs.

Britain and the United States, working together, opposed them, in the end giving up on getting United Nations Security Council authorization for military action against Iraq.

Diplomats said the three European countries had sent a powerful message as Mr. Fischer joined with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, in arguing for talking with Iran.

At a time when American inspectors have still been unable to find evidence of the illicit arms programs in Iraq cited as a principal reason for going to war, the United States was dealing with the issue of Iran from a position of weakness, many diplomats involved in the matter said.

In Vienna last week, it was clear that after strenuous lobbying, Mr. Powell was unable to persuade more than 3 of the I.A.E.A.'s 35 board members — Canada, Australia and Japan — to go along with a formal censure of Iran that would refer the matter to the Security Council.

While traveling with Mr. Bush last week in Britain, Mr. Powell declared that the wording desired by others on the agency board was "deficient." Dr. ElBaradei argued, however, that a resolution that would keep talks with Iran going would be "a resolution that strengthens my hand."

It was no secret in the nuclear discussions that the Bush administration has itself been divided on the issue. Administration hard-liners contend that continuing discussions with Iran are a kind of trap that would allow Iran to play for time while pressing forward with its nuclear program in secrecy.

A similar argument within the Bush administration has raged over whether the United States should reopen its direct diplomatic contacts with Iran, shut down since May after bombings in Saudi Arabia were linked by some intelligence officials to groups operating in Iran.

It was unclear to what extent any action by the I.A.E.A. would lead to progress on curbing Iran's nuclear program. Even many officials who favor negotiating with Iran say they are pessimistic that Iran will ever give up its nuclear ambitions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/international/middleeast/25IRAN.html?ex=1070341200&en=fd343f8ebd80b268&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

7 posted on 11/25/2003 12:09:28 AM PST by DoctorZIn

US hopes to end Iran row

Gulf Daily News
Vol XXVI NO. 250
Tuesday 25 November 2003

VIENNA:

After days of deadlock, the US neared agreement last night with key European countries on how to balance condemnation of Iran's past nuclear transgressions with recognition of its newfound openness.

Word of progress by diplomats involved in the negotiations came two days before the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency was to resume a meeting adjourned on Friday to allow time to bridge the rift.

Going into the meeting yesterday, Washington had insisted it would hold out for at least a threat of Security Council action over 18 years of clandestine activities by Iran including uranium enrichment and plutonium processing that US officials say point to a nuclear weapons agenda.

Encourage

France, Germany and Britain put forward a draft resolution meant to encourage Iran to continue its stated commitment to open its nuclear programmes to stringent IAEA scrutiny.

That was rejected by Washington, leading to the deadlock. Negotiations were now focusing on a demand by the US that the implicit threat of Security Council action be mentioned in case Iran backslides. "It really depends now whether the Europeans accept such language," said one of the diplomats.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Articles.asp?Article=67622&Sn=WORL

8 posted on 11/25/2003 12:10:53 AM PST by DoctorZIn

Explosive New Bin Laden Evidence

Fox News
Monday, November 24, 2003

This is a partial transcript of Special Report with Brit Hume, November 20, that has been edited for clarity.

Watch Special Report With Brit Hume weeknights at 6 p.m. ET

BRIT HUME, HOST: One of the continuing mysteries of the war on terror is the whereabouts of Usama bin Laden (search). One person with extensive contacts in his -- in that part of the world, including sources within intelligence agencies in various nations is FNC foreign affairs analyst Mansoor Ijaz, who joins us tonight from London with information that may provide some answers. Mansoor, welcome. What have you found?

MANSOOR IJAZ, FOX NEWS FOREIGN AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, Brit, tonight I can report from my intelligence sources, I consider unimpeachable intelligence sources, that we have eyewitness accounts that both Usama bin Laden, in a modified, disguised form, as well as Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two in al Qaeda, are, in fact, in Iran.

They were sighted there. Bin Laden was sighted there in July of this year. You will remember that when President Pervez Musharraf (search) came to Washington on his state visit, he said without any hesitation that he had sent his own army into the northern tribal areas to try and ferret out...

HUME: That's Musharraf of Pakistan.

IJAZ: That's correct. And that was an extraordinary admission at the time, one that I could not understand how he could make if bin Laden, in fact, was still in that area. Well, it turns out that it was around that time that bin Laden moved from the Afghan-Pakistani border into Iran.

