Iranian Alert -- January 7, 2004 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD --Americans for Regime Change in Iran

Iran Could Emerge as a Training Ground for al Qaeda Terrorists

January 07, 2004
The Associated Press
CBS 2 Chicago

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1053126/posts?q=1&&page=60#60

Washington Welcomes Encouraging News From 'Rogue Regimes'

January 07, 2004
Radio Free Europe
Jeffrey Donovan

Washington -- The U.S. administration appears to be taking in stride a remarkable series of apparent turnabouts from "rogue" states with regard to their alleged weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) programs.

In recent days and weeks, Libya, Iran, and North Korea have all signaled a new willingness to ease concerns about such programs and cooperate with the international community.

Libya, long on Washington's terrorist list and implicated in the bombing of a U.S. jetliner in 1987, has offered to disarm in exchange for a full normalization of economic and political relations with the West. Iran has agreed to cooperate with the United Nations on inspections of its nuclear facilities. And North Korea has made what it calls a "bold concession" by offering to freeze its nuclear-power program.

Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell cautiously welcomed the news from Tehran, Tripoli, and Pyongyang. "We've had a breakthrough now with Libya," he said. "A great deal of pressure has been put on Iran so that Iran has now signed the Additional Protocol of the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] and has made certain other commitments to the international community. Iraq is no longer going to be a source of weapons of mass destruction. And I hope our colleagues in Pyongyang are watching all of this."

North Korea has offered to suspend its nuclear-power program and refrain from testing or making nuclear weapons. At an informal news conference at the State Department, Powell called that offer positive, interesting, and encouraging. He said he hoped it leads to a new round of six-nation talks on ending Pyongyang's suspected nuclear-weapons programs.

Meanwhile, Powell reiterated a pledge by President George W. Bush that the United States would take "tangible steps" to improve relations once Tripoli's weapons programs have been verified and dismantled. "The next step is to make sure we have a clear understanding of what Libya possesses, make sure it matches up with what we think they possess and what they tell us they possess," he said. "And they are very forthcoming to this point."

After months of secret talks with Britain and the United States, and a decade-long effort to restore its relations with the West, Libya last month said it would abandon all its unconventional weapons programs.

Powell said U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, who follows issues of nonproliferation, will discuss plans for inspecting and disarming Libya with British officials in London later this week.

Tripoli's surprise announcement came in the wake of a new attitude in Tehran, which Washington has long suspected of seeking to use its burgeoning nuclear energy program to build weapons. After intense U.S. and European pressure, Iran has agreed to accept intrusive United Nations inspections of its nuclear facilities, to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

To some, the changed approach from these three countries should be seen as a victory for the Bush administration. Kenneth Allard is a former U.S. Army colonel and intelligence officer. He told RFE/RL that while the price in lives and suffering for the war in Iraq has been high, the potential payoff could be worth it.

"As high as those penalties are -- it tears me up every time I see one of those [soldier's] funerals here in Arlington -- on the other hand, you have removed two of the most worrying proliferators from the board: Iraq -- I never believed entirely in the weapons of mass destruction but I never believed that they weren't there either -- and, clearly, the case of Libya," Allard said.

Following the 11 September attacks on the United States, the administration singled out the nexus between rogue states and weapons of mass destruction as the chief threat to U.S. security in the new century.

Bush led the country to war with Iraq on the belief that President Saddam Hussein had deadly weapons that could someday be used against the United States or its allies.

An element of that argument was that toppling Hussein would send a clear signal to countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Libya that Washington means business when it comes to national security -- and that they would fair better cooperating with, rather than threatening, the United States.

So the recent turn of events would seem to prove the administration's strategy was, at least in part, a success. But not everyone is ready yet to celebrate in Washington. Analyst Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute believes that deep skepticism should greet the moves by Pyongyang and Tehran. "There is less here than meets the eye," he said. "There's a strong suspicion that the Iranians are simply stalling, that they're engaging in the same kind of phony cooperation with the Europeans and the International Atomic Energy Agency as North Korea did in the early and mid-1990s."

Carpenter adds that North Korea's latest offer may in fact be no more than a proposal to return to the parameters of a 1994 agreement with Washington that froze Pyongyang's nuclear program -- except that this time the Stalinist state, after violating that deal, wants even more economic and security concessions from Washington.

Carpenter also points to the fact that while Washington appears to be having some success in slowing proliferation, the challenge of totally preventing the spread of such deadly materials is almost insurmountable.

