Iranian Alert -- February 12, 2004 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD --Americans for Regime Change in Iran

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.

Analysts Look at Challenges Ahead for Possible US-Iran Rapprochement

Laurie Kassman
Washington
12 Feb 2004, 02:45 UTC

The United States broke off diplomatic ties with Iran after the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled U.S. ally Shah Reza Pahlavi. Protesters seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held American diplomats hostage for more than a year. Twenty-five year later, there are signs of efforts to repair those broken ties.
For nearly a quarter of a century, Iran's hard-line religious leaders have referred to Washington as the Great Satan.

The United States has accused Iran of sponsoring terrorist groups and secretly trying to build a nuclear weapons program. Two years ago, President Bush called Iran part of an "Axis of Evil."

Since his 1997 election, Iran's pro-reform president, Mohammad Khatami, pursued a foreign policy aimed at repairing Iran's tarnished image in the world. The efforts paid off with European governments, which initiated what they call a "critical dialogue" to improve ties and influence.

The awarding of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize to Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi highlighted the work of Iran's reformers. But hard-liners within Tehran's religious leadership have blocked attempts to thaw relations with the world's remaining superpower.

Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies supports the idea of outside pressure to help foster changes inside Iran. But he recently told the U.S. Senate's Foreign Relations Committee that a tough U.S. attitude might undercut Washington's ability to encourage reforms there.

"We have tended to demonize Iran rather than to try to influence it or create a dialogue," he said. "We have made it into a political symbol that has weakened its moderates and strengthened its hard-liners rather than influenced and changed its behavior."

Professor Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University says that confrontational attitude appears to be changing. "The regime in the last four or five years has decided to reintegrate itself in the international community and normalize its relationships with as many countries as possible," he said. "And they seem to think in Tehran that some kind of understanding with this administration in the United States is possible. Let us say immediately that the problems on both sides remain very serious and difficult to surmount."

Still, there has been movement on both sides. Analysts point to Iran's recent agreement to open its nuclear programs to more intrusive international inspection.

Washington still accuses Iran of sponsoring Middle East terrorism. But unofficial cultural and sports exchanges have quietly expanded. And, the U.S. administration recently eased its economic sanctions to rush relief aid to victims of a devastating earthquake.

Mr. Bakhash says the presence of U.S. troops in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq has forced Tehran to rethink its policies, too.

"Like many other countries, Iran is repositioning itself in light of these new regional realities," he said. "I don't think there are signs of panic as a result of U.S. occupation of Iraq, but rather looking at the new realities and adjusting Iranian policy as a result of that."

Even with the signals of a diplomatic thaw, analyst Rassoul Nafissi of Strayer University in Virginia does not expect any immediate changes. "There are voices on both sides asking for political change, but I don't think it's going to happen soon," he said. "Besides, I think everything depends on the coming elections. When the elections take place in Iran and the United States, we will see how the new initiatives are taken."

Iranian reformers face a challenge for power in the parliament in elections later this month, after the conservative oversight council disqualified hundreds of pro-reform candidates. A loss of influence for reformers in the parliament could weaken their movement and any momentum toward repairing U.S.-Iranian relations.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=E06241FD-0C0E-4F51-83DD5555F3A2292E

Iran Students "Watch In Silence"

Feb 11, 2004, 22:48
Bill Samii, RFE/RL

The student movement's attitude towards the current political crisis in Iran is "worth elaboration," according to a commentary in the 29 January "Aftab-i Yazd." One could expect the students to be unsympathetic towards the parliamentarians' fate, because the current legislature never really followed up on the violent suppression of the students in July 1999 or on other similar incidents.

However, they are not indifferent, they are "watching in silence," according to the commentary. What they are trying to determine is if they are just seeing a display of political gamesmanship, or are the parliamentarians serious about pursuing their goals and standing up for their rights?

Allameh Tabatabai University's Chancellor Najafqoli Habibi said that the country's university students must not be indifferent to events, and added that the universities have a duty to take the elections seriously, "Mardom Salari" reported on 28 January.

These are noble sentiments, but until 8 February the students were finding it difficult to act because the government refused to issue rally permits and it otherwise repressed them.

The Iranian press reported in January that a crackdown on student activists is under way. Tehran University Dormitory Guild Council Secretary Hamid Dehnabi received a court summons relating to the previous June's unrest, "Mardomsalari" reported on 21 January. Fifteen students from Malayer received prison sentences ranging from 91 days to six months for their roles in the previous year's unrest, "Aftab-i Yazd" reported on 20 January and "Sharq" reported the next day.

A reformist website, roshangari.com, on 20 January reported on the filing of charges against a University of Rafsanjan student activist and the sentencing to prison of 15 students from Hamedan's Bu Ali Sina University.

The Isfahan Revolutionary Court summoned Said Razavi-Faqih of the Office for Strengthening Unity, "Hambastegi" reported on 13 January. The Revolutionary Court summoned Tehran University law student Payman Aref, "Etemad" reported on 12 January. Two websites, daneshjooyan.org and mellimazhabi.org, on 13 January and 20 January reported on the arrest of Isfahan University medical students and the receipt of court summons by Sabzevar students.

Student organizations' efforts to hold rallies were encountering problems, too. The government refused to issue a permit for an off-campus Students Day event in December (see "RFE/RL Iran Report," 8 December 2003).

The Office for Strengthening Unity's late-December annual meeting at the Medical Sciences University in Ahvaz was cancelled and it failed to secure a permit to hold the meeting at Tehran's Tarbiat Mudariss University. Tehran parliamentary representative Fatimeh Haqiqatju said on 4 January that she would ask the minister of intelligence and security about his agency's interference in the student organization's affairs, the Iranian Labor News Agency (ILNA) reported.

The Islamic Students Union of Tehran University announced on 3 February that it wanted to hold a rally in front of the university's main gate on 8 February, the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) reported. Ali Talai, an official with the Tehran Governorate-General's Political-Security Affairs Directorate, said earlier in the day that the student's application to hold a rally on 4 February was rejected because it would have disrupted traffic, ISNA reported. The student organization asked why, if traffic is such a concern, conservatives are allowed to hold rallies in the same location after every Friday prayers.

By 8 February the students seemed to have had enough of watching in silence. On that day about 200 students affiliated with the Allameh wing of the Office for Strengthening Unity marched along Inqilab Avenue toward the University of Tehran and chanted slogans such as "Death to Tyranny," "Referendum, Referendum, This is the slogan of the people," and "Voting in Elections, Treachery, Treachery," Fars News Agency reported. At the university itself, the students called for President Hojatoleslam Mohammad Khatami's resignation, dpa reported, citing ISNA.