Now, Ayman Zawahiri has also been seen, as recently, according to my source, as recently as within the last 10 days in Iran planning and plotting various terrorist attacks, not just against U.S. interests, but against other countries as well.

HUME: Now Iran, of course, acknowledges none of this.

IJAZ: Yeah.

HUME: What are these -- you mentioned earlier that -- that bin Laden was in disguise. Do you know anything about what he now looks like?

IJAZ: Yes. Let me give you a brief description of both, what I've been told about bin Laden is that he has shaved his head bald. He is wearing a beard that is much more close to his face than it was before. He has changed the color of that beard so that it looks much more like that of an Iranian cleric. He has put on quite a bit of weight, from what I understand.

And I've been told that Ayman al-Zawahiri has done something similar, where he's now wearing instead of the white traditional turban that he wore as an Egyptian cleric, he is now wearing a black turban. He is wearing, again, a beard that is now dyed a dark color so that he looks more like an Iranian cleric than he does the way he did before.

HUME: And are these men believed to be together or staying apart from each other? What do we know about that?

IJAZ: Well, my understanding is that Zawahiri is moving around quite freely. The idea of the Iranian clerics was to keep bin Laden more in sort of the nebulous never-neverland, not letting him be seen very often.

It is also my understanding that the Revolutionary Guard of Iran has now arranged for at least three to four body doubles that are making their way around in different parts of Afghanistan and maybe even Pakistan, and visibly showing him at various times to see whether or not they can fool people into thinking he is somewhere else.

But I can tell you with unimpeachability tonight that he is on the western border of Iran, inside Iran, planning terrorist attacks against the United States' interests in that part of the world.

HUME: Now, why would the Iranian authorities, and indeed which Iranian authorities, why would they permit this?

IJAZ: Yeah. Shortly after -- I've been told that shortly after the terrorist attacks on September 11, the Iranians came to the conclusion that the United States would go after the Taliban (search), that there was going to be a problem with Iraq as well, and, therefore, they wanted to make sure that these democratic bookends that we were going to put around them, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, would be countered by their providing safe harbor and logistical support as well as finances for Al Qaeda to be able to operate freely from Iranian soil.

Now, that is precisely, exactly how it has unfolded. And I can also tell you tonight, excuse me, I can also tell you tonight that an Afghanistan warlord, who was one of the warlords in Afghanistan that controls the western seven provinces, he is now planning with Iran and with Al Qaeda to bring a large army of Revolutionary Guard people into Afghanistan during the winter months to attack U.S. interests there and try to take control of the entire country, because Iran does not want to see us succeed in building a democracy in Afghanistan under any circumstances.

HUME: Why would the winter months be chosen for such an undertaking? Wouldn't it be harder to travel into those -- into and through those mountainous regions?

IJAZ: It is if you are someone other than this Afghanistan warlord, who knows those areas very well and who would now have enormous logistical support from the Iranian army that has to patrol those areas on its own. In other words, Iranian technology is now being used to help the Afghan warlords to take over the country from Hamid Karzai (search).

HUME: This is obviously explosive, extraordinary information, Mansoor.

IJAZ: Yes. Yes.

HUME: What level of any of knowledge does the U.S. government have of any of this?

IJAZ: Well, Brit, I think the way I have to put that is that it is probably likely that certain segments of our government have this information, that they are analyzing and processing this information. But it was my judgment that it was vitally important for the broader part of our government's decision-making apparatus to know exactly what it is that's going on there, because it's very clear that the Iranians are trying desperately to not only hang on to power, but to fuel the terrorist enterprise in that part of the world.

HUME: Well, it is striking information, Mansoor. Just quickly, one last question. You are absolutely confident of your sources?

IJAZ: I can just tell you that the source is unimpeachable. It is from inside Iran. These are eyewitness accounts. They are from the intelligence framework. No question about it.

HUME: All right, Mansoor Ijaz, thanks very much.

IJAZ: Thank you.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103948,00.html

9 posted on 11/25/2003 12:11:55 AM PST by DoctorZIn

To: ALOHA RONNIE

ping: Ijaz repeats claim that bin Laden has been in Iran.

10 posted on 11/25/2003 12:34:08 AM PST by risk

"Amman tries to mediate between Iran, US"

IranMania
Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - ©2003 IranMania.com

Amman, Nov 25, IRANMANIA -- According to Iran's State News Agency the Jordanian weekly 'Al-Hadith' in its latest edition published this week claimed that Jordan has volunteered to mediate, aimed at "solving the lingering Iran-US troubled relations."

