Iranian Alert -- February 24, 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.

"I Am in Permanent Contact with Iran"

February 24, 2004
Point De Vue
Vincent Meylan

The Eldest Son of the last Shah of Iran Speaks to Exlusively to Vincent Meylan

There are the bodyguards, in black suits who ask you not to reveal the place of rendezvous, the private secretary, the chauffeurs, the press attaches, those of Reza Pahlavi and those of Flammarion, the publisher of his book, "Pour L'Iran" (For Iran), a retinue which moves with its king in exile. All this polite world, smiling, but when the allocated time has run out, no point to plead for another five minutes to take one last photograph. "We are sorry to hurry you, but the Prince has appointments all day." That's it. The meeting is over. Reza Pahlavi, himself, would have stayed a while longer to discuss with you. Like a fine Easterner, he appreciates a long chat. He likes to argue, to debate, exposes his ideas and above all, to talk about his country, Iran, the goal of his struggle for 25 years.

POINT DE VUE: Do you think that one day you will become the Shah of Iran, like your father?

REZA PAHLAVI: I have always said that the form of the regime is not the key question. Most important is the content of the regime. It must be founded on the sovereignty of the people, the universal declaration of human rights, and the secularism of the state. It is on these pillars that a democratic future can be drawn for Iran. Once these principles of government have been won, the people can choose between a democratic republic and constitutional monarchy.

PDV: What will be your future role then?

RP: It is not the future that preoccupies me, but the present. Today, my only mission is to gather the opposition, inside and outside Iran. We must work together, to finally bring down this regime, to manage well the transition period and organise free elections and a national referendum.

PDV: What will be the main goals of this referendum?

RP: The first objective will be to mark the official end of the Islamic republic. The second, to allow the Iranian people to express their support for the principles that I have just outlined. The Iranian republic is a theocracy, we must never forget that. In this system, the citizens are considered as children, incapable of self-government. All the decisions are taken by the Supreme Leader. Only he can interpret the laws of the Koran. We are in a week of parliamentary elections in Iran, but the word election has no real meaning. It is not the deputies who make the law. They propose it to a council, which itself depends on the Supreme Leader. This calling to the ballot box is nothing more than a facade. According to official statistics published recently by the Ministry of Information, nine out of ten Iranians are not bothered by the elections.

PDV: Do you think that they are prepared to rally to the Pahlavi name which has been criticised all these years?

RP: One does not appreciate the height of a mountain unless you stand at its foot. You need some distance. History is the same thing. You need to take some distance to write. Iranians today do not have the same opinion of the Iran of my father or grandfather as the Iranians of 1979. Under their rule, the country made significant progress, materially, socially and intellectually. Of course, it was not perfect. Surly, there were mistakes. I do not deny it. But the situation in Iran then has nothing comparable to today. So, I carry the name of Pahlavi, but I have not inherited in the historic sense, the political methods of my father and my grandfather. I have my own ideas, my own vision.

PDV: After 25 years of living in exile, do you still feel Iranian?

RP: Iran is my country. That I live in Washington makes no difference. We are three million and a half Iranians living in exile, but we live in Iran every day. It is our passion. We have a key role to play in the future of our country. Among the 3.5 million exiles, we find captains of industry, directors of N.A.S.A space missions, doctors, heads of clinics, artists, writers, journalists. Our diaspora possesses a colossal fortune estimated at 600 billion dollars. It is an enormous potential which neighbouring countries like Afghanistan and Iraq do not possess.

PDV: Is it this Iranian community that finances your movement?

RP: The diaspora takes care of many costs, notably the media networks, such as the television and radios which broadcast from outside the country. But 95% of these funds are spent inside the country. These funds allow for concrete action, to assist those who want to organise demonstrations, to distribute pamphlets, or to buy a mobile telephone.

PDV: According to you the days of the Islamic republic are numbered?

RP: The fissures are getting bigger and bigger and it will fall apart by itself. We can push it over by launching a non-violent civil disobedience movement. I am encouraging this strategy among all those Iranians whom I am in direct contact. It does not matter to me if they are republicans or monarchists, of the right or of the left, we have to row all together to arrive upon the shores of democracy. The ideas that I have been articulating for many years is starting to have an important echo in Iran. Even among the heart of the Armed Forces, the Guardians of the Revolution and the Clergy.