Bill Samii, RFE/RL

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_1704.shtml

Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in
Iran (SMCCDI)

http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3128.shtml
February 12, 2004

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
The White House
Washington, DC

Fax: (202) 456-2461

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the Iranian Student Movement and the Iranian
Diaspora around the World, especially our oppressed
countrymen, we extend our sincerest appreciation for your
leadership and efforts to promote long term peace and
democratic rule in the World. We also want to use this
opportunity to express, once again, our deepest gratitude
for your consistent and open support of our people in their
quest for true freedom and democracy.

Indeed, your tireless support of our subjugated and
tyrannized people has touched millions of Iranians and they
view you as an ardent defender of freedom and a source of
hope. As one of the few world leaders that fully
appreciates and openly supports the aspirations and goals
of our subjugated country, we extend our thanks. Let us
assure you, as you plan for the conquest of Mars, that you
have already succeeded in conquering the hearts and souls
of millions of Iranians. It is, therefore, imperative that
you are re-elected this November, and you can count on our
constant support, and votes, in the upcoming election.

Mr. President, in less than three centuries, America has
become the beacon of hope and support for people worldwide
seeking freedom and democracy. Embedded in your actions to
free the oppressed is, we believe, a deep seated moral
basis that is a reflection of America's founding fathers
objectives. The moral fiber that you and many of the
people in your administration represent is the same
democratic principals that the people of Iran desperately
want and need. Serving as a model for the world to
emulate, America, you, and most of your administration
provides inspiration and hope for the future of Iran.

We believe that as with the American defeat of Nazism,
Communism, Baathism and Talibanism, America will help to
defeat the Islamic Fascists who have no place in a
civilized world. Peace, democracy, true freedom, and
equitable opportunities and living conditions for all
Iranians and Middle Easterners, in general, can be
attained, through total defeat of the of Islamic Fascism in
Iran.

Sir, the oppressed people of Iran have been mislead by the
Islamic Fascists, brutalized by their fanatic mercenaries,
manipulated by their so-called reformists, and mentally and
physically coerced to tolerate their illegitimate rule for
the last 25 years. We have faith that the Islamic Republic
will, as all regimes that relies on terror and
intimidation, soon be swept away and be a mere historical
footnote. We do believe that a populous purge, with
America's firm moral support, can contribute to a rapid and
somewhat bloodless removal of this abomination bent on
imposing its archaic ideology and barbarian processes on
the Iranian nation.

Indeed, as you have clearly articulated in the past, "each
problem has its' different answer," so too does the Iranian
situation. In recognizing that Iranians want their country
to dispose of the Islamic fascists, and not the U.S.
Military, your deft management is obvious. Applying logic
and reasoning you have imbued America in the hearts and
minds of the Iranian psyche, and, are systematically
driving the mullahcracy to distraction.

Indeed, the Islamic Republic regime is the mother of
Islamist terrorism, and the main source of Middle East
problems, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iranians are
openly opposed to its' illegitimate rule, and are seeking
increased coordinated moral and direct diplomatic support
from the totality of your administration. In this area,
your State Department and some misguided elements of the US
Congress are giving "aid and comfort" to the Terror
masters. In addition, the European Union's policy of
"constructive dialogues" is a waste of time, and is being
used by the Islamic masters of deceit and treachery to kill
opposing Iranians, Americans, and Israelis, while
attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. President, now, more than ever, the vast majority of
Iranian men and women believe that the Islamic Republic is,
without question, an evil regime that must be forced into
abandoning their power. To this end, Iranians seek a
national referendum, under the auspices of the UN and the
U.S., that will permit them to vote for self-determination
as a true democratic and secular state. We are sure that
with your help, Iran can quickly, and somewhat bloodlessly,
attain the aforementioned goals that will result in our
contributing, as a nation, to world peace and prosperity.

With the above in mind, we wish you a great upcoming
"Presidents Day," and express, at this occasion, our
deepest hopes for your success in your noble personal,
national and international endeavors.

Respectfully,

On behalf of SMCCDI

Aryo B. Pirouznia (for the Committee)

In Iran, a kinder view of Uncle Sam

Updated: 12:36 a.m. ET Feb. 12, 2004

TEHRAN, Feb. 11 - On Revolution Day, the Iranian equivalent of the Fourth of July, Azadi Street was again transformed from east-west artery to carnival midway. Men lined up for free yogurt. Hawkers coaxed women to finger the material of baby clothes. Children clamored for a turn throwing darts at George W. Bush.

Hossein Asadi put three darts right between the eyes of the caricature, sketched on a pair of boards mounted in a sideshow tent. He walked away with a new yellow tennis ball but no change in his feelings, which were nothing if not admiring.

“They like me to hit George Bush, so I hit George Bush,” said Hossein, 15. “They say it’s the Great Satan, but I say it’s a great country.

“I’ve seen nothing bad from the Americans.”

Wednesday marked 25 years since an elderly Muslim cleric with eyes the color of coal declared Iran a theocracy. But while religious figures remain firmly in charge here, sweeping aside an entire reform movement last week with the stroke of a pen, another pillar of the revolution appears shakier.

Anti-Americanism is not what it used to be in Iran.

As the United States and Iran edge warily toward possible rapprochement, the Iranian public makes no secret of its appetite for restoring relations formally severed in 1980, after militant students took over the U.S. Embassy here. In recent months, Iranians say, the appetite has grown for an unexpected reason: Iranian pilgrims returning from Iraq are spreading admiring stories of their encounters with American troops.

Thousands of Iranians have visited the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala since the war ended. Many have expressed surprise at the respectful and helpful behavior of the U.S. soldiers they met along the way.

Leila Araki, waiting in the back of a Renault sedan as her husband peddled shoes, recalled that her mother-in-law somehow lost her money on the road to Karbala. She said a U.S. soldier reached into his pocket and handed her taxi fare back to Najaf.

'Quite contrary to what we have been told'
“This is something quite contrary to what we have been told about Americans,” said Araki, 31, who was told of Americans flashing thumbs-up and saying, “Good, Iranians.”

“They were really surprised. I would never be this respected and well-treated even in my country, by my countrymen.”

Esmaeil Omrani told of a relative with asthma struggling to breathe in the dust of Najaf. A young American in full battle dress advised him to switch inhalants, then gave the pilgrim his own, plus an extra for the road. “Everybody liked them,” Omrani said.

Hossein Amiri related a similar story from a thirsty relative given water by a U.S. soldier outside Najaf when the city was closed by a car bombing.

“Between our countries, there might be problems at the top,” said Amiri, 48, a civil servant. “There is no problem at the bottom.”

This unusual cultural exchange has emerged at a fortuitous time, according to analysts and ordinary Iranians. After a quarter century of mutual hostility, the U.S. and Iranian governments are working quietly to establish order both in Afghanistan and Iraq, neighboring countries that Iran considered hostile under the regimes that the United States and allied nations recently toppled.