Al-Hadith added, "The issue was first raised during Jordan's King Abdullah II's state visit in Tehran during his talks with some Iranian authorities.'

The Jordanian weekly has also quoted unidentified political sources in Beirut and Damascus that during the Jordanian monarch`s meeting with the US President George W. Bush two months ago, the two heads of state exchanged viewpoints on Iran`s nuclear programs.

Iran and the United States severed political ties in 1979 following the capture of the US Embassy in Tehran by revolutionary students calling themselves Students Following Imam's (Imam Khomeini) Path.

Jordan's Foreign Minister Marwan Muashar in a meeting with President Mohammad Khatami in Tehran on Sunday delivered the written message of Jordanian King Abdullah II.

Upon return to Damascus, Muashar termed his two-day visit to Iran and his meeting with President Khatami as "very positive and valuable".

Jordan's Foreign Minister arrived in Tehran on Saturday and held separate meetings with high-ranking Iranian officials including President Mohammad Khatami and his Iranian counterpart Kamal Kharrazi.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=20034&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

11 posted on 11/25/2003 1:39:05 AM PST by DoctorZIn

Tehran's EU Bluff

By Peter Brookes
New York Post | November 25, 2003

With $8 billion a year in trade and a deal pending to up that ante even more, the European Union is Iran's largest trading partner. And it appears that the E.U. - led by France, Germany and Britain - may now value those trade privileges over the principle of opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reported recently that Iran had secretly manufactured small amounts of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium - violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Further, the report noted, Tehran had deliberately hidden the evidence from the IAEA for almost two decades.

The E.U. reaction? It wants to give Iran a chance to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. Figure the odds of that happening.

Specifically, the European Union opposes a get-tough U.N. resolution on Iran's nuke program, discussed last week at the IAEA meeting in Vienna. (The talks were so divisive; they will continue again this week starting Wednesday.)

Secretary of State Colin Powell warns that the Europeans are being too lenient with the Iranians. He wants Iran's nuclear transgressions referred to the U.N. Security Council for action, including possible economic sanctions.

Clearly, the E.U. has no stomach for another diplomatic showdown on the scale of Iraq for the moment. But if the international community fails to take tough action now against Iran, Tehran will join the nuclear club before you can say "ayatollah."

How? Here's a dirty little secret from the rogue regime playbook: The U.N.'s Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) has a dangerous loophole. Under the guise of a peaceful, civilian nuclear energy program, a state can openly develop - right under the nose of the IAEA - most of what it needs for a nuclear-weapons program. It worked for North Korea and it's working for Iran today.

On this side of the Atlantic, heart palpitations are in order when contemplating nukes in the hands of a regime that is:

* The world's most active state sponsor of terrorism,

* Bent on the destruction of the United States and Israel, and

* Aspiring to dominance in the Persian Gulf.

But E.U. hearts appear unfluttered by all that. The top concern of Europe's leaders seems to be preserving - and expanding - lucrative trade relationships with Tehran.

Iran has the world's third-largest oil reserves. So far, European firms have invested $10.5 billion in those fields. But 50 percent to 70 percent of the profits from those investments - everything the investors don't collect -go directly to Tehran's treasury.

From there, the money funds such nefarious activities as political repression, acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological) and terrorism - most often directed against Israel.

But back to Iran's nukes. Only a united international front can contain the mullah's atomic efforts. If we don't address Iran's nuclear ambitions with vigor and verve, we'll end up in the same situation we have today with North Korea, where a nasty regime possesses nasty weapons.

If the international community is serious about preventing the spread of the world's most dangerous weapons, here's what it must do in the short-term:

* The 35-member IAEA should declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and forward the resolution to the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) for action.

* The UNSC should set strong terms for compliance, including no-notice inspections and intrusive monitoring.

* Any Iranian noncompliance should trigger immediate multilateral U.N. economic sanctions.

* The E.U. must freeze its pending trade pact with Iran until Tehran demonstrates - not just promises - that it no longer seeks to become a nuclear power.

If Iran has, indeed, decided to come clean on its "peaceful" (ha!) nuclear program, sanctions and other confrontational moves may not be required - over this issue.

But even so, Iran's trading partners should stop closing their eyes to the deeds that commerce with Iran is supporting, and adjust accordingly. Because giving each other the runaround on Iran, isn't in anyone's interest - except Tehran's.