A case in point is Pakistan, a key U.S. ally in the war on terror but, at the same time, widely considered to be the world's top proliferator of materials and know-how for building nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration acknowledged yesterday that Libya, prior to having its change of heart, had obtained nuclear-weapons technology from Pakistan. But it insisted there was no sign of involvement from Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, who has vowed that Pakistan plays no role in such activities.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said it was possible that "rogue individuals" were hard to control in Pakistan. But he declined to confirm a report in "The New York Times" that Pakistan provided centrifuge-design technology that helped Libya advance toward a nuclear weapon over the last two years.

McClellan added that Washington is confident Musharraf will live up to his assurances on nonproliferation. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher echoed that message at a briefing, adding: "We also note that Pakistan has begun investigating and a debriefing of individuals who may have valuable information on some of the activities that have been reported and discussed. We think that again demonstrates that President Musharraf attaches a high priority to meeting his commitment."

But analysts say Musharraf, who has narrowly avoided assassination on two separate occasions recently, may not be in full control of his military and intelligence services.

Allard acknowledges that despite all the other recent positive news from the nonproliferation front, the administration is still a long way from seeing its vision of rogue states abandoning their deadly weapons program fully in response to U.S. pressure.

He said Pakistan remains the biggest concern, and that while Washington may dismiss Pakistani proliferators as "rogue individuals," the reality may in fact be different. "That's not the way they look upon themselves," Allard said. "You look at a character like retired General Mirza Aslam Beg, who is their former chief of staff. And even though he is out of power now and is a retired guy who enjoys the plaudits of his countrymen, he is constantly talking about the horrible oppression, enslavement, denigration of Islamic civilizations around the world. And they are very blunt about the use of nuclear weapons to reverse all those things."

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2004/01/07012004160832.asp

As al Qaeda continues to feel us breath down its neck, their only chance is to fight back. Their hiding places dwindle, and as they look at the map, Iran becomes more and more of an ideal location. (Perhaps they will start streaming in droves across the Iranian border. Just another excuse for the US to act.)

Iran Restricts "Emrooz" Website

January 07, 2004
BBC News
Clare Doyle

Iran's judiciary has ordered one of two main pro-reformist websites to be "filtered", making it unavailable to internet subscribers in Iran. The Emrooz website was set up by people close to Iran's reformist President, Mohammad Khatami.

Since a crackdown on reformist press, the internet has become the main forum for dissident voices in Iran.

But with elections approaching, it is feared the judiciary's move may signal a new wave of political repression.

Emrooz carries news and current affairs articles that are broadly sympathetic to the reformist agenda, and challenge the wide-ranging powers of Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Ayatollah Khamenei controls some of Iran's most powerful non-elected institutions, including the judiciary and the army.

The judiciary has closed down more than 90 newspapers in the past five years, and many of these responded by opening their own websites and continuing to publish online.

Censorship barrier

Individual writers also embraced new technology to write their own personal news diaries, known as weblogs or blogs.

Now it seems the judiciary may be turning its attention to these new websites.

Iranian internet service providers have always been prevented from permitting access to sites deemed pornographic or anti-Islamic by the authorities, most of which originate outside Iran.

But this is the first time the judiciary has banned an Iran-based domestic political website in this way.

Internet access in Iran is simple to arrange and affordable for most middle class families.

Some seven million Iranians have access to the internet - that is one in 10 of the population, and double the number two years ago.

In Iran's highly restricted media environment, the internet has until now been a way for writers and the reading public to get around the barriers of censorship.

Now it seems the Islamic authorities may be trying to bring new media under the same tight controls as the press.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3376907.stm

Iran Once More - Bridge of Victory

January 07, 2004
Iran va Jahan
Nicole Sadighi

"Study the past if you would define the future"
Confucius

The Legacy of Saddam Hussein is no more and another historical chapter unfolds. While this is the advent of many challenges to come, the country has a bright future. However, in their commitment and efforts for concluding regime change in Iraq, the United States faces some obstructing elements; the most important being the hard-line groups, who have tremendous support from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Therefore if the pursuit for democracy is to have a chance for liberation there needs to be some contemplation on the effects of such radical religious groups and their links with terrorism.

Unfortunately, there are ill thinking people on this issue, making very dramatic commentaries and greatly criticising the neo-conservatives of the Bush administration, in their effort to bring about democracy in the Middle East. One wrote recently: "…. they want to use the September 11 attacks as an excuse for colonising the world of Islam under the euphemism "regime change"…"the Bush administration is egging on the Iranian youth to overthrow the rule of the ayatollahs in Iran"

Firstly the tragic saga of the September 11 attacks are not an excuse for colonising the world of Islam, they are one of the many reasons why the international community should begin to put an end to this breed of character that has been ruling the Middle East for too long. The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has ultimately reached passed its sell by date and it is time that they stepped down from their rule whilst they can still save face.