The prospect of formal relations remains uncertain. Senior Iranian officials said they do not expect serious progress until after the U.S. presidential election and Iran’s own contest for a new president in 2005.

But the soft words rising from Azadi Street carry significance. The annual gathering on Revolution Day draws Iranians who remain most fiercely devoted to the hard-line government, loyalists who routinely chant “Death to America” at Friday prayers (a refrain not heard on Wednesday). Bussed to Azadi, their numbers include volunteers of the Basiji militia who have pledged fealty to the country’s supreme leader and veterans who defended the nascent Islamic republic in the 1980-88 war against Iraq.

'Good things could happen'
U.S. support for Iraq in that war has been an abiding complaint in Iran, along with the CIA role in a 1953 coup that replaced a nationalist government with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, widely seen as a U.S. puppet disrespectful of Islam.

“I was a volunteer during the war,” said Amir Hossein Yazdarian, 35, who has used a wheelchair since an Iraqi grenade pierced his spine. “I was injured by the weapons of Saddam Hussein, who was supported by the Americans. So I have suffered from the Americans. But I don’t see any reason why we should not have relations.

“We are a nation with an ancient civilization. America is a nation with a modern civilization. If we cooperate, good things could happen.”

In the complex geometry of Iranian politics, prospects for U.S. ties may actually be enhanced by the electoral crisis still unfolding here. Since 2000, the government has been stalemated between elected reformers and conservatives who occupy the appointed positions that carry real authority here.

Last month, conservatives summarily disqualified most of the most prominent reform candidates for parliament. The move prompted a mass resignation among lawmakers, calls to boycott the Feb. 20 election and a stern warning from the reformist president to the several hundred thousand assembled on Wednesday.

“Elections are a symbol of democracy if they are performed correctly,” said President Mohammad Khatami, who has reluctantly vowed to go ahead with the election. “If this is restricted, it’s a threat to the nation and the system. This threat is difficult to reverse.”

But analysts said a government dominated by conservatives may accelerate the move toward negotiations with Washington. Renewed U.S. relations long have been quietly regarded as the ultimate prize in domestic politics here, one that reformers and conservatives have been loathe to see the other side win credit for delivering.

As for anti-American rhetoric enshrined by the 1979 revolution, a foreign diplomat in Tehran said, “I think ultimately Iranians feel they’ve been fed a line.”

“Whatever the cost of living there, please take me to America,” said Mohammad Tehrani, a bus driver waiting to carry the faithful home. He stood beside a kiosk bearing the slogan, stenciled in English, “Down with USA.”

“We have no problems with America really,” insisted Hassan Diyanat, a fellow driver. “Why should we have problems?”

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4245209/

Note: These interviews are typically with the poor and less educated of Iran who may have become more pro-American after meeting troops in Iraq. Millions of Iranians receive satellite dishes, and there are millions of Iranian diaspora who regularly visit so it's rather ridiculous to say 'troop visits' had much to do with the increase in pro-Americanism.
Iranians have been pro-American for many years.. nice that the media has finally noticed.

Valentine's Day finding place in Iran's heart

FARNAZ FASSIHI, The Wall Street Journal

(02-12) 06:05 PST (AP) --

TEHRAN, Iran -- Two clerks at Beautiful, a cosmetics shop here, recently stayed past midnight on a secret mission: decorating the windows with red satin drapes and Valentine hearts.

Valentine's Day has arrived in Iran, much to the chagrin of the conservative Muslim clerics who run the country. The government made the public mingling of unmarried couples illegal when it came to power in 1979. It views a Western holiday dedicated to love and sensuality as decadent and intolerable.

But many Iranians, especially the young, have picked up on the holiday of love and romance by watching satellite television and cruising the Internet -- two channels to the wider world that the hard-line mullahs can't control.

The government is trying to crack down, as it did last year when it became obvious that Cupid was gaining a foothold here. It has threatened to arrest unmarried couples who appear together in public. It asks couples checking into hotels to produce marriage certificates. Officials from the Office of Vice and Virtue, which is responsible for safeguarding the public from un-Islamic behavior, made the rounds of popular restaurants, cafes and shops this week to warn that facilitating romance could result in having their licenses revoked.

None of this appeared to concern Hamid Ghaderi, a 23-year-old industrial designer, as he eyed the bottles of imported perfumes at Beautiful. He finally asked the clerk for the "Escada Collection," his girlfriend's favorite scent. "Valentine's Day is new in Iran," said Mr. Ghaderi, who has never been outside Iran and hadn't heard of the holiday until a few years ago. "It's very popular, all my friends celebrate it. Even if they can't write their name in English, they know what Valentine's means."

Shops say their sales in the week leading to Valentine's Day now match those of Norouz, the Iranian New Year celebration. Many florists admit they have ordered two or three times the usual number of red roses and that they have more orders for bouquets and baskets than they can handle. For the past two years, flower distributors say they have been able to increase prices by 20 percent Valentine's week.

A new underground industry has sprung up to cater to the holiday, merchants say. Valentine goods are imported from China through Dubai or bought from local manufacturers that make everything from ribbons and wrapping paper to greeting cards and candles.

Since its inception, the Islamic Republic has insisted on raising the revolution's children -- those born after 1979 -- in accordance with the strict religious laws of Islam known as Sharia. Schools are segregated, and girls have to cover their hair and bodies in the Islamic dress code of hijab after the age of nine. Study of Arabic and the Quran are part of the curriculum through college.

Teenagers can be fined for playing loud music in their cars. Young couples can be arrested for holding hands or for any other type of touching in public. The laws are enforced sometimes severely and sometimes not, by the morality police, or basij, who prowl the cities on the lookout for alcohol, pop music and magazines with pictures revealing too much flesh.

In reality, the strict measures haven't worked. More than half of Iran's population is under the age of 25. And young people still date, listen to music, drink and dance. Iranian society remains as divided as ever between those who truly believe in Islamic ways and those who favor secular and Western ways.

"The clerics want us to only celebrate religious holidays, but we are Iranian, we are tired of mourning for imams and martyrs, and sick of all this sadness imposed on us," said Homa, an 18-year-old clerk at the perfume shop who asked that only her first name be used. "I like Valentine's Day because it's happy and it's about love."

Some moderate conservative voices have sought to co-opt the holiday. A weekly newspaper for young people, Omid Javan (Hope of the Youth) ran a headline this week saying, "Valentine is an occasion for MARRIED couples to celebrate their love, not street friends." The paper devoted half its front page to an article about the history of Valentine's Day and reiterated that marking the event was suitable for married or engaged couples only.

