Iranian Alert -- December 11, 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 12/11/2003 12:06:58 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 12/11/2003 12:09:33 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

I just received this from our friends at activistchat.com about the student whose picture appears on my DoctorZin webpage.

http://www.freerepublic.com/~doctorzin/

Ahmad Batebi & his friend are in grave DANGER!!!! from

http://web.peykeiran.com/net_iran/irnewsbody.aspx?ID=9827

According to a published statement from the United Student Front (Jebhe Motahed e Daneshjooyee), the regime is preparing a case against Ahmad Batebi, and they have severely beaten and tortured a friend of Ahmad Batebi's by the name of Arjhang Davoodi.

The statement reads, " Mr. Arjhand Davoodi who is a friend of Ahamd Batebi, has been severely beaten during torture and may have gone blind in his left eye as a result. Arjhang Davoodi who was arrested alongside Ahmad Batebi is currently in solitary confinement inside of Evin prison where he is under severe physical and psychological pressure.

The special investigators assigned to this case have sworn to get confessions from both Arjhang Davoodi and Ahmad Batebi before they are done. Batebi who is currently very ill in Evin prison has requested medical care, but he has been told that he will not receive any medical care unless he cooperates, and if he dies they will blame it on his illness. Batebi is accused of membership in illegal groups, and he has accepted this charge in a letter written from inside Evin prison. The officials are trying to get Batebi and Davoodi to sign other false statements by threatening and pressuring them.

Note: Evin prison is Iran's most notorious political prison."

3 posted on 12/11/2003 12:18:40 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

Here is a photo of Ahmad Batebi. He was imprisoned after this photo was taken at a protest (1997) and he is still in prison.

4 posted on 12/11/2003 12:20:55 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

Iraqi tribes back anti-Iran group

10 December 2003
Aljazeera TV, Qatar

Iraqi tribes living round the last remaining base of the People's Mujahidin (MKO) have offered support to the embattled Iranian opposition group.

A dozen tribal chiefs met leaders of the once powerful armed force after Tuesday's decision by Iraq's Governing Council to expel the "terrorists".

US troops firmly control the MKO's huge compound about 100 km northeast of the capital.

"We are not authorised to talk to the press," one uniformed but unarmed member of the group said.

He did however hand out a statement from the People's Mujahedeen rejecting the expulsion.

Anti-Iran campaign

The US-appointed Governing Council has said the Mujahidin must be kicked out forthwith and their assets seized.

The organisation, which ran an armed campaign against Iran under Saddam Hussein's protection, suggested the council did not have the legal right to take such a decision.

"Such a statement has no executive guarantees and only paves the way for terrorist activities by the mullahs' regime against the Mujahidin in Iraq," a spokesman for the group said.

The Mujahidin said its "presence in Iraq as a country under occupation is in the context of the Geneva Conventions".

"Such a statement has been dictated by the ruling clerics in Tehran and has no bearing on that issue."

'Iranian puppets'

Abbas al-Zawi, head of the Aza tribe, said the explusion order was "not just because it is a peaceful organisation", and accused the Governing Council of being a "puppet of the Iranian regime".

Namman al-Jabbari of the Al-Jobour tribe and Ahmad al-Sumedia of the Al-Sumeidi nodded in agreement and said they would organise a protest.

And Salem al-Zawi of the tribal council added: "The Mujahidin have never interfered in the internal affairs of Iraq. We have known them for 20 years and we have never found any terrorists here."

An official statement released in Baghdad on Tuesday said: "The Governing Council unanimously decided to expel from Iraq by the end of the year the People's Mujahidin because of the dark history of this terrorist organisation."

And a spokesperson from the occupation's Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) hit back at the Mujahidin's rejection of the ruling.

"This is a Governing Council issue and they are fully authorised to take this decision," he said.

'Positive move'

With the US army the only force likely to be able to physically expel the Mujahidin, the spokesperson declined to comment on coordination between the Governing Council and the CPA to apply the decision.

An occupation military spokesperson said he had no details about the expulsion, but added: "We will confiscate their weapons. We don't know the time or the procedures (for confiscation)," but "they are now surrounded".

Meanwhile, Iran greeted the expulsion as "very positive" and said the Islamic republic would show "leniency" to low-ranking members wishing to give themselves up.

The Mujahidin, 4000-5000 of whom were disarmed at the sprawling camp following the March-April invasion of Iraq, have since September been considered prisoners by the US-led occupiers.

The group set up base in Iraq in 1986 and carried out regular cross-border raids into Iran, with which Iraq fought a bloody war between 1980 and 1988.

The Mujahidin, listed as a "terrorist" organisation by both Washington and Tehran, kept out of the invasion which overthrew Saddam's regime and struck a deal with US forces that saw them hand over all but personal weapons.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/41994286-481D-4086-AE2E-7B8CDC3E8663.htm

5 posted on 12/11/2003 12:43:21 AM PST by F14 Pilot

MKO, A hated group inside Iran and among Iranians.

6 posted on 12/11/2003 12:53:45 AM PST by F14 Pilot

WHEN IS SOMEONE GOING TO STEP IN AND STOP THIS??!!!!!

7 posted on 12/11/2003 6:15:49 AM PST by nuconvert ("There's no point playing Christmas jingles in a section selling sausages.")

WHERE IS THE U.N.'s MR. LIGABO ????

I HAVEN'T HEARD A PEEP OUT OF HIM SINCE HE LEFT IRAN.

8 posted on 12/11/2003 6:25:21 AM PST by nuconvert ("There's no point playing Christmas jingles in a section selling sausages.")

Excellent point.

You'd think he would have something to say, if only for a sound bite, correct?

9 posted on 12/11/2003 6:49:36 AM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Your joy is your sorrow unmasked." --- GIBRAN)

Choice

December 09, 2003
Iran Institute for Democracy
IIFD

Ambassador Mark Palmer in an interview with Ramin Parham, Washington, DC November 13, 2003

RP: the Iraqi situation is quite telling in what's basically wrong in our world. Rug regimes, terror networks, and criminals, in pursuit of common tactical and maybe strategic goals, are closely and effectively cooperating. Meanwhile, democracies are either fighting or neutralizing each other with crippling regulations and media friendly fire. Will democracies be hanged with their own rope, cutters and plane tickets?

MP: well, I think the American democracy will proceed, with a few others, the Italians, the Poles, the Spanish, with the vast majority of the Iraqi people and those who represent them to bring about success in Iraq. We have enough determination, President Bush has made this his highest priority, he gave this magnificent speech last Thursday [November 6th, 2003] in which he sketched out not just Iraq's, but the region's and in fact the whole world's future in terms of empowering people. So, I have no doubt that he is deeply committed. I have many Democrat friends in the Congress who are also committed. We will get through this. It is regrettable that a significant number of democracies are not with us. As we proceed in our discussion, I would be interested in explaining how this might change as we look to the future, how we could avoid this situation we are in now. You are absolutely right, there is a sharp divide and the democracies are not using their full power and influence in this situation.

RP: so, the approach towards democracy and the will to expand democracy throughout the Middle East, as far as the American side is concerned, is a bi-partisan issue. But the Atlantic divide is there, right?