Peter Brookes, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, is a senior fellow for National Security Affairs at The Heritage Foundation.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10980

12 posted on 11/25/2003 1:41:30 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

They will imprison him.

13 posted on 11/25/2003 1:56:35 AM PST by F14 Pilot

To: DoctorZIn; McGavin999; freedom44; nuconvert; Eala; AdmSmith; dixiechick2000; onyx; Pro-Bush; ...

Iran's Upcoming Elections Up for Grabs

by Siamak Namazi
Tuesday 25 November 2003
Media Monitors Network

"The forthcoming parliamentary elections, in short, are up for grabs. Plenty of evidence indicates that Iranians are frustrated with the inability of the reform movement to overcome conservative stonewalling; indeed, this is a major reason why voter participation plummeted in 2003."

So confident are Iranian conservatives three months before the country's February 20, 2004 parliamentary elections that, in the words of one right-wing strategist, they have stopped talking about how to beat reformist candidates and begun to plan "how to run the nation." Conservatives believe that victory next February will precede an even larger triumph in the presidential election of 2005. Their optimism, which finds glum echoes in Western analysts' predictions of a conservative takeover, is misplaced. It is too soon to call the outcome of the February vote, and too soon to conclude, as Washington hawks may have done, that Iranians' hopes for peaceable reforms are doomed.

Iranian voters have shocked the pundits before, notably when they delivered a landslide for President Mohammad Khatami in 1997. Back then, it was taken for granted that Khatami's conservative opponent, Ali Akbar Nateq Nouri, the favored candidate of the regime, was a shoo-in for the post. Four years later, even Khatami's campaign managers were surprised when 22 million Iranians -- turning out in numbers far exceeding predictions -- gave him an overwhelming second popular mandate.

The prognosticators' crystal balls proved foggy before the February 2003 nationwide municipal elections as well. While most expected a serious drop in voter turnout, almost no one imagined that so few (10 to 15 percent of eligible voters) would exercise their franchise in the major cities. Fewer still, not even the conservatives, dreamed that the reformists would be swept out of their seats on city councils, including in the capital, Tehran. As that election day drew near, a hard-line conservative daily ran a cartoon showing hoof marks leading to the city council building -- in mockery of the politicians they expected to be running it. But, for many reasons, it is premature to bandy about the results of these local council elections, considered proof of Iranians' declining faith in voting, as the model for the upcoming parliamentary elections.

Past Patterns, Present Questions

In the years since the 1979 revolution, Iranians have gone to the polls in large numbers. The lowest turnout in a parliamentary contest, elections for the First Majles (Assembly) in 1980, was 52 percent. During the last parliamentary elections in 2000, a time when hope for change ran high, approximately 70 percent of voters took part. The presidential race of 1997 brought out even bigger chunks of the electorate.

First-ever local council elections in 1999 attracted 60 percent of eligible voters. But the 10 percent discrepancy between this rate and the next year's parliamentary turnout is generally attributed to the disdain of some conservatives for the local councils as a reformist project and, perhaps even more, to the greater importance of parliamentary elections. Even in the local council elections of February 2003, close to half of the electorate cast a ballot on a national basis. It was in the major cities (which make up a quarter of the total population) where participation was alarmingly low. Only 11 percent of eligible voters showed up in Tehran, with slightly larger percentages voting in other cities, helping the conservative candidates to win. Outside urban areas, however, reformists maintained a majority in local councils, though they often lost seats. Might the low urban turnout presage a new, long-term national trend?

Past patterns show that people in the provinces vote in accordance with personal, ethnic, tribal and family affiliations. In Majles elections, provincial voters also want to send powerful local representatives to the capital to lobby the central bureaucracy for resources. In the past, these factors boosted national turnout at times when participation in major cities was low. But as seasoned social scientists have pointed out, residents of provincial areas also tend to emulate the behavior of people in larger cities, especially Tehran. It appears that at least some residents of smaller cities were surprised that Tehranis boycotted the local council elections to such a large extent. At this point, it is unclear which of these tendencies will play a greater role in the coming Majles elections. Will provincial voters continue to come to the polls to make sure their local interests are addressed in the capital, or will many of them choose to copy Tehrani abstention from voting?