According to the paper, last year a cleric named Hojat al-Islam Zam called on the Iranian government to figure out a proper alternative to a Westernized Valentine's Day. He suggested an "Islamic Valentine" that would mark the wedding 1,400 years ago of Imam Ali, whom Shiites believe was the prophet Mohammad's rightful successor, to the prophet Mohammad's daughter, Fatima.

A more modern youth magazine, Chelcheragh, ran five full pages of Valentine-related articles this week, mostly personal love stories, and asked readers to send in their funniest love stories or poems. It also ran an essay on how an Iranian boyfriend expresses his love: winking, Internet chatting, writing love letters and loitering outside girls' schools.

Young people argue that celebrating love is an ancient Persian tradition, dating back thousands of years and stripped from Iranians when the clerics took power. Ancient Persian writings, by Omar Khayyam among others, are full of poems and legends honoring passionate forbidden love between unmarried men and women. Two of the most popular female names in Iran to this day are Shireen and Leili, both heroines of illicit love affairs.

Negin Shalchian, 18, and her brother Ashkan, 14, visited a gift shop with their mother this week looking for Valentine's gifts for their friends. They plan to attend a Valentine's party where they will mingle with other boys and girls and dance to Western tunes. Negin insisted that her mother buy her a tight red sweater to match her black pants.

Neither of the Shalchians has ever left Iran. Yet they say they relate more to Western music channels than to national Iranian television. Young people here say that their knowledge about Valentine's Day comes from the Internet, Western magazines smuggled into Iran by friends and the satellite TV channels, which have now become mainstream.

Shopkeepers and restaurant owners say that in the past week members of the government's Vice and Virtue Office have paid them visits and issued guidelines. The list for Valentine's Day this year: no couples with flowers or gifts are allowed inside; no dimming of the lights; no candles; no red or heart-shaped decorations; no romantic music and no mention of the word Valentine.

Monsoon, a popular Thai restaurant, says it expects to be booked solid Saturday night. Mohammad Amin-Nejad, the manager, says that while the restaurant won't take any special measures -- such as a changing the menu or putting up colorful decorations -- it will still do its best to cater to customers.

An Italian restaurant nearby, Casa Mia, has already decided to close rather than risk a confrontation with the police. "We know they will raid the restaurant this year on Valentine's Day, and it's not worth it to be open for this one night and then get shut down for weeks," says Karim Mikhaeli, a 25-year-old waiter.

Ramona Rad, a 23-year-old business graduate, plans to spend a romantic evening with her boyfriend at home. Ms. Rad, who was shopping for red and white candles for the occasion, said that last year she and her boyfriend drove around for three hours. They couldn't find a single restaurant with an available table.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/12/financial0905EST0035.DTL

Iran is Ripe for an Explosion

February 10, 2004
Le Parisien
Bruno Fanucchi

Reza Pahlavi, son of the Shah of Iran - Interview by Bruno Fanucchi, Le Parisien

Q: With less than ten days remaining to the parliamentary elections, which has led to a political crisis in Iran between conservatives and reformists, are you calling for a national boycott?

Reza Pahlavi: The greatest error by Western analysts, is to believe in the struggle between so-called reformists and conservatives. There indeed exists two other camps: on one hand the entire regime – this theocratic dictatorship-, on the other the people, who demand popular sovereignty and respect for human rights. The Iranians are fed up, for they know that this regime is unable to reform itself. The demonstrations in Iran, the strikes and calls for boycotts is proof that the entire regime has been rejected and is about to implode. When there is no liberty of expression, the only way to be heard, is to boycott the elections.

Q: Twenty five years after the return of Khomeini to Iran, his successors are still in power...

Reza Pahlavi: It took the Russian people seventy years to get rid of the totalitarian communist regime.

Q: Your idea is to put the choice of the regime (monarchy or republic) to a referendum...

Reza Pahlavi: Clearly this referendum can not be organised until after the fall of the regime. My role is to bring together my compatriots to the stage where they can decide freely the regime of their choice. Tomorrow’s Iran, I hope, will be the first Muslim country in the world to adopt a system that is both secular and democratic.

Q: The Ayatollah’s Iran is according to George Bush part of an “axis of evil”. Will it be the next target after Irak?

Reza Pahlavi: Today, the main problem, from Moscow to New York, is terrorism. This cancerous virus began in our country with the Islamic revolution. A man like Bin Laden admitted that he had been inspired by Khomeini. Iran has been the epicentre of fanaticism and terrorism. We do not need external military intervention, even an American one. It would even be counter-productive at a time when Iran is ripe for an explosion, and Iranians are telling the West: “Stop trading and dealing with this regime!”

Q: Could Bin Laden be hiding in Iran?

Reza Pahlavi: It is difficult to prove this, but it is clear that Al- Qaeda elements were trained by THE Revolutionary Guards. For many years, they have been trained, equipped, financed and armed in our country. I know from reliable sources that a great part of the terrorism in Iraq is being directed from Tehran: destabilising the region is the only chance for their survival.

Q: How did you react to the capture of Saddam Hussein?

Reza Pahlavi: All the Irakis told themselves: “Ouf, it’s over!” On the contrary, I did not approve the sensationalism of this arrest for everyone deserves to be treated with human dignity, even if the person in question is the greatest Attila in history.

Q: Do you hope to return soon to Iran?

Reza Pahlavi: Since I have been in exile, I have always remained Iranian. It is my country. I hope to see it as soon as possible. To rid the Iranian people from the regime that represses it.

At 43, Reza Pahlavi, who lives in exile in the USA, launches his latest book “Pour L’Iran”* (For Iran) in Paris.

*”Pour L’Iran” (Entretiens avec Ahmad Ahrar), Flammarion, 254 pages, 19EUROS

Reza Pahlavi, son of the last Shah of Iran
Interview by Bruno Fanucchi
Translated from Le Parisien by CK

http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=fr&y=2004&m=02&d=12&a=1

Terror war accelerated Iran's WMD

WorldNet Daily - From Geostrategy-Direct Intelligence Brief
Feb 12, 2004

Despite defeating Iraq, the United States has failed to deter Iran from pursuing its nuclear weapons program.

A study published by the U.S. Army War College asserts the U.S. ouster of Saddam Hussein has led to an acceleration of Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Neither Iran nor its ally, North Korea, has been swayed to abandon its missile or weapons of mass destruction programs, the report said.

"Iran also revealed a potential nuclear program more advanced than most suspected," stated the report, "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism."

"Neither state seemed in the least bit deterred, although North Korea, under considerable pressure from China, finally entered into multilateral negotiations with as yet unknown results.

The administration, however, did not take or even speak of military action against these states in part because of preoccupation with Iraq and in part because military action against Iran, and especially North Korea, would entail far greater difficulties and risks than action against Iraq."

Authored by Jeffrey Record, the report said the Bush administration chose to attack Baghdad because of the U.S. assessment that the Iraqi military would quickly collapse.