MP: yes. There are some in Western Europe, the French for instance, some Germans too and others, who are skeptical that Arabs and Muslims are ready for democracy. Perhaps, they have the cynicism of maturity, so much experience that makes it impossible for them to have any vision. There is this trans-Atlantic divide. Maybe it takes a somewhat 'naïve' culture to attempt working, particularly with young people in the region, towards something that is truly radical and revolutionary. And we are attempting! I think there will be increased sympathy for that in Europe once we have more success.

RP: our enemies are revolutionary, so why shouldn't we? I lived and worked in France and Western Europe for a long time. In my belief, when analyzing Western European attitudes on these issues, one should not underestimate the fact that there is an estimated 10 to 12 million Muslims living there, the vast majority of them far from being fully 'integrated' into the social, economic, and political decision making spheres of these societies. Although believed to be 'moderate', no one has ever seen in any of the demonstration prone European cities, any fraction of this population taking into the streets and condemning the September 11th atrocities. Major European cities are in fact surrounded by this time bomb and internal threat. And I think that even in this regard, Iran could be a turning point. By helping the Iranian people to democratize their country, a free and democratic Iran with its huge cultural and Islamic heritage could show that militant Islam doesn't work. This will impact Muslims not just in the region but throughout the Western sphere.

MP: that's right. My French friends, including those who work in the Quai d'Orsay and business friends in the OECD and others are very preoccupied with what they see as encirclement by Arabs living around Paris. They are to some extent almost panicked by the security threat that they think exist within their own country. They have not quite figured out what to do about it. Therefore there is in a way an opening. If Iran, in the near term, which I believe is entirely possible, could throw off the Guardian Council and Khamenei and allow a real electoral process and demonstrate the ability of an Islamic country to have a normal democratic life and a successful economy, that would indeed change the minds of many Europeans. They would say that this is entirely a manageable and civilized kind of development, something that not just Iran but the rest of the region could enjoy as well, and that French and other European foreign policies should change and become democracy-centered, which is definitely not the case today. Instead, [these policies] are security and commercially centered in a very narrow fashion. Their definition of security is completely wrong headed. It is basically to pay blackmail to terrorists in one form or another. Iran is very much at the center of the future of the region and the larger region, including Europe. Iraq and Iran together could change the whole of the Middle East, transform this area and the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and transform, in a good sense, Islam itself, through a process of modernization of the faith itself, which all faiths need periodically.

RP: shouldn't a "New Architecture for International Power" be built on an 'environment of trust' based on Generally Accepted Governance Principles?

MP: that was of course the great hope after the second WW with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The great hope was that all governments would be democratic respect women's rights and allow a free press...In the immediate aftermath of WW II there were a maximum of two dozen democratic states. In the past twenty five years there has been a tremendous growth of democracy on every continent and region except the Middle East. This explosion of human liberties is unique with regard to any given period in human history. There are now roughly 120 governments that fit a broad definition of democracy. We are a majority in the United Nations but we don't work together. So, the new architecture that I believe could complete the democratic revolution and bring about a democratic world would organize those 120 governments within what a call the "Community of Democracies" which had its first meeting in Warsaw, a young democracy, in 2000, its second one in Seoul and will meet again in Chili next year. Its founding principle is both to guard democracy where it already exists and spread it. The organization is still in its early stages and has not yet achieved any of its promises but it could do some wonderful things. For instance, democratic states could act in a 'democratic caucus' within the UN organization to insure that the Human Rights Commission did what it should. Today, chaired by Libya, the Commission, with half its members being dictatorial states, does not fulfill its obligations. The dictators understand the importance of such a Commission therefore they fight to become members and are actively involved in insuring that it does not carry out its work. So, I my opinion, part of this new architecture should be a much stronger and bolder 'Community of Democracies'. I have also proposed some other ideas in this line. For instance, major multinational corporations should come together in a 'Business Community for Democracy". This would allow the US, EU, and Japanese corporations to do what they are presently reluctant to do directly. It is hard for a corporation like Exxon and others in Saudi Arabia for instance to ask Abdullah to allow demonstrations like those that took place in Riyadh three weeks ago. What would be much less difficult for such corporations to understand is that the rule of law in these countries would allow less corruption, a very detrimental factor for business, and better contracts in a much more predictable business environment. So, by coming up together as a group and putting up the funds for up to 100 billion dollars, these companies could promote democracies without being directly involved. We saw in South Africa how important this could be when businesses come together and work hard to get rid of apartheid, in that case, very effectively. In yet another example, if major multinationals work together in China, they will have a huge leverage. All the investment is basically foreign! And China's double digit growth rate is due to foreign money! The same thing is potentially true about Iran. Presently there isn't much foreign investment in Iran, but if it began to open up, businesses could have a strong role in promoting democracy.

RP: I personally, learned the importance of 'trusted parties' in my professional business experience, particularly in a growing 'click economy' where physical interlocutors are dis-intermediated through information networks. I can not imagine global peace being achieved without a 'trust environment' on the basis of commonly accepted principles.

MP: yes! If you look at the global economy, over 90% of the globe's economic product is produced by 80 democratic nations. This is not a coincidence [insert Tocqueville]. This is a direct result of the fact that in democracies you have 'rule of law', 'rule of contract', 'property rights' that are respected, and you are able to trust. You know and your partner knows that if he violates that trust he will go to court and will loose! I went through this in the Check Republic myself, for I am a businessman and have done over a billion dollar investment in Central and Eastern Europe including the creation of all the major TV stations in the region. It happened that my Check partner cheated me. So we took him to court and we won a settlement of 380 million dollars through international arbitration. If we had not won, people would not have invested in the Check Republic. This was a test case, and as a matter of fact, the largest such case in the post-communist era, where courts upheld the sanctity of a contract. In the future, Check business people will be a bit more careful in cheating their foreign partners! This is what is needed in the Middle East. I spent three years trying to set up a TV network in the Middle East following our work in Eastern Europe. It was an extremely frustrating experience for it was clear that all these government people had their hand out for bribes and would not allow us and our local partners to run a news department without government interference. So we ended up investing heavily in Eastern Europe and not putting a penny in the Middle East. Not because of a lack of economic opportunities but because of the political barriers. There is a huge economic opportunity there.

RP: Ambassador Max Kampelman[1] and you have been working towards a Helsinki-like process for the Middle East. In yet another such proposal, you speak of "Monarchs for Democracy". Could you elaborate on these initiatives?

MP: one of the great successes of the last 25 years was the Helsinki process in Europe. Brezhnev, the Soviet leader, wanted non-aggression security insurances, trade and investment. President Nixon responded to that asking for an [additional] agreement on a third basket, namely human rights, freedom of travel, youth exchanges...so, in 1972 we started that process and I was personally present in Helsinki at that time. In 1975 we completed what was called the 'Helsinki Final Act' and I was there again with President Ford. That unleashed a very important dynamic in Europe. On the civil society side, in the Check Republic with Havel, in Moscow with the Helsinki monitors, it allowed civil society to say that now that the leader have agreed to certain principles, we will monitor their adherence to human rights and other principles. It was one of the main reasons, according to most democrats in these countries that ultimately democracy was achieved and the communist had to retreat from power. This combination of the government and non-governmental operations was of immense importance in bringing democracy to the region. What Max Kampelman and I are proposing today is to take the existing Helsinki structure, both the documents and the organization, and extend an invitation to the countries of the Middle East to join the process and the OECD and to commit to the same principles. In 1975, six of these countries actually adhered to the Helsinki principles. We need to go beyond those initial statements. This would mean that the OECD which now has 55 member states would go up to 80, if all the countries in the region joined the process, the geographic area, presently extended to Central Asia, would broaden to the South to include Iran, Iraq, and all the Mediterranean Arab states. Most importantly, it would initiate a dialogue between civil societies within each of these countries and the governments on how to move ahead from the current, unsatisfactory 'is' to the 'ought' which is set forth in these documents to bring these countries to adhere to modern standards in all areas, security, economics, and human rights and democracy. We have found strong support in Europe for this idea, from the Danish to Italians and others. We are hoping that the Europeans will take the lead in this.