Adding to the unpredictability, Iran boasts one of the youngest populations in the world, with roughly two thirds (and counting) of its people under 30, as well as one of the lowest voting ages. Men and women aged 16 and over are allowed to take part in national elections. Every year, the preferences of younger Iranians become more and more instrumental in determining the overall results. The young flocked to voice their preferences in the two presidential elections of 1997 and 2001, as well as in the 2000 parliamentary elections, when they helped to ensure the reformist bloc's margin of victory. But there are no surveys that predict how Iranian youth would vote, or even if they will vote, come February 2004.

On the other side of the argument, some analysts maintain that the low turnout in the local council elections is due mainly to voter disillusionment with those institutions' poor performance in major cities. Proponents of this theory are hopeful that Iranians feel differently about the parliament's performance. While they expect a part of the population to drop out -- mainly those who generally did not take part in national elections until they found hope in the person of Khatami and his reformist supporters -- they are confident that the bulk of those who voted before 1997 will show up next February. Turnout, however, is not the only uncertainty for the parliamentary reformists.

The Reform Camp's Challenge

Four years after the peak of their energy in advance of the 2000 Majles elections, the reformists find themselves on the defensive. They are trying to withstand the attack of the conservatives while battling growing dissent within their own coalition and popular disappointment with their lack of achievements to date. The Second of Khordad Front -- as the reformist bloc in Parliament is known -- is definitely not as unified as it was in 2000. Internal disagreements about the scope of reforms and how strongly and radically to stand against the onslaught of the conservatives have played a big part in bringing about the divisions. If the reformists have not articulated a clear strategy in the current campaign, this may be why.

But the reformers also learned during previous campaigns that broadcasting their strategy loud and clear for their opponents to hear is not wise. During the 2000 race, the conservative Guardian Council -- an unelected body that has the power, under the Iranian constitution, to block bills passed by the Majles -- threatened to subject the majority of reformist candidates to an ideological vetting process. The reformists retorted that they would flood the ballots with hundreds of candidates, so that no matter how many were disqualified by the Council, the voter would still have plenty of choices to pick from. Thus forewarned, the Council did the opposite of what they had promised, rejecting very few reformist candidates, hoping that the abundance of choice would split the vote.

More importantly, the reformists are increasingly concerned about conservative surveillance of their strategy sessions. Mohammad Reza Khatami, leader of the reformist party Mosharekat and the president's brother, was quoted in the Iran newspaper saying that "we see among ourselves that all of our meeting rooms are bugged and all of our members are followed... This situation necessitates that we do not announce all that we want to do in advance." Despite the secrecy, the main components of the reformists' strategy are easily identifiable in their speeches and articles. Perhaps their greatest achievement has been to convince many within the conservative camp that the fate of the regime is bound up with attendance at the polls next February.

The National Security Debate

The syllogism the reformists have used is not hard to understand. The hawks in Washington and Tel Aviv, they argue, believe that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a house of cards. Iranians are so frustrated with the regime, the hawks calculate, that, with a bit of encouragement, they will rise up and dispose of clerical rule. Hence, the "external enemy" can be expected to continue exerting pressure to keep the regime on a crisis footing, while sending messages of support for the Iranian people's fight for freedom and democracy. But if voter turnout in 2004 and 2005 is high, the reformists' logic continues, the Washington hawks are bound to be discredited, and the White House will be more likely to adjust its stance toward engagement and dialogue.

The reformists' political opponents, therefore, face a challenge in deciding where their best interest lies. A dramatic fall in voter turnout will favor the conservatives' electoral chances; the last local council elections proved that they can count on their supporters to show up, while the reformist voters stay home. Nevertheless, editorials in the major conservative papers and comments by politicians affiliated with that camp show that the reformists have succeeded in convincing a number of key players of their viewpoint.

Taha Hashemi, an editor of the moderate conservative paper Entekhab, thought to be close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, puts it this way: "If the world faces a regime whose most important election -- the parliamentary elections -- has little public backing, it will make all efforts to settle its scores with that regime." He continues: "Some incorrectly believe that appeasing America and expediting discussions whose outcome is not known could save us from this situation. But this is wishful thinking because [the Americans] will not talk to us from an equal position based on respect." Khamenei's own statement in October is the best evidence for the reformists' success in emphasizing the importance of mass participation. "What is important to me in the first place is the people's presence in the elections," he said, adding, "who makes it to the parliament is in second place."