In contrast, the administration has rejected suggestions to attack neighboring Iran, with a much more powerful military, despite Teheran's huge nuclear and missile programs. The college said the report does not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army.

"Iran is much larger and poses a much greater terrorist threat than Iraq, and Iran's location and terrain are logistically and operationally much more forbidding," stated the report, released in December 2003.

"All of this suggests that the value of threatened or actual preventive military action may be limited to target states, like Iraq, that are incapable of either offering effective military resistance or placing at risk assets highly valued by the United States and its allies. States capable of doing so may indeed be deterring the United States rather than being deterred."

Record, a professor at the War College in Montgomery, Ala. and a former Senate aide, said the U.S. military presence in Iraq has severely limited options for another U.S. campaign to prevent the emergence of a nuclear power.

The United States still has the option of air strikes on underground nuclear facilities with the use of Earth-penetrating weapons armed with low-yield nuclear warheads. But Record said this would violate international treaties and blur what he termed the critical distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.

"In short," the report said, "threatened or actual preventive military action seems an inherently dangerous and potentially very counter-productive means to achieve the goal of halting the continued proliferation of WMD, which itself may simply exceed the limits of American power."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37081

Diplomats: UN Uncovers New Iranian Atomic Secrets

February 12, 2004
Reuters
Ha'aretz

VIENNA -- The UN nuclear watchdog has uncovered highly-sensitive designs for machines in Iran that can be used to make bomb-grade material, calling into question Iran's cooperation with the agency, diplomats said on Thursday.

In Berlin, a senior U.S. official repeated Washington's accusation that Iran wants to make a nuclear bomb.

Several Western diplomats told Reuters on condition of anonymity the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found parallels between Libya's nuclear weapons program and Iran's atomic programme, which Tehran says is purely peaceful.

"They bought the same stuff from the same people," said one Western diplomat who follows the IAEA closely.

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton told a security conference in Berlin it was clear what Tehran was up to.

"There's no doubt in our mind that Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapons program," said Bolton, described by diplomats in Vienna as one of Washington's hardest hardliners.

But Iran shrugged off the charges. "The burden of proof is on the one who makes the allegations," Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told reporters in Rome. "There may be questions by IAEA inspectors, but we are ready to verify those."

Another diplomat said the discovery of designs for gas centrifuges was not because of Iranian cooperation but "good inspection work by the IAEA". He said Iran only admitted it had the designs after the IAEA showed evidence it knew it had them.

Gas centrifuges spin at supersonic speeds to separate fissile uranium 235 from the non-fissile uranium isotopes.

The blueprints in question are based on the so-called "G2" centrifuge developed by the British-German-Dutch enrichment consortium Urenco. There were no indications Urenco, which denied selling technology to Iran, provided the designs.

Pakistan is known to have designs for both the G1 and G2.

The steel G2 centrifuge is better than the earlier aluminium G1, a version of which Iran has already been mass producing.

After keeping its enrichment program a secret for 18 years, Iran gave the IAEA in October what it said was a full declaration of its nuclear programme. But it did not mention the G2-based centrifuge designs, diplomats said.

Diplomats said Libya has told the IAEA exactly what it bought, when and from whom. They said many purchases were handled through an illicit network based in Dubai and linked to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atom bomb.

The IAEA has been investigating the global nuclear black market that helped Iran, Libya and North Korea bypass international sanctions and purchase sensitive nuclear technology that could be used to make weapons.

Gary Samore, head of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and an adviser to former U.S. President Bill Clinton, said the discovery of the designs raises the question of whether Iran has a hidden enrichment facility.

"There's always been a suspicion that Iran got the more advanced (G2) and there's some concern that they might be building an undeclared facility someplace that would utilize both the G1 and G2 for the production of weapons grade uranium," Samore told Reuters.

Diplomats said it was unclear if Iran had been manufacturing or procuring G2-compatible components or actual centrifuges.

This issue will likely be discussed in an IAEA report on Iran expected to be circulated among Vienna diplomats next week.

"This (design discovery) raises very serious questions that we will address at the upcoming IAEA board meeting (on March 8)," a Western diplomat told Reuters.

Diplomats said the designs could give Washington new ammunition in its drive to report Iran to the UN Security Council for concealing the extent of its nuclear programme. The Council can impose economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Several diplomats said they thought Iran had bought the same nuclear warhead designs that Libya handed over to the IAEA.

"It's safe to assume that Khan offered Iran the weapons designs which Libya bought for e50 million," Samore said.

Another sensitive subject at the March IAEA board meeting will be Iran's decision to continue manufacturing and assembling centrifuges, despite promising in November not to.

"They have not yet, in our judgment, complied even with the commitments they made in October to suspend their uranium enrichment activities," said Bolton.

Germany, Britain, and France persuaded Iran last year to suspend enrichment and accept snap inspections by the IAEA.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=393784&contrassID=1&subContrassID=8&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Fighting Terror with a Forceful Neo-Con Stick

February 07, 2004
National Post
Adam Daifallah

"There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust." When authors use language like that to open up a book, it is a safe bet that what follows will be rather stark and forceful. Such is the case in David Frum and Richard Perle's An End to Evil, which is best described as a dummies' guide to the neo-conservative view of the war on terror.

In their manifesto, Frum and Perle--two men of unrivalled hawkish credentials--offer a candid assessment of the post-9/11 actions of the United States. They chart various mistakes that have been made, review present challenges and offer counsel for the future.

There is nothing really new in the way of policy prescriptions in An End to Evil; most of the ideas have already been put forward on the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal or in the Weekly Standard magazine or other conservative publications. But it is nonetheless useful to have these ideas summarized in one short book.

Frum and Perle certainly cannot be accused of being dovish. Among the authors' suggestions for next steps in the war on terror: more overt support for the democratic forces in Iran (a neoconservative hobby horse for years); adopting a more "stern and uncompromising" stance toward the Baathist regime in Syria; a "four-point checklist" for North Korea, including the closing of its missile bases and planning for a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities, and a more realistic and frank relationship with America's putative ally, Saudi Arabia. Indeed, An End to Evil's excoriation of the House of Saud is one of its more useful sections, because it takes the United States to task for turning a blind eye toward the kingdom's egregious human rights abuses, its support for and incitement of terrorism and the exporting of its puritanical brand of Wahhabi Islam to every corner of the globe. (Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty.)

Also useful is An End to Evil's examination of the deficiencies of various arms of the U.S. government -- particularly the State Department and the CIA, whose shortcomings were so damaging to the Bush administration in the lead-up to the Iraq war. The CIA's intelligence gathering was, as we now know since this book's publication, way off-base on Iraq's weapons capabilities. The agency was never fully on board with President Bush's plans for Iraq in the first place, preferring instead to cling to their years-old pipe dream of overthrowing Saddam Hussein in a coup.