"Monarch for democracy" is one of my personal favorites! If you look around the world, it's striking how many far sighted and democratic kings there are. Juan Carlos of Spain is probably the best example, but the King of Thailand[2] is also a really wonderful man. He almost single handedly guaranteed and assured that democracy would take root in Thailand. Just like Juan Carlos did in Spain, he has fought both business people and the military who have wanted to stop democracy in Thailand. So my idea, sketched out in the book, is that the constitutional Monarchs of the world, and there are many in Europe and many in Asia actually, would come together and invite the Royal families of the Gulf, the Sheiks, the Kings of Jordan, Brunei, Swaziland, all of the absolute monarchs, there are 8 absolute monarchs in the world today, and also those who are not absolute but in the 'grey' area, and invite them to a discrete discussion on how one can transition from absolute to constitutional Monarchy and why it is in the interest of the Royal family. The Monarch would pull back and take on a 'constitutional guarantying' role as opposed to that of actively running the country. That's the key distinction in my mind. Abdullah and the royal family in Saudi Arabia need to get out of politics but they could be very important as guarantors of the constitution. This is what Ataturk and the military did in Turkey by guarantying that the constitution would be respected and transition be made to democracy. Monarchs in the Middle East could be very important in a positive sense, whereas in my opinion, most of the non-monarch dictators, Mubarak of Egypt or Assad, will have to go. I don't see a dignifying continuing role for them. They will have to retire or be put in jail.

RP: you speak of Slobodan Milosevic as "very skillful in dividing the West...exploiting existing divisions...to insulate his regime truly decisive pressure..." He did this while he was quite obviously behind most of the atrocities in the Balkans. The Islamic Republic seems to have learned a lot from him, isn't it?

MP: absolutely! That's why President Bush's speech was so important. He clearly said that 60 years of practice of tolerating regimes which oppress their people has not enhanced the security and the well fare of the people in the Middle East or America's security. It has just been a disaster. But these dictators and as you correctly said Milosevic had convinced the American leaders that the alternative to them was the deluge, the disaster, the Islamic fundamentalism. The alternative to Mubarak in Egypt is not Islamic fundamentalism, but respect for the Egyptian people who are perfectly capable of taking care of their own affairs. Some people say that Saudis have no desire for democracy. Well, 300 000 Saudis have studied in western universities. Even if they hadn't, Saudis are not so backward that they don't understand that their royal family is corrupt. Bin Laden sees it too. Even illiterate people understand it. The fact that there have recently been demonstrations there in favor of democracy; the fact that there have been this year 3 or 4 separate petitions from leading business and intellectual figures appealing to the royal family to bring about extensive reforms, show that even in a country like Saudi Arabia there is basic push [for democracy].

RP: the stakes in opening up Iran and assisting it through to democracy are immense. To make this a success, you have proposed a "coherent strategy" as a code of conduct for the "Community of Democracies". Could you elaborate as extensively as possible on this?

MP: I would like to see President Bush in a major address again talk to the Iranian people and specifically propose a "Contract between America and the Iranian People". If we could persuade Prime Minister Blair, President Chirac, and Prime Minister Berlusconi to join in the contract, it would make it much more powerful. We should make clear that we want a good future for the Iranian people and certain things that we want to be able to do. If democracy comes and Iranians have a sovereign government with which we can deal, we will commit in advance to a major aid program to help the economy of Iran. We would specifically commit in the contract to major effort to help develop the oil industry, which is far from achieving its full potential; we would commit to major effort to track the assets that were stolen from the Iranian people, to return frozen assets and trace ill gotten gains, both earlier such gains that are outside Iran and new ones by the Guardian Council and other corrupt figures. I would also see us committing to an absolutely full and normal relationship including cultural and student exchanges. It is important to say that if the people of Iran are able to control their own affairs we are prepared to come in and help in a major way.

RP: would that be somehow translated into legislation, which, as you have proposed could be an "Iran Democracy Act"?

MP: yes, it is important to have the legal standing of an active Congress which commits us in writing to more than just a declaration of policy by the President. There are also some steps that we could take even before full democracy has been achieved in Iran. For example, the United States should be willing to open an embassy again in Tehran if, of course, Khatami is able himself to move in that direction. I strongly favor our presence and the removal of all trade restrictions in a measured fashion as part of a process of encouraging the emergence of a democracy.

RP: all this will depend to a human right chapter and the right of the people to choose...

MP: right. Equally important is a strong support for those Iranians who have the courage to work for democracy. It is terribly important for us to build our links with them. This could be in various forms. I have strongly endorsed in my book supporting satellite TV and radio channels that are located outside Iran broadcasting into Iran. Unfortunately, they don't have enough money to have strong enough satellite transponder signals to get to their audience. It is really a disgrace that these terrific stations in California are underpowered. I have been arguing on the Hill recently that we should be supportive in establishing in Iraq stations beaming into Iran. The Iranian regime has thought it perfectly appropriate to have channels in Iran broadcasting into Iraq in Arabic which is not the language of Iran. These are stations directed to the Iraqi people with strong political messages. It would be perfectly appropriate to do the same thing in Farsi. These channels would be run by Iranians. We should help financially but Iranians themselves can perfectly run the channels.

RP: imagine the day, hopefully not too far, where you have, not a jammed short wave radio but a medium MW wave station with strong signals beaming into Iran so people could listen to it in taxis, lines, houses, everywhere. This will have a tremendous impact.

MP: that's what you need. I also believe we should help train anybody willing to be trained in the lessons learned in Serbia by the student groups, in Chili, Argentina, Indonesia, Poland...civil society, both underground and above ground when possible, should organize and insist upon full democracy. If President Khatami is ultimately unwilling to insist upon his right as the only elected president of the country to put legislations get through and to function as a president, if he is unwilling to do that, and I hope that at some point he is going to say that enough is enough, then the West and the American should join with Iranians, particularly young Iranians, and say either you join us and call us into the streets and push out the Guardian Council or we are going to do it on our own. This has been done successfully in many countries, in at least forty or fifty countries in the past few years. In almost all of the cases without a single hot being fired. It has everything to do with understanding how to do it and getting organized. Once you have got that critical mass, nothing can stop it. The security forces can be persuaded that you are on their side and get to the point where they are unwilling to open fire. At that point, the game is basically over.

RP: the 'pasdarans' are from people. The highly trained, highly paid security forces ready to kill the people, in my opinion, are far from being the majority component. The majority are just waiting for that critical moment to come.