PDV: How are you able to stay in touch with all these people?

RP: We have a network which thankfully allows us to communicate in all secrecy. And thanks to God, we live in the age of the Internet and satellite communication. This technology allows me to enter the most remote regions of Iran. I only need my personal computer and mobile telephone to dialogue with an Iranian. The Islamic regime may block the internet sites, interrupt the airwaves, but it can not cut off 50 million young Iranians who are fed up with being told what to wear and what to think. Their sole demand is to be allowed to live. They are confronted by terrible problems of drugs, prostitution, depression and suicide. Every year, 250,000 of them flee clandestinely from the country.

PDV: Recently, you met with the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, the sworn enemy of your father. Did you talk about these things to him?

RP: Not only did we talk, but we agreed 99%. It does not matter that he is the grandson of Khomeini and I the grandson of Reza Shah. We are of the same generation. We have lived through the same experiences, historically, politically and intellectually during these past 25 years. Logically, we came to the same conclusion. As long as this regime exists, we can never come out of this situation. Our only disagreement rests in the role that the West can play in the liberation process of our country. He believes in the necessity of external pressure, an American operation. I do not.

PDV: Why?

RP: The Iranian people do not need a military operation. On the contrary, they expect the international community to cease dealing with this regime. Two days ago, I secretly met here, in Paris, with young Iranians, who had travelled from the big cities. They had come specifically to meet with me. Their message was very clear: "Tell the media and the Western governments that they must halt giving this regime its legitimacy. When Prince Charles visits Bam, even as part of a humanitarian effort, fifteen days before the parliamentary elections, the regime's officials are ecstatic. They pose for pictures with delegation members, with smiles on their lips, and they snub the Iranian people." The West protests against the fact that certain candidates have been barred from standing at the elections, but that is not important. Even if Mr Khatami's brother is elected as deputy, that does not change anything. We must boycott the entire regime. We do not need anybody to liberate us, but we will never forget those who gave us a hand. What is the point of giving the Nobel Peace prize to Shirine Ebadi, whilst continuing to deal with the very regime that she is fighting against?

POINT DE VUE (No:2900)
Interview by Vincent Meylan
Photos by David Atlan
Translation: CK, London.
Iran va Jahan

http://www.pointdevue.fr/contenu/fr/default.php?rb=1

Vote count nears end in Iran, conservatives set for easy first round win
2 hours, 44 minutes ago Add World - AFP to My Yahoo!

TEHRAN (AFP) - The final results from Iran's disputed parliamentary elections were expected to show an easy first round win for the conservatives in polls that most of their reformists rivals were barred from contesting.
Counting was still going on in the capital Tehran, which returns 30 deputies to the 290-seat Majlis.

But results from two-thirds of the ballots counted showed a likely coalition of hardliners, conservatives and centrists on the cusp of crossing the 146-seat majority mark.

In contrast, reformists have managed to win less than 45 seats.

Some 58 seats will have to be contested in a second round, but with most reformists already eliminated before the polls, the second round of voting is certain to add to a crushing conservative majority.

Friday's voting was overshadowed by the mass blacklisting of reformists by the Guardians Council, a hardline political watchdog that screens candidates for public office and vets laws for their compliance with the constitution and Islamic law.

Iran's foreign ministry on Tuesday angrily hit back at what it said were "unacceptable and interventionist comments" from the United States and European Union (news - web sites) (EU) over the elections.

The foreign critics were "not informed of the realities and the complexities of developments underway in Iran", spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told the state news agency IRNA.

On Monday, the United States said the polls did not meet "international standards" and were "deeply flawed", given the blacklist. And EU foreign ministers called them a "setback for democracy".

Top regime figures here had called on Iranians to vote en masse to deal a blow to the United States, with which Iran has not had diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Gholam-Ali Hadad-Adel, head of the conservative Builders of an Islamic Iran -- a right-wing bloc poised to take all of Tehran's seats -- told reporters the EU should avoid making "premature judgements".

Amid the international criticism, a political battle in Iran over the record low voter turnout continued to rage with the interior ministry hitting back at conservatives' allegations it was seeking to discredit their win.