Just as harmful were the antics of State, a department whose hallways are still dominated by status quo Arabists out-of-touch with Mr. Bush's vision. As the authors note, Foggy Bottom's senseless recalcitrance toward working with exiled Iraqi democrats like the Iraqi National Congress contributed to the chaos after Baghdad fell. Frum and Perle call for the abolition of regional bureaus at State and a sharp increase in the number of political appointees there. (Unless the entire swamp is drained, it is unclear whether that would make much of a difference.)

Frum and Perle are pertinacious in their view that the United States must reassess its international relationships, including those with Europe and in particular with France. America's relationship with France must be calibrated "to reflect French behaviour" and the United States should "force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington." The authors also urge aiding Britain in maintaining its independence from Europe. (This is going to be difficult to achieve, given Tony Blair's obvious preference for further integration into the European Union and eventual adoption of the euro.) The authors' antipathy toward France is understandable given its recent behaviour. But it does seem unproductive to actively oppose France and to pursue a policy that would further alienate Paris, especially at a time when the United States is looking for friends in Iraq.

An End to Evil also calls for quite sensible reforms to ensure the survival of the United Nations. The UN is not this reviewer's or the authors' favourite body. But changes such as amending the UN's Article 51 to give states the right to defend themselves against threats other than an "armed attack" (which it currently does not do) might allow that institution to remain viable. If it does not, it will go the way of the League of Nations.

This book does not call for invading a host of countries -- the authors know that the American military, with more than 100,000 troops in Iraq, is already stretched thin. It does not call for an American empire. It is not a Muslim-bashing screed. It is definitely idealistic, and perhaps over-ambitious. But it provides an articulate and well-argued case for an uncompromisingly strong United States, and for democratization of the Middle East as the only way to eradicate Islamic terrorism.

The usual chorus of so-called experts are already out dismissing this book as being shrill and extreme. But what if an al-Qaeda terrorist does detonate a dirty bomb in a New York subway? What if a Syrian-coddled jihadi blows himself up in a Los Angeles bistro? What if North Korea decides to lob a nuclear-tipped missile at Japan?

One hopes none of these things will happen, but if they ever should, this book's detractors will have egg on their faces, and Frum and Perle will be vindicated.

Adam Daifallah is a member of the National Post's editorial board.

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19907,filter./news_detail.asp

Pope Urges Iran to Cooperate With U.N.

February 12, 2004
The Associated Press
The New York Times

ROME -- The Vatican issued a stern message on nuclear weapons during the visit of a top Iranian official Thursday, with Pope John Paul II urging Tehran to continue cooperating with U.N. inspectors and his foreign minister warning that the pursuit of such weapons only multiplies conflicts.

The message was delivered to Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, who denied Tehran had any nuclear weapons ambitions and played down the discovery by U.N. inspectors of drawings of equipment that can be used to make weapons-grade uranium.

``We do not have anything to hide and we are ready to be inspected more (seriously) by IAEA inspectors,'' Kharrazi told reporters on the sidelines of a conference celebrating 50 years of Vatican-Iranian relations.

Iran agreed last year to end nearly two decades of nuclear secrecy by opening its facilities to inspections by the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency.

At the start of the conference, the Vatican foreign minister, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, read a message from the pope to Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in which John Paul stressed the need for international cooperation to fight terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation.

``I would like here to express the Holy See's appreciation of the efforts made by Iran in this regard and to encourage that these efforts continue,'' the pope's message read.

In his comments to Kharrazi and the conference, Lajolo spoke generally about the nuclear threat, saying a nuclear arms race risked aggravating wars.

``The use of enormous resources for preparing new weapons is an obstacle to aid for indigenous populations and hinders the development of peoples,'' he said. ``Arming oneself at all costs multiplies the causes of conflicts and increases the risks of their spreading.

``The Holy See looks with hope and satisfaction to fuller cooperation that, in the name of peace, Iran offers in this area to the United Nations and its agencies,'' he added.

The comments came on the same day that diplomats in Vienna reported that U.N. inspectors had discovered drawings of high-tech equipment that can be used to make weapons-grade uranium.

Kharrazi didn't refer to the nuclear question in his comments to the conference, but told reporters ``there should not be any concern about the programs of Iran'' because it was cooperating with the IAEA.

Asked specifically about the new design discovery, Kharrazi said: ``There may be questions by IAEA inspectors but we are ready to verify those and what has been achieved altogether up until now is out of our cooperation with IAEA. As long as we are ready to continue our cooperation all outstanding questions will be verified,'' he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Vatican-Iran.html

Iran's Young Elite Face Trial by Fire

February 13, 2004
The Christian Science Monitor
Scott Peterson

TEHRAN -- No political opponent ever accused Iran's youngest woman parliamentarian of mincing words - and she has strong ones for the hard-line conservatives who have engineered almost certain victory in next week's parliament vote.

The election campaign officially began Thursday, but Fatemah Haqiqat-Jou - along with some 2,500 other candidates - is barred from running by the unelected Guardian Council.

The freshly minted lawmaker first came to office in 2000 full of hope, imbued with ideals of justice and democracy, and backed by 1 million Tehran votes - part of a reformist landslide that ushered in a new generation of young leaders.

But today the collapsing dreams of Ms. Haqiqat-Jou, whom the Monitor first met on the campaign trail four years ago when she was 31, is emblematic of how hardliners in Iran have triumphed over the first reform parliament since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.

That victory cannot last, vows Haqiqat-Jou, a demure new mother who expects that she may soon have to fulfill a prison sentence, handed down by a notoriously hard-line prosecutor in August 2001.

"There are two options: Either [conservatives] are destroyed, and finally destroy the Islamic system, or they change their behavior toward people," warns the soft-spoken deputy, who wears her many-layered chador with elegant ease.

"I believe in the proverb: 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,' " says Haqiqat-Jou, narrowing unflinching eyes. "That is our main problem now."

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei makes all final decisions. But after twice asking the Guardian Council to reconsider the cases of nearly 4,000 barred candidates, he finally accepted the banning of some 2,500, and said the vote would not be delayed.

Like most reformists, Haqiqat-Jou sees it differently. The decisions of the Guardian Council are "both un-Islamic and illegal," says the lawmaker, one of 11 women deputies in the 290-seat parliament, or majlis.

"Reforms from within the state are impossible now," she says during an interview in the downtown offices of the main reform party, the Islamic Iran Participation Front (IIPF). The IIPF is boycotting the election. "They are not dead; the young generation is determined to find reforms, even if they take a different form."

That message was echoed during a rally to mark the 25-year anniversary of the revolution on Wednesday, by reform-minded President Mohammad Khatami, who has watched his own vast popularity disappear amid charges of ineffectiveness.