MP: exactly. In every situation that I know, this is what happened. In China, in 1989, Deng Xiaoping believed that the security forces would not open fire on the students and he was right. So he had to keep changing the units until they could find some units that would be willing to do that. But the majority of the Chinese security forces were not willing. Tiananmen Square, in the very heart of Beijing, was thus occupied for months and months. They couldn't even bring Gorbachev to the square! It was going on in 152 other cities in all 60 provinces, as a massive nation wide movement. What's needed in Tehran, Esphahan, Shiraz and other cities is that same kind of masse movement. In Belgrade, once it got to the point that there were 500 000 students and miners and others in the streets, it was over. In Hong Kong just recently, they had half a million people in the streets forcing the communist appointed mayor to retreat and rescind the security legislation.

RP: our major concern is how to get to that critical mass in the streets without igniting violence...

MP: that's the key point. People need to be trained on how not to react with violence. I was a student leader in the civil right movement here in the US and we trained each other not to react to violence. Non-violence has a power of its own and if you cross the line into violence you loose that power; you loose the ability to have older people and women and the masses join you; you loose your moral authority. What Gandhi understood well was that dictatorial and colonial regimes exist if the people continue to cooperate, either actively or passively. If that cooperation is withdrawn, in the form of general strike, traffic jams...they will fall. There are 198 non-violent civil disobedience techniques which can be used. The key is to avoid violence. In Iran, this movement has been going on for years now and although it is not easy to organize a non-violent revolution, in the end, it is the best strategy; the most durable, the most democratic, the most moral, the most legitimate strategy. And in many cases, it is the only strategy. I would also like to add that I have huge admiration for young Iranians, students, intellectuals, journalists...it is immensely impressive to see what is going on there. Iranians definitely know how to do this. They have the courage and the vision. They just haven't come together yet. But they will. We could help with some training and sharing of experience, not designing the strategy.

RP: one of these experiences is the Yugoslavia's model with support for "general strike". Support for a 'free and fair referendum' could also be turned into a powerful leverage...

MP: unfortunately the West in general has been very reluctant to do this. What we did in Serbia in helping the student movement there was very unusual. The US government spent some 30 million dollars to help them with posters and radio stations...we were very involved. From Hungary across the border, we sent in money, trained people and used all sort of means to support the Yugoslav movement. That is unusual as I said with very few cases in the past 25 years. But I really think that we should do that with those Iranians who want us to do that. We should also be willing to call on Khamenei and be very clear in asking him to leave power. I have also proposed that dictators be indicted for injustice and violation of international law and crimes against humanity. Khamenei is clearly guilty of massive crimes against humanity. As there is now a process in Sierra Leon against Charles Taylor, and one against Milosevic in Hague, there should be one against Khamenei and the world should join and say "you either leave power or you are going to jail". This needs to be put in sharp and clear contrast. There is nothing wrong with the elected Parliament. The problem is the unelected few.

RP: another one of your proposals is the continuation of a "quite dialogue" with Khamenei through the British embassy. Why the British and what the message should be?

MP: this kind of dialogue with dictators has been done before. I watched Ronald Reagan do it, and very successfully so, with Gorbachev. The elements of the dialogue would be the same as with Khamenei, that is "you have to worry about your personal future and that of those around you. You need to make some choices. The choices are, you either cooperate with the transition process to democracy, in which case, as with Gorbachev, you can even have a good life, be honored and given safe heaven in Geneva or anywhere of his choosing. If you don't cooperate you should reflect on the fate of those leaders who chose not to cooperate. They were either assassinated or ended up in jail. Their families and friends will also have a very unattractive future. This will be a message not of threat but of establishing a personal relationship. I did this when I was the last American ambassador in communist Hungary. I managed very close relations with the country's last communist dictator, traveled with him, drank with him!...and I talked to him about his future in very graphic terms. Most dictators are paranoid and he was very worried about his future. They don't trust anyone and sometimes foreigners can be more trusted by them than their own people. It can be either the British ambassador or someone from a Muslim country or anyone who can establish a dialogue and an ongoing working relationship with Khamenei.

RP: you witnessed and played an important role in the collapse of the evil empire. Was there any 'exit strategy' for the countless members of the nomenclatura who for decades had suppressed their own people?

MP: yes there was an exist strategy although it wasn't super-organized. It is important to talk about it so that the people in the nomenclatura in Iran realize that they should not fight and die against the change. It is important that they feel they can have a decent future. I just give you one example of that. 6 months before the end of communism in Hungary, the head of the ideological committee of the party asked to have lunch with me and I knew him quite well. He was worried about his own future and asked for advice. We reflected on his skills and how they could be applied in a post-communist ear...being a propagandist he actually quit his job and ended up setting up his own marketing company! In former communist countries thousands of these ex-apparatchiks have done very well. It is important not to demonize them, not to put their back against the wall with no hope. If possible, it is good to have a peaceful transition.

RP: what does a nuclear armed theocracy presage for the coming century?

MP: very very scary! An alarming prospect. France and Britain have nuclear weapons and we are not worried at all. Because we know that they are democracies. A theocracy or any dictatorship, including China, North Korea, and Pakistan, with nuclear weapons are unpredictable by nature because ultimately decisions are made by one or a handful of people. History is full of dictators and leaders gone crazy who have started wars to stay in power.

[1] "one of the fathers of the Helsinki process", item. Page 46.

[2] King PHUMIPHON Adunyadet (since 9 June 1946); new constitution signed by King PHUMIPHON on 11 October 1997. Thai political parties include the Democratic Party or DP (Prachathipat Party) [CHUAN Likphai]; Mass Party or MP [CHALERM Yoobamrung, SOPHON Petchsavang]; National Development Party or NDP (Chat Phattana) [KORN Dabbaransi]; Phalang Dharma Party or PDP (Phalang Tham) [CHAIWAT Sinsuwong]; Solidarity Party or SP (Ekkaphap Party) [CHAIYOT Sasomsap]; Thai Citizen's Party or TCP (Prachakon Thai) [SAMAK Sunthonwet]; Thai Nation Party or TNP (Chat Thai Party) [BANHAN Sinlapa-acha]; Thai Rak Thai Party or TRT [THAKSIN Chinnawat]

http://www.iraninstitutefordemocracy.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8

10 posted on 12/11/2003 7:54:45 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

Egypt, Iran Agree Joint Efforts on World Problems

December 11, 2003
The Jordan Times
Reuters

GENEVA -- The presidents of Egypt and Iran, their countries long divided over how to deal with Israel, held landmark talks on Wednesday, agreeing to work together to help solve regional and international problems.

The meeting was the first at top level since Iran's Islamic revolution 24 years ago, after which it broke ties with Egypt and denounced it for its signing a peace deal and setting up full diplomatic links with Israel.

One Iranian official described the talks at a Geneva hotel as the first big step towards establishing full relations.

Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak told reporters after the hour long meeting that the two Muslim powers "share the same positions on the Middle East" and had a "good relationship."

A statement issued from the delegation of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said the two had discussed bilateral questions, US-occupied Iraq, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

They decided "on joint efforts by Iran and Egypt on different regional and international issues," it added, but gave no further details.

Relations have been slowly on the mend in recent years and the two countries now have representative offices — although still not embassies — in each other's capitals.

"This is the first big step towards forming full relations between Iran and Egypt and I hope it won't be the last step," Iranian Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi told Reuters in Tehran earlier. He said meetings had been planned in the past but had not materialised. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher told state television in Cairo before the talks that "new horizons for relations" would be discussed. "We are keen to have Iran as a part of positive efforts to establish peace, security and trust in the region," he added.