The reformist-run ministry, responsible for organising the polls and overseeing the vote count, put turnout at 28 percent in Tehran and 50.57 percent nationwide -- the lowest for a major election in the 25-year history of the Islamic republic.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1511&ncid=1511&e=10&u=/afp/20040224/wl_afp/iran_vote_040224141705

Fitch: Iranian elections could constrain sovereign ratings

The preliminary results of Islamic Republic of Iran's parliamentary elections held on February 20 are a clear setback for the movement towards social and political reform, says Fitch Ratings.

The agency considers political risk to be one of the most important constraints on Iran's sovereign ratings, and warns that the shift from a reformist to a conservative parliament could heighten political risk if it is accompanied by reform reversals. Iran's Long-term foreign currency and local currency ratings are B+ with a Positive Outlook.

Based on the dismissal of large numbers of reformist candidates by the Guardian Council, the election boycott by some of the major reform groups in response and the inability of the entire process to stir much voter interest, the election outcome was not unexpected. "What is most disturbing is that political debate seems to be taking place largely amongst politicians and the authorities in the various councils," says Senior Director of Sovereigns, James McCormack.

Voter turnout has been reported at 51 percent, which is low compared to past elections and considering the concerted effort by the country's leaders to encourage people to vote. "One way to interpret this is that people have turned away not only from the reform movement, which is often criticized for its lack of achievements, but also from the political process itself," McCormack adds.

In Fitch's view, there are potential medium-term concerns associated with the public's political disengagement. If the political and social agendas that are set and enacted by the authorities become less reflective of public sentiment over time, there is a risk of increased friction and disagreement. However, the agency emphasizes that it does not expect any political instability in the short term, and that there is no evidence of any disruptive medium-term developments.

Economic reform was not a major election issue, but is set to continue under the Third Five-Year Development Plan (FYDP), which concludes in March 2005. The Fourth FYDP is well advanced, with its principles already agreed among all of the relevant institutions involved in planning and implementing policy.

Fitch expects privatization to be accelerated, possibly including some of the state-owned banks, further trade liberalization, tax reform, the introduction of more clearly delineated roles for the Oil Stabilization Fund and a change in the relationship between the state and the national oil company that would allow the latter a greater degree of independence and enhance fiscal transparency.

Although Parliament has not been a significant force in initiating or promoting economic reform, Fitch will monitor whether it now begins to slow the process.

http://www.menareport.com/story/TheNews.php3?action=story&sid=271118&lang=e&dir=mena

Nuclear Substance Found in Iran

February 24, 2004
BBC News
Jonathan Marcus, BBC Defence Correspondent

International inspectors have found that Iran has produced and experimented with polonium, a radioactive element that can help trigger a nuclear blast. Western diplomatic sources told the BBC that while Iran still insists it had no clandestine weapons programme, the discovery does raise new questions.

Iran was previously forced to concede it had not disclosed full details of its centrifuge technology.

Centrifuges have a vital role in the uranium enrichment process.

Polonium-210 is a radioactive metallic substance that does indeed have a number of industrial uses.

The discovery that Iran has both produced and experimented with the substance has nonetheless caught the attention of nuclear weapons experts.

This is just the latest example of a nuclear activity which Iran has failed to declare to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors.

Polonium can be used in conjunction with another metal - beryllium - to ensure that the chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion is initiated at the correct moment.

Worrying questions

In itself, this does not prove one way or another that Iran has or had a nuclear weapons programme.

But it does raise some worrying questions in the minds of inspectors.

And, according to western diplomats, it underlines the need for Iran to make a full disclosure of its past nuclear activities.

The Iranian government agreed to do this late last year.

But this most recent disclosure will have increased the pressure on the Iranian authorities to explain themselves more fully.

Inspectors are not just seeking information from Iran.

Libya has agreed to give up all of its nuclear weapons-related activities.

In the process, western intelligence agencies and the IAEA have been able to lift the veil on the shadowy nuclear export operation run from Pakistan by the scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

Some experts believe there could be links between his operation and Iran, in which case the Iranian authorities could have more embarrassing nuclear questions to answer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3517139.stm

IAEA Says Hard to Tell if Iran Told All

February 24, 2004
Reuters
Francois Murphy

VIENNA -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Tuesday it still had questions about Iran's nuclear program despite what Tehran called a full disclosure last October, and diplomats said Iran was being difficult.

Inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a report Iran had agreed at the last minute to freeze more activities related to enriching uranium but said several questions remained open.