"Elections are a symbol of democracy if they are performed correctly," Mr. Khatami told the conservative crowd. Not a single portrait of the embattled head of state was evident among the sea of pictures of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of Iran's revolution, and Iran's current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. "If this is restricted, it's a threat to the nation and the system."

It already may be too late, says Haqiqat-Jou, who receives "a lot of complaints" about the failure of reformers from students when she teaches at a local university. "I think people are disappointed and in despair, because they think their vote doesn't count."

The unassuming woman hardly looks like a populist firebrand who held audiences of both men and women rapt four years ago, before and after her election victory, when 83 percent of Iranian voters flocked to polling booths.

Back then, Haqiqat-Jou spoke confidently about the reform interpretation of "individual and social rights and pluralism," and the public rejection of methods that "used religion to take power and finish with their enemies."

"It's a fight we have to win," she had declared.

But today, Haqiqat-Jou's rap sheet includes detention, sit-in protests, and a 20-month prison sentence for "misinterpreting" the words of Ayatollah Khomeini and for insulting the Guardian Council. She was acquitted of the first charge, taking 10 months off the sentence.

Haqiqat-Jou says she expects there will be arrests of other prominent reformers, who led a three-week sit-in in parliament last month, to protest the disqualification of the reform candidates, including 80 sitting members of parliament.

A mass resignation of more than 120 MPs deepened the political crisis; even more MPs were disqualified upon appeal to the Guardian Council, including the president's brother Reza Khatami, who received more votes in 2000 than any other politician.

Some observers are cautious when interpreting the meaning of the disqualifications, however. "This is not 2,500 nice, enlightened democrats who want to participate in the vote, against the bad, dark Guardian Council that wants to kick them out - that is not true," says a Western diplomat.

Besides basic standards of literacy and education, candidates are also required to prove their devotion to Islam and to the supreme leader, who is deemed infallible among Iran's revolutionary faithful - a test that the increasingly secular reformists, including Haqiqat-Jou, may not have passed.

"I don't mean to take the side of the Guardian Council, but [some of] these people made clear they want a secular system, which is against the Constitution," the diplomat says.

The result may be that political debates on sensitive subjects that have marked this reform parliament may end, and spark "a new repression after the election."

But how did the reform tidal wave that swept Khatami to his first election victory in 1997 lose its power after the 2000 vote? In those days, Haqiqat-Jou expressed unbridled optimism for the daunting task of meeting high expectations, because conservatives "have no choice but to let the new parliament do its work," she had said.

But then the judiciary and security organs, still in the hands of hard-liners who feared for their political lives, began immediately to shut down scores of reform newspapers, and to arrest key editors and critical intellectuals. The Guardian Council blocked every single piece of reform legislation - including those meant to curtail the powers of unelected bodies.

"I couldn't have predicted for a single moment that such difficult things were awaiting reformists ... that the conservatives would use all the legal and illegal means, while we limited ourselves to the legal," Haqiqat-Jou says, in calm, measured tone.

"If [conservatives] win the majlis, reformists will be under even more pressure, and will have even more obstacles," says Haqiqat-Jou.

"Some could possibly be arrested. I have 10 months [of jail time to serve] from before; I will have new friends in prison."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0213/p06s01-wome.html

Between the Potomac and the Euphrates

The unfolding political crisis in Iran is intimately linked to the goings-on in Washington. The perception that Bush may be a one-term president is what has emboldened the conservatives in Teheran to make a move on the reformists. No peace talks between Israel and Syria will take place until it becomes clear how important it is to the White House to uncover the WMD Saddam stashed away in Syria shortly before the balloon went up.
Jonathan Ariel

Over the past fortnight two highly important political developments have been going on in the Middle East. Syria has been desperately attempting to reopen peace talks with Israel, while on the other side of the Fertile Crescent, the conservatives in Iran have initiated a showdown with the reformist elements.

These two developments have much more in common than meets the eye. The Syrian-Iranian alliance has been going on for well over a decade, nourishing Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. The two countries regularly coordinate their policies, and there is little doubt that Teheran knew about, and perhaps even advised Bashar Assad to launch his bogus peace offensive, with the option of turning it into the real thing if circumstances warrant it.

Iran was always the senior partner in the alliance. This has become much more obvious and blatant ever since the inexperienced Bashar succeeded his father Hafez Assad, who had the reputation of being a sly and wily fox.

This being the case, one needs to examine very closely Iran’s machinations ever since the US entered Iraq. The most surprising phenomenon, to those unfamiliar with Iran’s tradition of sophisticated diplomacy was the relative cooperation the US has enjoyed from the Iraqi Shiite majority, over which Iran, as the Moslem world’s only Shiite power has a significant influence.

The Iranian leadership was initially taken aback by the swiftness of the US victory. It decided to adopt a policy of wait and see, until things became clearer. For this reason the word went out to the Shiite leadership in Iraq, many of whom had found asylum from Saddam’s murderous rule in Iran, not to make life too difficult for the US forces. This was also in the Iraqi Shiites interest, since the last thing they wanted was for either Saddam or one of his Sunni henchmen to resume Sunni rule, which for the Shiite majority had been an unmitigated disaster.

The last thing the Iranian conservatives wanted was to provoke the US. Their ultimate fear was to see Uncle Sam’s boys cross the Euphrates to liberate Iran from a regime only slightly less bestial and inherently much more dangerous than Saddam’s. The nearest this came to pass was last summer, when it seemed as if the reformist government might give the students the green light to set off massive demonstrations which would be joined by other disaffected groups. There was much talk at the time in the US of seeing the Iranian youth liberate themselves. Within a month the situation had changed, the demonstrations never really took off, and the crisis seemed to be over.

What really happened was that the conservatives, fearing what might happen, made a deal with reformist president Khatami, inferring they were willing to cut him some slack. The reason for this was not a willingness to adopt reform, but a cold-blooded realistic analysis of the situation. It had become clear the US was not going to be thrown out of Iraq, and that the Iraqi Shiites were unlikely to open a second guerrilla front against US forces even if Iran had given the word, since their self interest was to have the US turn over power to them as the democratically elected majority, not have the US pushed prematurely out. Moreover the Iranian interest was to see the Shiites become the dominant political force in Baghdad.

At the same time President Bush seemed assured of a second term. No one, not even the arch reactionary Ayatollah Ahmed Jannati, chairman of the Council of Guardians was willing to risk taking on George W. Bush, who had demonstrated very clearly his willingness to wield a very big stick. The only thing to assure this was to give the appearance that the reformists were, slowly but surely gaining the upper hand.