The Bush administration was not the one to "egg on the Iranian youth" as he so eloquently put it, in fact quite to the contrary. If one pays a little bit of attention to the voices of the youth of Iran, one can openly see that it has been the youth of Iran who have been crying out for freedom. It has been they who have begun the protests against the ruling islamo-fanatics dictatorship and put in place the wheels in motion to enforce their desires for the international community to support them. The seeds of democracy are being spread throughout the lands where they have never had the opportunity to have the sweet taste of freedom.

One should understand that if there is no regime change in Iran and if the country does not give birth to a democracy then there is no hope for stability and spread of democracy throughout region.

One should analyse the last hundred years of the country. Iran underwent a complete transformation from a backward and poverty-stricken country, where there was no social and economic infrastructure into a peaceful, modern and very influential nation; commanding the greatest of respect from its Middle Eastern neighbours and have played a stabilising role in the region prior to the Islamic Revolution.

It began with the constitutional revolution in 1906, when King Mozafarr Edin of the Qajar Dynasty signed the very first Iranian Constitution. Iran had established the parliamentary system for the very first time in the history of the country and the region.

This was immensely important, in particular for other countries in the region. Predominantly because during this time countries recognised to us today such as Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar and United Arab Emirates did not exist, as they were either part of Iran or the Ottoman Empire or under the British Empire. Iran had taken the leadership towards a democratic movement in the region and served as a beacon and inspiration for the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East.

Moreover a positive contribution to Middle East stability took place in 1975, when a UN General Assembly resolution was co-sponsored by Iran calling for the denuclearization of the Middle East. The resolution was passed successfully by a unanimous majority vote, including positive votes by all members of the Security Council.

Finally the next major impact of the country was the black revolution of 1979. Although this period was not as positive as previous intervals, nonetheless it transpired to be a profound force on the region. Since this time Islamic Republic of Iran has dominated the world politics by supporting terrorists, encouraging islamo-fanatics ideologies, dictating only totalitarianism and by being a major producer of weapons of mass destruction

President George W. Bush was right to include this evil regime an "Axis of Evil". By reviewing the Mullahs past and present records one can determine that their method of politicising their religion has always created and will continue to create a breeding ground for radicalism and thus widening the chasm between the U.S and the Middle Eastern nations.

Hence, we are debating the cause and effects of Iranian movements and its impact on the region. It is visible that Iran has always had a dominating influence on the Middle East and therefore if we have democracy in Iran, it will undeniably follow throughout the surrounding countries. Iran once more can be the bridge of victory(1) and, this time victory for democracy and liberty.

Miss Nicole Sadighi is a Freelance Journalist and an advocate of the non-violent movement for establishment of democracy in Iran. Nicole Sadighi can be contacted on: nicolesadighi@hotmail.com

(1) Due to its very important role during the WWII, Iran was named "Bridge of Victory" by the USA and its' allies.

http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=01&d=07&a=10

Now it seems the Islamic authorities may be trying to bring new media under the same tight controls as the press.

More oppression, more dissension, and the potency will only increase, both ways.

forgot what?

The seeds of democracy are being spread throughout the lands where they have never had the opportunity to have the sweet taste of freedom.

The earthquake in Bam drew much attention on FR to the situation in Iran. And people often asked, how do we know they want freedom? I find it fascinating to think of the strength of the notion of freedom itself. I hope that the Great Satan is actually revered as much by the Iranian youth as I have heard it is. I hope that the demonization of America has backfired.

The youth are looking to the regime and saying, "What have you done for me?"

FREEPERS! WATCH FRONTLINE JAN 8th

BUMP

And another question of the day is:

Will the US government talk with an Un-Elected few?
This regime is not the representative of its people. The United states government should talk with the Iranian people. Don't you agree?

This thread is now closed.

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

The United states government should talk with the Iranian people. Don't you agree?

YESSIR, I Agree 100%.

What's wrong is that we are asking the same people (always Americans, often British and Australian, very rarely anyone else) to do the same liberating time and time again. Worse, these scum are rarely grateful for their liberation. Seen the body count in Iraq lately? I can't think of any group of people (Afghan, Iraqi, Iranian, Somali, or whatever) that is worth the life of one American soldier.

I'm tired of trying to save the world from itself. If these people want to live in squalor under some half-baked lunatic-asylum religion, let them. If they don't, they'll revolt on their own. My EAOS is coming up, and I'm leaving. If you want to waste your time saving some goatherder from his lunatic religion and/or government, feel free to take my place.

I believe the quote was to 'secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity', not to risk our lives trying to force it down the throats of people who obviously don't want it.