Those open questions included why Iran had not declared its possession of designs for advanced P2 enrichment centrifuges and its past experiments aimed at creating polonium, a substance used to initiate a chain reaction in nuclear explosions.

The IAEA report, sent to the IAEA board and obtained by Reuters, also said a combination of highly enriched and low-enriched uranium had been found at two sites in Iran and had not yet been fully explained.

The mixed contamination was a "major outstanding issue," the IAEA said.

"Until this matter is satisfactorily resolved, it will be very difficult for the agency to confirm that there has not been any undeclared nuclear material or activities," the report said.

Iran has explained uranium traces found by IAEA inspectors as the result of contaminated centrifuges it bought on the black market.

"If it was all imported from one place, why are there different types of contamination at Kalaye and Natanz?" asked one Vienna-based diplomat who follows the IAEA.

The IAEA said Iran's failure to acknowledge that it had designs for the P2 centrifuge was "a matter of serious concern."

Centrifuges are used in uranium enrichment, a process of purifying uranium for use in weapons or to make nuclear fuel for power plants.

FULL DISCLOSURE?

Under international pressure, Iran gave the IAEA last October what Tehran called a full declaration of all its nuclear activities.

The United States says Iran's nuclear program is a front for building nuclear weapons. Tehran says it is aimed solely at peaceful production of electricity.

A State Department official, who asked not to be named, said Iran's latest agreement was simply its late declaration of a commitment the West believed it had won from Tehran last year.

He also criticized Iran's compliance, complaining recent revelations of its activities showed it had not taken a strategic decision to give up nuclear activities in the way, for example, Libya had.

"Their pattern of behavior is cause for concern. They are only as forthcoming as they are forced to be," he said. "But you have to wonder what other surprises there are and why all this hiding if their nuclear activities are peaceful as they say."

The IAEA report said Iran had just agreed Tuesday to suspend "remaining enrichment activities."

As of early March, it would "suspend the assembly and testing of centrifuges, and suspend the domestic manufacture of centrifuge components, including those relating to existing contracts, to the furthest extent possible," the report said.

The IAEA welcomed the move and said it would "contribute to confidence building."

Iran agreed to suspend all uranium enrichment activities in November last year, but failed to agree with the IAEA on a definition of what exactly that meant.

The IAEA report said Iran has continued to assemble centrifuges and manufacture centrifuge components domestically since November. Washington had called for a comprehensive suspension, including the assembly of centrifuges.

Another diplomat in Vienna familiar with the IAEA said the fact Iran had not disclosed having the P2 centrifuge designs or its past experiments on polonium was quite serious.

"It reveals that Iran is a difficult country. They give concessions only at the last minute, like enlarging the suspension of enrichment," the diplomat added.

"These are the things that raise doubts that more things will come up in the future.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20040224_317.html

Iran Conservatives Blast EU "Enemies" For Poll Criticism

February 24, 2004
Dow Jones Newswires
The Associated Press

TEHRAN -- Leaders of Iran's new conservative majority in parliament on Tuesday blasted criticism of their election victory by European Union "enemies" and cautioned the West not to be hasty in judging their policies.

The leaders' harsh words directed at the E.U., which called the disputed elections a step backward for democracy, perhaps set the tone for the next period of conservative domination.

"We don't think much of the words of enemies," said Ahmad Tavakkoli, of the conservative party Abadgaran Iran-e-Islami, or Developers of Islamic Iran, who was the number two vote-getter in Tehran.

With nearly all the ballots counted from Friday's elections that were boycotted by most reformers, Interior Ministry figures showed conservative candidates on the way to a comfortable majority in the 290-seat legislature.

The winner in the Iranian capital - philosophy professor Gholamali Haddadadel - Tuesday urged the E.U. not to "take one side."

"We expect them not to make a hasty judgment," said Haddadadel, who leads the Developers of Islamic Iran party that is expected to set the tone for the new parliament, which will be seated in June.

Monday, the E.U.'s 15 foreign ministers and their counterparts from the 10 countries joining in May called the elections a "setback for the democratic process in Iran."

Iran's its relations with the E.U. are considered crucial for improving its economy and seeking foreign investment and trade in the light of U.S. sanctions.

Talks launched in December 2002 to grant Iran greater access to E.U. markets in exchange for improvements in human rights have been frozen since June due to Western concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The election swung the parliament back to the control of hard-liners and others loyal to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in all key decisions.

