Iranian Alert -- December 13, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush Signs Syria Accountability Act

December 13, 2003
The Jerusalem Post
Janine Zacharia

Syria said the signing Friday of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act imposing sanctions on the country was the work of the "the partisans of Israel in the American Congress."

In the first official reaction by the state owned SANA news agency, Syria said the Jewish lobby in Washington "worked actively for the adoption of this law."

"These partisans of Israel want more than anything for Syria to end its support for the resistance of the Palestinian people," the statement added.

US President George W. Bush on Friday signed into law the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which could lead to the imposition of fresh sanctions on Damascus unless the administration can certify changes in Syrian behavior.

"President Bush needs to impose sanctions on Damascus immediately because Syria continues to destabilize the Middle East and support some of the deadliest terrorist groups in the world. By signing this legislation, President Bush has committed the United States to fighting terrorism in Syria," said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-New York), author of the Syria Accountability Act.

The Act directs the president to ban US sales of weaponry and dual-use items - items that could be used for civilian or military purpose - unless Syria abandons its support for terrorism, removes its troops from Lebanon, stops the flow of terrorists into Iraq, and abandons its pursuit of non-conventional weapons.

The Act also calls on the president to impose two or more sanctions from a list of six: an export ban; ban on US businesses operating in Syria; restrictions on Syrian diplomats in the US; exclusion of Syrian-owned aircraft from US airspace; a reduction of diplomatic contacts with Syria; or freezing of Syrian assets in the US.

The president, however, can waive this obligation to impose sanctions if he deems it in US national security interests.

In a statement issued by the White House Friday, Bush said, "the Act is intended to strengthen the ability of the United States to conduct an effective foreign policy."

"My approval of the Act does not constitute my adoption of the various statements of policy in the Act as U.S. foreign policy," he added.

Bush suggested that he would be inclined to use the waiver.

"Section 5 of the Act purports to impose upon the President requirements to take certain actions against Syria unless the President either determines and certifies to the Congress that the Government of Syria has taken specific actions, or determines that it is in the national security interest of the United States to waive such requirements and reports the reasons for that determination to the Congress.

A law cannot burden or infringe the President's exercise of a core constitutional power by attaching conditions precedent to the use of that power," he said.

The legislation, in Section 6, requires that an executive branch official inform Congress about various subjects involving Syria and terrorism. Here to, Bush suggested the White House could limit the White House's reporting to Congress.

"The executive branch shall construe section 6 in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties," he said.

The White House has been frustrated by Syria's failure to prohibit the flow of jihadists into Iraq and for its continued support of Palestinian terrorist groups. But Syria has also provided valuable intelligence related to al-Qaida, officials have said, and therefore are keen to keep a channel of communication with Syria open.

News Agencies contributed to this report

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1071300403262

America Adrift

December 11, 2003
The Jerusalem Post
Danielle Pletka

On January 29, 2002 in his famous "axis of evil" State of the Union address, President George W. Bush condemned Iraq, Iran and North Korea: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."

Bush made a persuasive case, and the American people backed him as he moved to remove Saddam Hussein from power. But since that momentous day in April when Saddam's statue was toppled in Firdos Square in Baghdad, US policy on Iraq, Iran and North Korea has been dangerously adrift. And if the president is to be believed, the implications of that policy drift could well be catastrophic.

In Iraq, it may have appeared that job No. 1 was military action to decapitate the regime. Washington has since learned that removing Saddam was the easy part; figuring out what to put in his place was considerably harder. Dithering, changes in "plan" and a reluctance to trust Iraqis has sent dangerous signals throughout the Middle East. If Iraq is to be the cornerstone of a new region, it had best start looking like something worth building upon, and soon.

Still, as far as defeating the axis of evil is concerned, Iraq remains, relatively speaking, the sole success story. The Iranian regime remains intact to this day, with few signs that Bush's rhetoric has resulted in US policy initiatives. To the contrary, Bush's National Security Council has allowed individual agencies of the US government to pursue separate - and opposing - policies on Iran that have succeeded only in confusing the world as to America's intentions.