Events in Washington over the past month changed that perception. The conservatives seem to have decided that Bush could be vulnerable. As a result, they decided to renegotiate their agreement with Khatami, since they believe Iran can afford to get away with presenting a less enlightened image to the world. The result is the current crisis. Supreme leader Khamenei, the leader of the conservative faction, which is between the reactionaries and the reformists, but on the whole tends to side mostly with the former, will not take any decisive step until he has to, meaning until he and his advisors decide what Bush’s chances are. If they decide that his defeat is not a sure thing, the compromise he will arrange will favor the reformists, at least somewhat. If he decides that Iran can take the risk of assuming that Bush will not be reelected, the compromise will, in effect be an ultimatum to the reformists to surrender or else. If he decides to wait and see, he will go along with the reformists’ demand to postpone the election, without necessarily acting to get the Guardians to reinstate the disqualified reformist candidates.

A hint at this was provided last week by foreign ministry spokesperson Reza Asefi, who said that the current row “could seriously impact Teheran’s foreign policy. In Iranian political talk this meant that it might be premature to assume that Bush is a lame duck, and that a premature push for power by the reactionaries could endanger Iran’s recent foreign policy achievements, primarily an informal understanding with the US that Iraq’s Shiites will take control of Iraq when the US departs.

This is of utmost importance to Iran, which over the past 200 years has had to face powerful enemies, Russia in the north (which throughout the 19th century nibbled away at Persia’s northern territories, conquering Moslem Chechnya and Azerbaijan in the process), and the Ottoman Empire in the southwest, which ruled the area today known as Iraq.

Iran is now in a unique position, all too rare in its history of being able to secure both its traditionally vulnerable flanks. Russia is weaker than ever before, and there is an opportunity to ensure a friendly regime in Mesopotamia, which has been a rival of Iran (or Persia) since biblical times. This can only be possible as long as the US is willing to continue its discreet behind the scenes dialogue with Teheran, which has enabled it to alternatively cajole and seduce Iran into not giving it grief in Iraq in return for the likelihood of the emergence of a government that would be reasonably well disposed towards it, and unlikely to pose a threat to its eastern neighbor.

This covert understanding between Iran and the US was able to take place because of the balance of power in Iran, between the reformists led by President Khatami and Majlis (Parliament) speaker Mehdi Karroubi, the conservatives led by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and former president Rafsanjani, and the ultra-conservatives (some say reactionaries), led by the Ayatollahs Jannati, Meshkini and Shahrudi.

The latter have decided to take out the reformists, having decided that Bush is unlikely to be reelected, and therefore willing to risk US ire, which, as far as they are concerned, will be limited to words if Bush is no longer president. If there is one thing these men do not fear, it’s words.

It is no coincidence that there have been recent reports that Hezbollah, which is supported, nourished and ultimately controlled by the reactionaries and the conservatives, has begun operating in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. The Iranians, especially the conservatives, need controlled chaos in Iraq, enough to enable them to get the maximum concessions from the US in return for ensuring Shiite quiet, but not enough to make them go home prematurely, before the Shiites have gained control.

The capture of Saddam threatened to unravel this strategy. The response has been twofold. One part was to get Bashar Assad to try initiate peace talks with Israel. The logic is that this would, if successful, prevent a US invasion of Syria. The reason Iran fears this is that US forces would probably discover the Iraqi WMD that are hidden there. Such a development would end Bush’s domestic problems, and all but ensure him a second term, a disaster to the Iranian conservatives. Moreover the Syrians might just inform the US authorities that the Iranians pressured them to do this in the first place. The last thing the conservative clerics want is an enraged George Bush sitting safely in the Oval office for four more years.

The second part of the Iranian response to Saddam’s capture has been to have the all but eliminated Sunni resistance replaced by Hezbollah. The recent targets show what is at work here. The main targets over the past 2-3 weeks have not been Americans, but Iraqi intelligentsia, the backbone of an enlightened and traditional, but overall fairly secular middle class. This is precisely the class that wants to see US style democracy succeed, and is the one most inimical to seeing the Baathist dictatorship replaced by a Shiite one.

Teheran’s aim is to see Bush defeated. The thinking in Teheran is that a Democratic president would not have the stomach to go to war in order to save Iraq’s middle class. The result, snap elections won by the Shiites, the formation of a new anti-western Damascus-Baghdad-Teheran axis, armed with a large variety of lethal non conventional weapons,

The Iranians are confident that even if hard evidence of Hezbollah terrorism in Iraq shows up, Bush will not be able to do anything until the elections. However the one potential fly in the ointment the Iranians have so assiduously being concocting is if the Iraqi WMD that have been hidden in the remote corners of the Syrian desert were to be discovered, thus vindicating Bush and all but assuring him of four more years.

This could only happen if either the US invaded, or the regime fell. To ensure neither of these events occur, Iran suggested to Assad that he embark on a peace initiative. For Iran this is a win-win proposition. If the talks eventually fail, they would still have served their purpose, preempting a scenario that could vindicate Bush and assure him reelection. If, by some mischance the talks actually led somewhere, it would be no skin of their nose, since Syria, not Iran would be making the required concessions. In the long run Syria is less important to Iran than Iraq, since unlike Iraq, the majority of Syrians are Sunni Moslems, who intensely dislike the Baath regime dominated by the minority Alawis, who are theologically much closer to the Shiites than to the Sunnis (who unlike the Shiites regard them as heretics). Iran knows it may, and can afford to lose Syria as an ally. It cannot afford to lose Iraq.

Israel and the US however, were not taken for a ride. This means that all options are still open. The current administration is not about to see a virulently anti-western conservative dominated Iran become the ultimate benefactor of the war. American blood was not shed in order to facilitate unprecedented Iranian hegemony over the region. If, in order to prevent such an outcome it becomes imperative to vindicate the Bush administration by proving estimates of Iraqi non-conventional capabilities were essentially correct, then an invasion of Syria cannot be ruled out. The pretext would be either proof of Syrian complicity in allowing Hezbollah to operate in Iraq, or allow Israel to initiate a war with Syria over its support of terrorism.

For this reason Bush is willing to let Sharon make the road map as obsolete as the horse and buggy, despite the blow to his prestige. Both men may need a war with Syria to ensure their political survival, and the world may need it to take out another link in the axis of evil, and to prevent the emergence of an Iranian dominated Damascus-Baghdad-Teheran axis, which would soon become a Islamic regional superpower that could, and probably would pose as much of a threat to the west as it would to Israel.

The higher the probability of the Iranian domestic balance of power being shifted in favor of the ultra-conservatives, the greater the likelihood of a war with Syria becomes.

The writer is the Editor-in-Chief of Ma’ariv International

(2004-02-08 18:06:38.0)

The Source

Forgive me if this has been posted. I'm taking a difficult sabbatical from Free Republic to see what it's like to be ordinary.

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.