The conservative victory denies liberals an important forum to challenge hard-liners' policies and appointees who have final say in almost all affairs. It also leaves reformist President Mohammad Khatami without a key source of support in his foundering drive to ease social and political restrictions.

In a news conference Tuesday, the two conservative leaders defended Iran's right to peaceful nuclear development and repeated that the U.S. needs to acknowledge the legitimacy of Islamic-ruled Iran as a precursor to any chance for a diplomatic thaw.

Haddadadel urged the White House to "understand the Islamic Revolution and its message of independence."

The immediate concern for conservatives, however, is calming the tensions over the elections. A debate in parliament Monday degenerated into a shouting match after one reformist lawmaker called the vote a "historic fiasco."

Reformers had boycotted the vote after more than 2,400 candidates were banned from running by the ruling Islamic establishment. Reformers had counted on a boycott to score a moral victory.

The nationwide turnout stood at slightly more than 50%, a noticeable drop from the 67.2% in the last parliamentary elections in 2000. In Tehran, the Iranian capital and the country's biggest city, just 33% of voters turned out, the Interior Ministry said.

About 130 reformist lawmakers resigned earlier this month to protest the mass disqualification of the liberal candidates. Resignations now must be debated one by one in the parliament and need a majority vote to take effect. One resignation was accepted Monday.

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004022414330023&Take=1

Solidarity With Iran

Free people are the only real stability.
Wall Street Journal
02/23/2004
MICHAEL MCFAUL AND ABBAS MILANI

On Friday, there was a coup d'Ã©tat in Iran. By preventing thousands of democratic candidates from participating in the parliamentary elections, the clerics eliminated yet another relatively independent institution of political power. Their next target is the presidency. If President Mohammad Khatami is replaced in 2005 through a similar faux electoral process, then the concentration of monopoly power in the hands of a clique of despotic clerics will be complete.
Contrary to common perception, Iranian society is today one of the most pluralist, and the Islamic regime one of the most fragile, in the region. Even after the election, the prospects for a democratic breakthrough are greater there than elsewhere in the Middle East. Iran occupies the same place in its neighborhood as Poland did in communist Europe in the 1980s. Like Poland then, Iranian society is organized, hostile to the regime, pro-democratic and pro-American, while Iran's rulers--like their Polish counterparts 20 years ago--have no legitimacy, are deeply corrupt, and seem ready to use any means necessary to survive. At the risk of stretching the analogy, last Friday's "coup" in Iran is the equivalent of Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski's crackdown against Solidarity. Just as in Poland after December 1981, inside Iran the era of compromise and negotiation is now over.

However, the coup in Iran today and the one in Poland are different in one critical respect: the West's reaction. In contrast to the concerted efforts in the '80s to aid Solidarity, few in the West--including the Bush administration--have shown much solidarity with Iran's democrats. This policy, or the lack of one, needs to change.

The first step in executing a new strategy is to clarify whose side we are on. President Bush must make clear, ideally in a major speech devoted to Iran, that the U.S. has no intention of pursuing closer ties with the autocratic clerics as a reward for dismantling their nuclear weapons program; and that it is not a patron of any Ã©migrÃ© candidate for leading a future democratic Iran. Many in Iran doubt President Bush's promises about democracy in the Middle East. Instead they see Washington focused on immediate goals--such as arresting terrorists and eliminating WMDs--that have led to cooperation with autocrats like Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi and now, perhaps, the clerics in Iran.

For years, the "spiritual leader" Ayatollah Khamenei and his minions thwarted any effort to seek better relations with the U.S. In the wake of Saddam Hussein's ouster, however, the nervous mullahs changed their tactics, but not their goals. They were suddenly more willing to negotiate with Western states, particularly on international controls over their nuclear program. After saber-rattling against any new protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the surprisingly timid mullahs suddenly agreed last October to allow vigorous inspections of all their facilities. The message to the world, and to the U.S. in particular, seemed clear: If agreements are to be made with Iran, it is the conservatives, and not the elected president, who must be partners to the deal. Buoyed by Col. Gadhafi's recent rapprochement with the U.S., they have pursued private talks with American counterparts, and have allegedly outlined in a secret letter the path to the resumption of full diplomatic relations. As a sweetener for the deal, conservatives hint that they can keep the Iraqi Shiites quiet. But their posture is a combination of bluff and deception.