The Extent of Vetting

Perhaps less successfully, the reformists have gone on to contend that voters will turn out if the elections are free and fair, an attempt to convince the Guardian Council not to vet their candidates en masse. This is a tough sell. After Khatami came to power in 1997, many conservatives regretted having allowed him to run in the first place. When it came time for the 2000 Majles elections, once again some right-wing strategists were upset that their camp had barred the candidacies of a mere 8 percent of those who wanted to run. The expectation is that the conservatives will not repeat this "mistake" come February, particularly since low levels of vetting would not guarantee an increased turnout. Conservatives may recall that local council elections in February 2003 were described as the "freest ever" nationwide vote in Iran. Candidates from "outsider" and dissident groups, including the national-religious supporters, were allowed to try their luck. But they were not successful in winning seats, or in enticing large numbers of Iranians to the voting booth.

The reformists reply that while people stayed home when vetting was at a minimum, they may be further discouraged if the conservatives block more candidates from entering the races. Despite these reformist efforts at persuasion, the Guardian Council and the reformist-controlled Interior Ministry are already sparring over their respective spheres of authority over candidacy, before formal campaigning has even started.

Re-forming The Reformist Bloc

Expanding rifts among the 18 political groups and factions that comprise the reformist bloc pose another major challenge to leaders trying to craft a unified strategy in advance of the upcoming elections. Three main voices are audible. "Radicals," such as the Participation Front and the Islamic Revolution Mojahedin Organization, have threatened to boycott the elections, loath to appear stymied by the conservatives before their constituents. "Moderates," led by the main clerical reformist faction -- Majma' Rohaniyoun-e Mobarez (MRM), which includes Majles Speaker Mehdi Karrubi and President Khatami -- have advocated reasoning with the right to get the best deal possible. Finally, "right of center" groups, mainly the Executives of Construction, are pondering a break with the reformists, in favor of either independence or coalition with moderate conservative factions. Meanwhile, student associations, who appear disillusioned with the reformist front and tired of being labeled too radical, are threatening to abstain from voting entirely.

For their part, the conservatives are doing their best to widen the chasm among the reformists. At the peak of the debate between the radical and more conciliatory reformist groups in the early autumn of 2003, right-wing newspapers spread a rumor that the MRM is contemplating a new coalition with its conservative clerical counterparts. The conservatives are apparently also trying to tempt the Executives of Construction to switch sides.

Yet, as February 20, 2004 draws closer, it appears that many reformists are putting their differences on hold. Khatami and Karrubi convened a series of joint meetings with members of the Second of Khordad Front, with the president promising to endorse a joint slate of candidates if his supporters could produce one. The more radical reformers, meanwhile, concluded that, despite structural obstacles to their agenda, they must remain in control of major institutions such as Parliament. "After much debate, that [consensus] even included peripheral groups," explained a member of the Mosharekat faction. "We kept playing out the scenarios, and realized that, although it is a choice between bad and worse, staying in the scene is the better option. Even if we cannot change things at the pace that the people want, we can at least parry some of the blows of the hardliners, and keep inching forward towards reforms."

Despite this tendency toward conciliation, the reformists are holding in reserve a number of wild cards should their rivals take things too far. There are rumors, for example, that President Khatami might request that the presidential elections be held a year early, to coincide with the Majles elections. Such a drastic move, which would be tantamount to resignation, is unlikely given the moderate cleric's past behavior. But if implemented, it would create a substantially different atmosphere for the February 2004 vote.

Past Mistakes, Present Options

With the "stay or quit" debate largely over, the reformists are focusing their attention on how to induce the Iranian people to come out and vote for them. They say they have learned from past mistakes, and that their days of taking voters for granted are over. As prominent reformist MP Fatemeh Rakaei put it, "One of the reasons for the loss in the [February 2003] councils elections goes back to ourselves, since we thought people would participate and the reformists would get votes. Since we were very confident about this, we did not...invest in the elections in the way that was necessary." Former deputy interior minister Mostafa Tajzadeh, who was forced out of office after standing firm against the Guardian Council's vetting authority in previous elections, added that, "our problem in this round in not disqualification.... Our worry is about people's participation, particularly in big cities."

To drum up support, the reform camp is trying to reestablish lost ties with other groups, mainly university students and national-religious figures. The recent "political fast" movement -- wherein major reformist figures fasted in support of political prisoners -- represents one aspect of this strategy. The fasts, which started before Ramadan and extended throughout the Muslim holy month, were often held at universities, where a star-studded cast of reformist leaders delivered political speeches after the breaking of the fast at sunset.