Throughout much of 2003, the Department of Defense has quietly explored options in destabilizing the Iranian regime, including several "controversial" meetings with Iranian dissidents and other opposition figures. Meanwhile, the Department of State has quietly reauthorized back-channel chats between its envoys and regime officials. For a brief moment, the US government was able to unite behind the idea that the International Atomic Energy Agency would be an engine for multilateral action to isolate Iran. But when the Europeans effectively scuttled that effort, it was back to business as usual.

The Iranians, correctly sensing that the United States has little intention of actually doing anything to bring about the downfall of the regime, have cemented a warm relationship with al-Qaida (allowing the coordination of terrorist acts from Iranian soil). They have continued to sponsor Hizbullah, Hamas and other terrorist groups, and inked a deal with the IAEA that may well grant sufficient time for the mullahs to develop a nuclear weapon. At the same time, the regime is stirring up trouble for the US in Iraq.

FURTHER IN the annals of "grave and growing danger" is the situation in North Korea. Unfettered by international inspectors or other outside pressure, North Korean nuclear and missile programs now operate with impunity inside the hermit kingdom. Six-party talks designed to pressure North Korea into disarmament have transformed into a mechanism to pressure the United States into conciliatory gestures toward the Kim Jong Il regime.

Inside the US government, agencies continue to interpret vague guidelines as to the direction of North Korea policy. Following the diktat not to negotiate, some officials inside the Department of State instead use Japan and South Korea to negotiate on Washington's behalf. Thus, they were able last weekend to achieve a proposal on joint talks for China to present to North Korea. Others inside State and at the Pentagon flail angrily at the proponents of "engagement," insisting they are flouting the president's vow not to negotiate.

No one is really undercutting policy, because there is no policy. Asked point-blank whether US policy toward Iran requires regime change, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "No, Sir." Then what does it require? After months of insisting that North Korea must "verifiably" dismantle its nuclear program before Washington could contemplate assistance, a senior State Department official announced in September that Pyongyang "would not have to do everything" to get aid.

And in Iraq, the US first opposed a governing council, then supported it but opposed a provisional government; opposed elections prior to a constitution and now has reversed itself. Do we or do we not wish Iraqis to govern themselves?

Grumbling in Washington about a policy vacuum has reached a crescendo in recent months. Liberals have been encouraged by setbacks in Iraq to criticize Bush's "ideological" foreign policy. Meanwhile, ideologues in sympathy with Bush have grown increasingly angry over the administration's failure to implement Bush's rhetorical vision. The bottom line is that neither hawks nor doves inside the administration have offered any genuine policy options. Engaging bad guys may not amount to policy, but neither does isolating them. They must be isolated with a purpose in mind.

In fact, what the president seemed to indicate in his clarion call was that regimes that develop weapons of mass destruction and arm terrorists cannot be allowed to continue. That requires that they stop or be removed. Iraq has stopped, but Iran and North Korea continue apace.

In the case of both Iran and North Korea, there are multiple policy options for ratcheting up pressure on the regimes that do not require military action. In the case of North Korea, a redeployment of US troops on the Korean peninsula, a decision to freely admit North Korean refugees into the US, or a project to contemplate the rearmament of Japan would focus the attention of Pyongyang and its supporters in Beijing.

In the case of Iran, the Iranian people are begging for US moral, diplomatic and economic support to organize against their government. Far from Mossadegh redux, what the Iranian people want most is a clear decision from the US government that the Teheran regime is beyond the pale, neither a partner in back-channel chats nor a candidate for rehabilitation or reform.

Iraq should be the lesson that guides the Bush administration as it considers the remaining parts of the axis. Indecision breeds confusion in official Washington. As many in this administration have asserted trenchantly, it was the weakness of the Clinton administration throughout the 1990s that encouraged al-Qaida to believe we could be attacked and defeated. Let's not go there again.

The writer is vice president for foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1071115219991&p=1006953079865

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