Both presidents are in Geneva to attend a United Nations World Summit on the Information Society, which opened on Wednesday. Earlier in the day, Mubarak also met Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom.

One issue bedevilling Iranian efforts to improve ties is the naming of a Tehran street after Khaled Islambouli, an Islamic radical who assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981.

Cairo has said if the street were renamed it would remove a major obstacle to better relations. There was no immediate indication if the issue came up at the Geneva talks.

http://www.jordantimes.com/Thu/news/news9.htm

11 posted on 12/11/2003 7:57:11 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

Generation Gap Widening as Conservatives Try to Enforce Islamic Social Codes

December 09, 2003
Radio Free Europe
Golnaz Esfandiari

It's hard to have fun in Iran -- that is, if you're one the more than 45 million people under the age of 35 looking for casual ways to socialize with members of the opposite sex. Conservative authorities in the Islamic Republic are taking steps to shut down Western-style establishments that proved popular gathering places for young Iranians. But social experts say such moves may only end up widening the value gap between conservatives and Iran's young majority.

Prague -- Until recently, Sormeh, a single Iranian woman in her 20s, was a regular patron at Apachi, a Western-style restaurant in Tehran that was one of the few public places where young men and women were able to gather and discreetly socialize.

But last week, Apachi and three other restaurants were shut down by conservative authorities for failing to observe Islamic codes of behavior. Sormeh told Radio Farda it is getting harder and harder to find places to spend a casual evening out in the Iranian capital.

"My friends and I used to go to the Apachi restaurant once or twice a week to have some fun and spend some time together. It had a nice atmosphere; you could forget your troubles for a while and just hang out with your friends. They are closing the billiard clubs, too, and Tehran's coffee shops are also shut. Places where people can get together and have a good time are slowly being dismantled from all the districts in Tehran," Sormeh said.

Iran's Islamic laws put strict limitations on the places and circumstances in which young people can conduct their social lives, and contact between unmarried couples is prohibited. Although the Islamic Republic has seen a gradual liberalization under the tenure of President Mohammad Khatami, the Western-style cafes and fast-food restaurants offering young Iranians a rare opportunity to gather are coming under increasing scrutiny from the country's conservatives. Police are free to interrupt even private gatherings, and can punish partygoers for dancing or drinking alcohol.

In the case of Apachi, Sormeh says the restaurant may have drawn the ire of the regime for failing to enforce strict Islamic dress codes. "I think one of the reasons why it was shut down is that young people didn't follow the kind of 'hejab' [dress code] that is required by the Islamic Republic regime," she said.

Wearing headscarves and long, smocklike coats is compulsory for Iranian women, who according to Islamic law must cover their hair and body whenever they are in public places. But increasingly, young women are fighting back, wearing shorter coats and make-up, and pushing back their headscarves to show their hair.

Social analysts say the regime is fighting a losing battle in trying to control the lives of young Iranians, who make up 70 percent of the population and who have grown disillusioned with the Islamic values of conservatives in the government. Iran's Youth Organization recently warned of a rise in drug use and social rebellion among the country's young people.

Amanollah Gharayi Moghadam, a sociology professor in Tehran, says much of this behavior is spurred by the strict social limitations imposed by conservative authorities. "All the research shows that in every aspect, these kinds of restrictions have made [young Iranians] more pessimistic, rebellious, and arrogant," he said. "It has done a lot of mental and psychological damage to young people, and has the direct effect of causing them to disagree with the actions of us elders."

The gap is quickly widening between the Islamic values promoted by Iran's conservative rulers and the demands of Iran's 35-and-unders. Many young Iranians have no interest in politics or tradition. Instead, they just want more social freedom -- freedom of expression, freedom to meet members of the opposite sex, and freedom to listen to the music of their choice.

Gharayi Moghadam says the young generations are also losing touch with Islam. "Our findings show that our youth have become pessimistic in every aspect. [The authorities] have even pushed young people to become pessimistic about religion, to a certain degree," he said.

Editorials in Iran's reformist newspapers often warn the growing disillusionment of Iran's young people poses a serious potential threat to the country's political stability. Gharayi Moghadam says it is time for authorities to address the concerns of the country's youth rather than enforcing austere restrictions that may have outlived their effectiveness.

"Instead of thinking about the welfare of our youth, instead of turning society into a place where they can feel happy, comfortable, and at ease, we put restrictions on them. This is surprising! You don't see them do such things in any other society, especially a young society like ours," he said.

In the meantime, however, young Iranians may continue to have difficulty forging a social life -- particularly in the capital Tehran, where the newly elected conservative mayor has already shut down several cultural centers and is believed to be behind last week's restaurant closings as well.

(Farin Assemi of Radio Farda contributed to this report.)

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/12/09122003163710.asp

12 posted on 12/11/2003 7:58:05 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

Norwegian Prime Minister Praises Ebadi's Speech

December 11, 2003
Aftenposten
Nina Berglund

Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik Thursday hailed the controversial Nobel Lecture delivered by Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi. In it, she criticized the US for abusing human rights in its war on terrorism.

Ebadi was the guest of honor in the prime minister's office Thursday morning. Like all other guests, she was treated to the view from his 16th floor office overlooking Oslo.

Bondevik praised Ebadi's speech on Wednesday before starting a meeting with her, at which human rights was the main topic.

Ebadi was escorted to the meeting by the director of Norway's Nobel Institute, Geir Lundestad. Also attending were Bondevik's two top advisers, Odd Jostein Saeter and Gunnar Husan, along with Norway's ambassador to Iran, Ole Kristian Holthe.

Bondevik was due to travel to Geneva later in the day to meet the president of Iran, Mohamad Khatami, in connection with an arrangement sponsored by an international church group.

Ebadi faced another busy day in Oslo after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Wednesday. Her schedule included lunch at the Iranian embassy in Oslo.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=688837

13 posted on 12/11/2003 7:58:47 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

Most Politicized Oil Reserves on the Planet

December 11, 2003
Iran News
Ali Badri

According to the highly reputable Middle East Economic Digest (MEED), Iran's known petroleum reserves now stand at [138.1] billion barrels, 36% more than previously thought.

This story received a great deal of publicity both in the domestic and international media. Of notable example was the coverage the Reuters News Agency gave this report. Reuters claimed that the MEED story based on information provided by Iranian oil officials was dishonest and misleading.

Reuters went on to criticize Iran over this matter and accuse the Oil Ministry of attempting to overstate their reserves in order to get a larger production share within OPEC.

The news agency maintains that when a country (Iran) categorically estimates its oil reserves at around 97 billion barrels just four year earlier (1999), logically, that total cannot have increased by more than 35%. Moreover, MEED also alleges the same thing, even though in a less direct manner.

Reuters blames the Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh personally because of his repeated utterances of the 130 billion barrel figure in a variety of speeches during recent months. Also, Zanganeh has stated that Iran accounts of 13% of all known oil reserves in the world.

The Associated Press has disputed this claim as well. The AP quoted a source at British Petroleum (BP) who says Iran only holds 8.6% of the world's known oil reserves. BP also says that Iran is fifth largest in the world in oil reserves. The top five are Saudi Arabia (262 billion barrels - 25%), Iraq (112 billion barrels - 10.7%), UAE (97.5 billion barrels - 9.3%), Kuwait (96.5 billion barrels - 9.2%) and finally Iran (90 billion barrels - 8.6%).