Second, the reformist leaders admonish prospective voters that boycotting the elections can only result in a conservative resurgence, hence risking a return to the more closed public space of the pre-Khatami days. The reformists point to the program of Tehran's new hard-line mayor, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who has cracked down on the formerly liberal granting of concert licenses and apparently plans to close down many cultural centers in favor of Qur'an recitation halls. The people's choice, like that of the more radical reformers, might be between bad and worse, but keeping the reformist faction in power at least offers limited hope and requires minimum energy: simply turn out and vote.

The message itself could be an effective one, particularly if councils in conservative-controlled cities persist in implementing policies that are unpopular with the youth. Nevertheless, the reformists have not always framed this argument in an appealing manner. Reformist MP Behrouz Afkhami, for example, recently claimed that Tehranis deserve their hard-line mayor because they were "too lazy" to vote. As one Tehran resident commented, "While I understand the argument, and frankly I am undecided whether or not to vote at all in February, if another reformist speaks like that again, I can assure you there is no way I would vote for them. I would just stay home."

Up for Grabs

On the other side, the conservatives are doing more than talking like winners. Expecting a higher turnout and hence a tougher race outside the major cities, the conservatives are discussing the option of fielding their more prominent, "brand-name" candidates in the provincial areas. In larger cities, the right wing will likely rely on new faces promising to concentrate on issues affecting the day-to-day lives of voters, such as job creation and the nation's worn-out infrastructure, rather than esoteric notions of democracy and freedom of speech.

There are also rumors that military leaders affiliated with the right-wing faction will enter their names in the Majles elections. Perhaps the conservatives believe that Iranians will view military men as strong, disciplined politicians who can cut through bureaucratic red tape. The reformists are crying foul, reminding their opponents that the constitution expressly bans the presence of the military in politics. Of course, a commander who quits his post by a certain date is legally allowed to run. But, warn the reformists, such a commander might instruct subordinates to transport his former troops to the polls -- giving himself a built-in electoral advantage.

The forthcoming parliamentary elections, in short, are up for grabs. Plenty of evidence indicates that Iranians are frustrated with the inability of the reform movement to overcome conservative stonewalling; indeed, this is a major reason why voter participation plummeted in 2003. If recent voting patterns hold, in February 2004 the conservatives might be able to secure most seats in about ten major cities. Still, the reformists have a fair chance of winning a majority of seats in the rest of Iran. The Seventh Majles could therefore be more pluralistic, with more factions represented and more independent MPs, but the reformist bloc would retain its voice in the legislature. Yet the addition of millions of newly eligible voters each year and the tendency for Tehran to be a model of behavior for other parts of the nation are enough to cast doubt on the reliability of previous elections as an indicator of future results.

Meanwhile, although a heated factional fight continues, the state as a whole has concluded that its security is tied to its ability to attract citizens to the voting booth. Each camp is devising a strategy to take over the next parliament through analyzing their past successes and failures, but the Iranian voter remains elusive and hard to predict.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/2418/

14 posted on 11/25/2003 3:16:30 AM PST by F14 Pilot

15 posted on 11/25/2003 7:34:42 AM PST by blackie

Iran May Supply Hezbollah long-range Rockets

November 25, 2003
Amos Harel
Ha'aretz

Iran has recently made efforts to boost the range of the short- and medium-range rockets that it produces, sparking fears in Israel that Tehran may ship the improved rockets to Hezbollah for deployment in south Lebanon.

The rockets in Hezbollah's current arsenal have a range of some 75 kilometers. If fired from locations near the northern border, they could hit targets as distant as Haifa and beyond. According to some assessments, the northern town of Hadera could also be within the current range of the rockets.

In the Gaza Strip, meanwhile, Hamas recently tested a new, longer-range model of its Qassam rocket, which could place the city of Ashkelon within range.

The range of the new Qassam is expected to reach 17 kilometers - seven kilometers longer than the range of the old Qassam 2.

In ceremonies marking Jerusalem Day, observed in Iran as well as by Tehran's allies abroad, pro-Iranian Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah warned Friday that his organization would strike deep within Israel in response to IDF attacks in Lebanon.