The Bush administration and our European allies cannot be tempted into an agreement with Khamenei or his surrogates. If the past is any indication, the clerics will break any agreement they have signed out of expedience. Already there are signs of their bad faith on their promise to come clean on the extent of their nuclear program. There is even a theological concept--Tagiye--to justify such double-dealings with the "infidels." Nor can they help in Iraq, where Iran's mullahs have in fact little influence over clerics such as Ayatollah Sistani. The only way they can influence events in Iraq is through the thousands of agents they have sent over the borders.

Most importantly, signals of rapprochement would send a demoralizing signal to Iran's democratic forces. Negotiations over weapons inspectors are absolutely necessary, but the interlocutors in such discussions must be elected officials, not unelected clerics. Beyond this limited engagement, President Bush must initiate a more sophisticated strategy for engaging Iranian society--without appearing to legitimize the regime. He must make public statements to assure democratic forces inside Iran that the U.S. is still on their side. President Bush should meet publicly with Iran's genuine democratic leaders, while avoiding imposters claiming to represent the Iranian people. American NGOs must engage more directly with Iranian civil society. Iranian students, scholars and entrepreneurs must be allowed greater interaction with American counterparts. Iran's democratic movement would benefit from contact with the West--with Western societies, ideas and economies. The same strategy and organizations that helped support Polish society in the dark days after December 1981 must be deployed in Iran.

The future of Iran, and of its potential democracy, must be determined inside Iran. But the U.S. can play a crucial role by making clear that democracy is the paramount foreign policy goal in Iran. Arms control negotiations with the mullahs may serve American short-term interests, but at the expense of more lasting gains. If Iran becomes a liberal democracy, surely the Iranian nuclear threat to the U.S. will disappear definitively. After all, did not Poland's Solidarity ultimately do more to end the Cold War than any Soviet-American arms control agreement?

Messrs. McFaul and Milani, fellows at the Hoover Institution, teach political science at Stanford.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083864/posts

Shell says it won't join Iran oil project

By BRUCE STANLEY
AP BUSINESS WRITER
February 24, 2004

LONDON -- Royal Dutch Shell Group of Cos. won't join a Japanese-led project to develop one of Iran's biggest oil fields because the terms the deal aren't profitable enough, the company said Tuesday.

A consortium backed by the Japanese government announced the $2 billion project last week, overriding U.S. objections that the money could end up paying for nuclear weapons development and terrorist activities.

Three Japanese companies - Inpex Corp., Tomen Corp. and Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. - will control 75 percent of the Azadegan oil field, with Iran's national oil company holding the remaining 25 percent.

Although Shell acted for several years as a technical adviser to the consortium, it decided not to exercise an option to become a partner in the project.

"The terms and conditions of the deal between the Japanese companies and Iran do not look attractive against Shell's current project economics criteria," Shell spokeswoman Bianca Ruakere said.

Inpex, a government-affiliated exploration company, has reportedly been seeking other foreign partners to help develop and operate Azadegan. Shell was a natural candidate. It already produces oil at two fields off Iran's Gulf coast - Soroush and Norwooz - where it aims to pump an average of 190,000 barrels a day this quarter. It also manufactures petrochemicals in Iran.

Shell hasn't formally announced that it won't join, and it still has the option to do so. However, it has decided that the project as it exists probably wouldn't generate enough cash to justify Shell's participation, Ruakere said.

Azadegan, near Iran's border with Iraq, is estimated to contain 26 billion barrels of crude. Iran's proved reserves are estimated to total 90 billion barrels.

Japan, which lost oil rights in Saudi Arabia in 2001, depends on crude imports for almost all its needs, and Azadegan could become an important new source.

But Azadegan is a "complicated" geological structure, said Manouchehr Takin, an analyst with the Center for Global Energy Studies in London. "There are different layers to it. It's not just one big, prolific field."

The involvement of experienced foreign partners could help reduce the development risks for the Japanese, Takin said.

Norway's Statoil and Total SA of France are two other foreign oil companies that have expressed interest in developing Azadegan.

Inpex, Tomen and Japan Petroleum initially won exclusive rights to develop the field. They backed off under U.S. pressure but resumed talks late last year after Iran signed an additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that allows for unfettered inspections of its nuclear sites.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/apbiz_story.asp?category=1310&slug=Shell%20Iran%20Oil

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.