But Zanganeh was trying to portray Iran as an "oil giant" with the second largest reserves on the planet. If he succeeds, Iran's bargaining position and decision-making and influencing powers within OEPC dramatically increases, which in turn could positively affect its place politically in the world stage.

Furthermore, it could potentially lead to a drop in the investment risk factors for Iranian oil projects, reduce insurance premiums applicable to these projects as well as production costs. Also, it would solidify Iran's position as a stable and reliable petroleum producer.

The fact is that Iran whose total daily production currently stands at 3.729 million bpd is doing anything it can to strengthen its negotiating, bargaining and maneuvering capability in OPEC as much as possible in order to convince the world oil cartel to allow Iran to produce 4.2 million bpd (its maximum production capacity).

Objectively looking at the statistics demonstrates that Minister Zanganeh's claims are not baseless. Iran's newly discovered reserves are indeed significant, which to some extent exonerates the oil minister on the charge that he is disseminating faulty figures for political purposes. Let's not forget that just a couple of years ago Japanese calculations showed that the reserves of the huge Azadegan Oil Field were 5 billion barrels more than previously estimated. What's more, new fields and reserves have newly been discovered in the Caspian Sea basin and Kurdistan province, chief among them the Sorkhoo field, as well as the increase in estimated reserves of the Zagros field which currently is believed to be around 4 billion barrels.

It is also important to point out that 55.3 billion barrels of hydrocarbon liquids (natural gas and other oil condensates) have newly been discovered just during the last five years. These new discoveries added to the 57 existing and operating oil fields, Azadegan's enormous reserves and other reservoirs give more and more credence to the claims made by the Iranian government. Perhaps it wasn't Iran who had politicized the oil issue and it was Reuters, MEED, BP and the AP who were trying to score political points after all.

It behooves reminding that Iran is currently under a great deal of pressure from all directions over its nuclear activities and it is open and ripe for pressure on other issues to be applied on it such as downplaying the level of Iran's oil reserves toward getting more concessions.

Email: ali-badri@journalist.com

http://www.irannewsdaily.com/asp/iran_news.asp

14 posted on 12/11/2003 7:59:51 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

Nuclear Scientists Being Questioned In Pakistan

December 11, 2003
Dow Jones Newswires
The Associated Press

ISLAMABAD -- Two scientists at Pakistan's top nuclear laboratory have been taken into custody for questioning, sources said Thursday.

The nuclear scientists at the Khan Research Laboratories were being interrogated after complaints were made against them, said a government official and two Pakistanis affiliated with the country's nuclear programs. All three spoke on condition of anonymity.

Confirming reports in three Pakistani newspapers Thursday, the sources identified the two detained men as Yasin Chohan and Mohammad Farooq, the former director general at the facility. Farooq also is a former aide to the founder of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who had the research laboratories named after him.

The sources declined to describe the complaints that were made against Chohan and Farooq, or where they originated. They also denied a story in Thursday's Nation newspaper saying that the two men were being interrogated about their alleged links with Iran's nuclear program.

Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation, has been accused of sharing its technological know-how with other nations, a charge it fiercely denies. The KRL is the country's main nuclear weapons laboratory where uranium is enriched, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

Ministry Won't Confirm

Working with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Iranian government recently agreed to sign the additional protocol of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, another step toward fulfilling its commitment to allowing unrestricted inspection of its nuclear facilities.

The United States suspects Iran of conducting a secret program to build nuclear bombs, and the IAEA has identified Russia, China and Pakistan as probable sources for equipment used by Iran for possible nuclear weapons development, according to diplomats.

When word first began to emerge on Wednesday that at least one Khan Research Laboratories scientist had been taken into custody in connection with allegations that Pakistan had sold nuclear technology to Iran, Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs would not confirm that. But it issued a statement saying that detentions sometimes occur at its nuclear facility.

"People associated with sensitive programs in Pakistan are governed by stringent personnel dependability and a debriefing program. This is a normal practice, especially in nuclear weapons states. These people are aware of their responsibilities in terms of their efficiency and conduct," the statement said. It also said Pakistan continues to comply with its "policy of not exporting any sensitive technologies to third countries."

On Thursday, three officials reached in separate telephone calls at the Khan Research Laboratories in Kahuta, a town 35 kilometers southeast of Islamabad, declined to discuss the reported detention of the two nuclear scientists.

In its report, The Dawn newspaper said that Farooq and Chohan have been missing from the Khan Research Laboratories for a week.

The Nation said the security forces who took Farooq into custody at his home included foreigners. The Dawn said they may have been FBI agents.

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2003121108080011&Take=2

15 posted on 12/11/2003 8:01:31 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

Nuclear Spinning

December 11, 2003
National Review Online
Simon Henderson

The Iran-Pakistan link.

Forget, for the moment, Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — or lack thereof. Consider instead the other WMD conundrum: Iran. Events in Pakistan, where two nuclear scientists were arrested last week, suggest the whole issue is about to blow. (Figuratively, that is.)

Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations nuclear watchdog, declared, implausibly, that there was no evidence of Iran's trying to build an atomic bomb. Washington was gob-smacked. As with the proverbial duck, Iran's efforts looked like a nuclear-weapons program and sounded like a nuclear-weapons program. The trouble was the lack of proof sufficient to convince the pedants of the IAEA (which, incidentally, has never by itself discovered a clandestine nuclear-weapons program).

The Pakistani link is crucial to showing Iran's true motives. Pakistan, which tested two nuclear bombs in 1998, used centrifuges to make "highly" enriched (i.e., bomb-grade) uranium. Iran also has centrifuges. The IAEA discovered traces of highly enriched uranium on some of them. Tehran's reported explanation? "They came like that." From where? "We bought the equipment from a middleman."

The gossip is that Pakistan sold, directly or indirectly, the centrifuge equipment to Iran. The technology involves aluminum tubes — confusingly, the same technology that Saddam Hussein was reported to be interested in, although, to the glee of the war doubters, aluminum tubes found in Iraq so far have proved to be nothing more dangerous than casings for battlefield rockets. Aluminum tubes for centrifuges are decidedly "old-tech" but, in the absence of an alternative, can do the job, given enough time.

Officially, Pakistan denies it transferred centrifuge technology to Iran. But that still leaves open the possibility that Pakistani scientists did a private deal with Tehran, for money or mischief. The suspect in the frame? Dr. Abdul Qader Khan, who retired nearly three years ago as head of the eponymous Khan Research Laboratory (KRL). But despite Khan's background, there is evidence that he is being set up and is, on this issue, innocent.

The current state of the friendship between the U.S. and Pakistan is complicated at best, as American soldiers being shot at from Pakistani positions along the border with Afghanistan will testify. Osama bin Laden was reportedly sighted in the remote north-Pakistani town of Chitral recently. A more likely lair is somewhere in the vast, sprawling townships that make up Karachi, Pakistan's largest city on the Arabian Sea coast. President Musharraf, who retains the army uniform he was wearing when a 1999 coup brought him to power, juggles these tensions with Washington. Last month he was reported in the Los Angeles Times as saying that a trip by Khan to Iran had been about short-range missiles rather than nuclear issues. And, earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times quoted former Iranian diplomats as saying that Khan made several trips to Iran, beginning in 1987, and was given a villa on the Caspian Sea coast in return for his assistance.