After Israeli troops withdrew from south Lebanon in May, 2000, Iran supplied thousands of rockets to Hezbollah, some of which were deployed near the border. The longest-range rockets now in Hezbollah's arsenal have a 200 kilogram warhead.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=364906&contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

16 posted on 11/25/2003 9:27:36 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

US and EU in Deal Over Iran Nuclear Crisis

November 25, 2003
The Guardian
Ian Traynor

The US and the three leading EU nations reached a deal last night threatening Iran with instant referral to the UN security council if it is found in further breach of its international nuclear obligations.

After a week of the worst transatlantic row so far over the Iranian nuclear crisis and repeated failed attempts to agree a common formula on how to respond to the issue, a resolution drafted by Britain, Germany and France was presented to the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna late last night, a form of words that should be adopted at a board meeting in Vienna tomorrow.

The statement was to have been issued last week, but the board meeting was adjourned last Thursday because of the deep differences between Washington and the Europeans. Frantic efforts to resolve the impasse failed and the meeting was postponed until tomorrow.

While the compromise draft tabled last night omits to mention the UN security council or the key word "non-compliance", it does contain a legalistic formulation that is understood, certainly by the Americans, to trigger automatic referral to the council if there is future evidence of Iranian "wrongdoing." "There could still be a huge dogfight," said a diplomat. "But on future wrongdoing, the board will meet immediately. This is something that everyone has agreed to."

Last night's resolution was the third European attempt to present a form of words that could satisfy the tough US position. The IAEA chief, Mohammed ElBaradei, has found that the Iranians have been in breach of their nuclear obligations for 18 years, enabling the Americans to insist that Tehran should be reported to the security council in New York.

But last month in Tehran the EU troika sought to defuse the crisis by, among other things, assuring the Iranians that they would not be reported to the security council.

The IAEA board has met three times since June to ponder its response to increasingly graphic evidence of an alleged covert nuclear bomb programme in Iran and over the past week the transatlantic gulf over how to react has yawned wide, with Britain siding with the continental Europeans against the Americans.

The compromise in effect lets Iran's bygones be bygones, the European preference, while pledging a quick and tough reaction to any future misconduct, the US demand.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1092628,00.html

17 posted on 11/25/2003 9:28:53 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

'All the Shah's Men' shows how Iran coup still reverberates

By Charles A. Radin
The Boston Globe
Review

Stephen Kinzer's new book, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, about the CIA-sponsored coup that overthrew the government of Iran in 1953 has everything a good novel of espionage and international politics should have -- conspirators in high places, spy masters in the shadows, and a convincing, colorful cast of supporting actors.

But All the Shah's Men is not fiction. Rather, it is a careful journalistic reconstruction of perhaps the most profound decision U.S. policy-makers have ever made regarding the Middle East, a decision that set the stage not just there but in Asia and Africa as well for a sea change in perceptions of the United States.

Before the CIA arranged the removal of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, the United States was loved in much of the underdeveloped world as a defender of freedom and self-determination.

After the coup and the succession of similarly rationalized and ultimately disastrous interventions it inspired in Latin America, the Congo, and Vietnam, the United States is widely despised as an arrogant defender of rapacious and racist corporate interests.

Kinzer, a New York Times reporter whose previous book dealt in great breadth and depth with modern Turkey, goes deep again here, but keeps a razor-sharp focus on the plot. It is a good choice, for the result is fast-reading, thought-provoking prose with great contemporary relevance.

President Eisenhower wondered aloud, just before he let himself be convinced that the coup was necessary to protect national security, why it was not possible "to get some of the people of these downtrodden countries to like us instead of hating us." It's a question that has become one of the most frequently posed since Sept. 11.

All the Shah's Men supplies some answers.

The similarities in rationalizations regarding Iran in 1953 and Iraq a half-century later are scary. Power-seeking Iranians then, like certain Iraqis before the recent war, convinced American policy-makers of what they wanted to be convinced: that it would be "impossible . . . to remove the present government by their own efforts."

Of course, 25 years after the coup, Iranians proved entirely capable of routing the shah and his American supporters, despite the fact that the shah had infinitely more military and police power than Mossadegh ever dreamed of.

What distinguishes All the Shah's Men from a raft of unreadable foreign-policy tomes is that Kinzer does not preach. He tells a gripping story, and the morals emerge organically.

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Nov/11252003/tuesday/114234.asp

18 posted on 11/25/2003 9:31:47 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

Thanks for being with us.

19 posted on 11/25/2003 9:43:36 AM PST by F14 Pilot

Thanks for the ping!

20 posted on 11/25/2003 9:56:24 AM PST by Alamo-Girl

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794