This last report caught my eye as I once asked Khan whether he had ever been to Iran. I can remember his reply clearly: "Never." I have spoken with Khan or exchanged letters with him frequently over the years. He is often evasive but I think I can tell when he is telling a diplomatic lie. For the rest of the time, I think he is straightforward with me. I understand he stands by his claim of never having visited Iran.

The two nuclear scientists arrested last week were departmental directors at KRL. Dr. Mohammed Farooq and Dr. Yassin Chowhan were picked up at 10 P.M. on the night of December 1. They were taken away by Pakistani intelligence agents, accompanied, it is alleged, by English-speaking men, apparently CIA officers. Their homes in Rawalpindi, the city which merges into the capital, Islamabad, are reportedly under surveillance.

Dr. Farooq was in charge of the section at KRL that dealt with ties to foreign suppliers and customers for KRL products. KRL also makes a range of battlefield products for the Pakistani army, such as a version of a Chinese handheld antiaircraft missile. (It also makes the Pakistani version of the North Korean nuclear-capable Nodong missile.) Dr. Chowhan ran one of the assembly lines at KRL.

The assumption is that the two men will be held until they confess to assisting Dr. Khan in supplying centrifuges to Iran. Dr. Khan, now retired, is nominally an adviser to President Musharraf, but there is little evidence to show that his advice is sought very often. In the bitchy world of Pakistani politics, there is resentment that Dr. Khan is popularly considered "the father of the Islamic bomb."

So if Dr. Khan or some other Pakistani scientist did not supply centrifuge technology to Iran, who did? Suspicion falls on a Sri Lankan merchant formally based in Dubai, a member of his country's Muslim minority who has now returned home. The businessman acted as a conduit for Pakistan's orders of components and manufacturing equipment. Using that knowledge, he put in for extra orders of equipment and arranged a side deal with Iran. This scenario dates the start of Iran's centrifuge project to 1979, eight years earlier than the IAEA's assessment. Iran has refused to tell the IAEA the identity of this middleman.

But what about the traces of highly enriched uranium the IAEA found on the equipment in Iran? KRL apparently still uses some of its aluminum centrifuges alongside the later and more efficient ones made out of special steel. Others have been "scrapped and crushed." None has been exported. Perhaps Iran has been more successful at enrichment than it wants to admit.

Washington's motives are reasonably clear, even if not fully explained in public. Relations with Pakistan are very important. Iran's nuclear ambitions must be curtailed. Presumably if Dr. Khan is blamed, President Musharraf is forced, through embarrassment, into more cooperation with the U.S. But Iran's nuclear progress might be understated, and activities of an unscrupulous middleman might escape closer inspection. As with centrifuges themselves, there is a lot of spin.

— Simon Henderson is a London-based energy consultant and associate of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/henderson200312110800.asp

16 posted on 12/11/2003 8:02:24 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

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

Nuclear Spinning

December 11, 2003
National Review Online
Simon Henderson

The Iran-Pakistan link.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1038227/posts?page=16#16

17 posted on 12/11/2003 8:03:23 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

Iran Will Have Nukes In A Year

By Gary Fitleberg on 12/10/03

Iran is in the hot seat with the international community and is the focus of an investigation of its intentions regarding its nuclear program. The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a watchdog agency, is continuing with its investigation into Iran’s nuclear program.

America and the Bush Administration believe there is a covert destructive effort to build weapons of mass destuction in Iran. Israel also strongly believes there is ample documentary evidence and intelligence to support that premise.

Iran will have nuclear capability in one year, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

His prediction came as both the IAEA and former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said they found no evidence Iran is using its civilian nuclear program as cover to produce a bomb.

"We believe Iran can reach the point of no return in one year from now," said Mofaz, who met later with Secretary of State Colin Powell and is to meet with Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"From my perspective, the way that the US [is] leading the effort to prevent this nuclear power in the hands of an extreme regime with long-range missiles has started to bear fruit. It's necessary to continue with this effort," he said.

The US would like to see the issue referred to the UN Security Council, where sanctions could be placed on Iran.

Blix told Reuters in a interview that he does not believe the civilian nuclear reactors being constructed by Iran are a danger. A report by the IAEA, which has yet to be released, reportedly says the group found no evidence of a secret arms bid.

Mofaz warned Syria that Israel could again strike inside its territory, as it did last month when it attacked an Arab “Palestinian” terrorist training camp near Damascus in retaliation for a homicide bombing, if President Bashar Assad does not halt the activities of groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad there.

"Syria is continuing to support and to back terror activities against the State of Israel. Syria should know that they will pay a price for backing terrorism and for continuing to harbor and finance terror against the free world," he said.

Mofaz also described Assad's leadership as "strange," but did not elaborate.

Mofaz held out the prospect of dialogue with the new Palestinian Authority government headed by Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala). But he said he was deeply skeptical that Qurei would be able to combat terrorist groups with Chairman Yasser Arafat retaining control of the security forces.

"Our goal is to bring back the ‘Palestinians’ to the negotiating table. But first they should fight against terrorism and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure," he said.

"We will speak with Abu Ala. To be honest with you, I'm worried about the way he's going to control the security groups. Knowing the structure, Arafat is going to control the security groups. It will make it very difficult to move forward if he will be the man to give the order and the direction to the security groups. However we will judge the Abu Ala government first and foremost by the results."

Of a possible cease-fire with Hamas or Islamic Jihad, he said: "We will not be a part of any cease-fire with Palestinian terrorist groups. We will speak to Abu Ala. But achieving an agreement or cease-fire between the Abu Ala government and the Palestinian terror groups, it is their problem. I mean the ‘Palestinian’ problem."

He said prospects for a political settlement with the Arab “Palestinians” in the near future are bleak and that instead the sides should work toward achieving another interim agreement.

"It will be very difficult from the situation that we are facing today to reach in a month or a few years a permanent agreement, and I believe that we have to go through some interim agreement that will rebuild the trust between the two sides, will give us a proper sense of security for the people of Israel, and give hope to the ‘Palestinian’ people," he said.

American and Israeli intelligence clearly indicates that Iran is not developing a nuclear program for peaceful purposes but one for weapons of mass destruction. Iran must be stopped dead in its tracks from developing any nuclear program to produce these weapons which will surely be utilized against Western civilization.

Gary is a Political Analyst specializing in International Relations with emphasis on Middle East affairs. His articles have been published in numerous publications including La Prensa (Managua, Nicaragua equivalent to the L.A. Times), Pakistan Today, The Kashmir Telegraph, The Iranian and many more.

http://www.americandaily.com/item/3858

18 posted on 12/11/2003 8:06:54 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

FBI arrests Pak nuclear scientists for leaking technology to Iran

Indo-Asian News Service
Islamabad, December 11

Two top Pakistani nuclear scientists have been arrested by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for allegedly transferring technology to Iran, according to reports.

The FBI is believed to have arrested Yasin Chohan, Director General of Khan
Research Laboratories (KRL), Pakistan's premier nuclear facility, and Farooq
(no second name), a Director, Dawn said on Thursday.

Farooq was said to be "very close" to KRL founder Abdul Qadeer Khan, widely
acknowledged as the father of Pakistan's nuclear programme.

"Nobody in Khan Research Laboratories exactly knew about the whereabouts of
the two scientists and it is believed they have been picked up by FBI. When
contacted, the public relations officer of KRL said he was completely in the
dark on the issue," Dawn said.

Abdul Qadeer Khan could not be reached for comment.

"Khan is not at home and it is very difficult to tell where he will be at this time," a person who received the telephone call at his residence told Dawn.

The issue figured in parliament with Senator Sajid Mir raising a point of
order in the upper house. "He lamented that those who had made the country's defence strong were now picked up to please some foreign countries," The News reported.

"KRL, which was considered a solid guarantee of national defence, had been
opened to foreigners to arrest Pakistani scientists," Mir charged. "With this act the government is now a security risk for the country," Senator Khursheed Ahmed Khan of the opposition Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) religious alliance, told reporters.

"The government should take the people and parliament into confidence over
the arrest of scientists," demanded MMA Senator Ishaq Dar, charging that the
government had decided to roll back its nuclear programme.

"Our nation should launch joint efforts to safeguard the vital programme
otherwise the US will take it over," he maintained.

The Pakistani government reacted cautiously on the issue. A foreign office
spokesman said people associated with sensitive programmes "are governed by
a stringent personnel dependability and debrief programme. This is a normal practice, especially in nuclear weapons states. These people are aware of their responsibilities in terms of their efficiency and conduct."

"Under the programme, individuals may have to undergo debriefing sessions
and the matter referred to falls within the scope of this practice," the spokesman said.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_491822,00050002.htm

19 posted on 12/11/2003 8:08:45 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

Extraordinary Q & A: Iran's Intelligence Minister

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - ©2003 IranMania.com

Tehran, Dec 11, (IranMania) – A rare chance interview took place between reporters and Iran’s normally silent Minister of Intelligence on Wednesday.

Iranian President, Seyed Mohammad Khatami headed for Norway on Wednesday. Reporters did not except the ministers to take part in the parliament session due to the presidents’ absence. But contrary to their expectations, the session was held with almost all the ministers’ participation.

However the presence of Iran’s Minister of Intelligence, Ali Younesi was quite startling, for he rarely responds to reporters’ questions. His lack of interest in responding to questions has led to discontent in journalistic circles. But in response to their complaints, the smiling president says, “Part of our country’s problem is rooted in this lack of attention of officials to respond.”

At any rate, the reporters grabbed the golden opportunity and bombarded Younesi with scores of questions.

Q - Mr. Younesi, recently some have violently attacked MPs or certain gatherings. Have you identified the perpetrators?

A - I don’t have a clear-cut list of them in my mind. The role of the Ministry of Intelligence is to identify and report the perpetrators. Such ‘pressure groups’ can be found in other countries as well.

Q - Yes, but here in Iran, these pressure groups are already known.

A - No, not only in Iran, in other countries they are also known.

Q - So why don’t you counter them?

A - We are countering them!

Q - If they were being countered, they wouldn’t have beaten up the head of National Security Commission?

A - Of course, such incidents are dangerous and have to be prevented. I am sure that the recent decisions made by the Judiciary will decrease the rate of this kind of incident.

Q - Do you think that the Judiciary is really determined enough to deal with this issue?

A - Certainly, if they weren’t dealing with it, the situation would have been worse.

Q - Mr. Younesi, officials have been claiming to counter such attacks for four years, but so far no serious measures seem to have been taken.

A - If we hadn’t been dealing with, there wouldn’t be such relative tranquility in society.

Q - If this issue had been dealt with then the president wouldn’t have issued an order to deal with it [referring to Khatami’s letter to the Intelligence and Interior Ministry on the 8th of December]

A - You think it hasn’t been dealt with, it has.

Q- Who have you penalized so far?

A - Many of these groups have been eradicated. No trace of the pressure groups which were active in the past can be found today.

Q - Maybe some of them have changed their ideology?

A - Well, such an issue indicates that they have been dealt with by the judiciary and Intelligence Ministry.

Q - Why haven’t you informed the public?

A - The ministry has nothing to do with such issues. We only act within the borders of our own domain.
Q - What can be said about the cases in which the Ministry of Intelligence is accused?

A - Such as?

Q - Zahra Kazemi [Referring to the Iranian/Canadian photo-journalist killed while in Iranian custody]

A - We have repeatedly announced that the ministry is blameless in this regard. Fortunately a committee has been set up by the Judiciary to look into the case and I can’t comment on the issue prior to their decision.

Q - You mean, the case is being reviewed?

A - Exactly.

Q - Would you please comment on the ‘parallel intelligence networks’ which seem to be active? [referring to ‘shadowy’ security organization not under the control of the government]

A - As the minister of intelligence I have always been again such parallel activity. I believe that the administration of the intelligence affairs is only the duty of the Ministry of Intelligence.

Q - The administration has ratified a bill on countering such bodies. Has the government taken any serious step toward this end?

A - We have not ratified any such bill.

Q - But that’s what Mr. Ramezanzadeh announced [The Government spokesman]

A - So you should ask him

Q - Recently the Judiciary has taken measures to provide education for prisoners. What’s your opinion?

A - We warmly welcome the Judiciary’s new initiative to adhere to ‘human issues’ and we ourselves are ready for all the prisoners we take to be subject to inspections to determine whether they have been abused in anyway.

Q - What is the viewpoint of the ministry on the criticisms against your ministry’s officials?

A - I personally confirm it. Unfortunately this kind of violation has always existed. Defendants have certain legal rights and these rights must be respected.

Q - An Evin Prison Interrogator is said to have been recently arrested in connection with Zahra Kazemi’s case?

A - You should ask the Judiciary and not me. I have no knowledge of this.

Q - In response to ‘parallel organizations to the ministry’ you said that there haven’t been any discussions in the
Government?

A - No, there has been much discussion on this issue. But the Government is not authorized to penalize such activity.

Q - No, but it can counter it in other ways. It can issue a bill to counter it or come up with other strategies?

A - Yes, we are in favour of such a move.

Q - Have you devised any strategies?

A - Yes we have.

Q - And, what is it?

A - I can’t tell you right now. The government is only a ratifier. The implementer is another institution.

Q - So why has the Government taken back the ‘Centralizing Intelligence Bill’ from the Parliament? This is not clear.

A - It has been wrongly referred to as the ‘Centralizing Intelligence Bill’. It was merely a bill dealing with some of the legal difficulties and limitations of the Ministry of Intelligence.

Q - So what’s now referred to as parallel intelligence networks…

A - We already have a law which centralizes intelligence activity in one organ, we have no need for a new law. This bill was mistakenly dubbed as the ‘Centralizing Intelligence Bill’ by the media. It was merely going to fill some gaps in the Intelligence Ministry’s role and it was delayed due to ‘created circumstances’.

Q - Are you in favour of the bill being pursued?

A - Yes this will be done. Even if not in our time, it will be carried out next time. [referring to the next government]

Q - These parallel intelligence networks are they part of the ‘governing regime’ or outside of the ‘governing regime’?

A - It is obvious that they are part of the governing regime.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=20507&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

20 posted on 12/11/2003 8:29:42 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are free, we shall all be Iranians!)

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