Iranian Alert -- March 31, 2004 [EST]-- 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.” 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. I began these daily threads June 10th 2003. On that date Iranians once again began taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Today in Iran, most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy.

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.

IAEA Chief to Hold Talks in Tehran Next Week

March 31, 2004
Agence France Presse
Arab News

VIENNA -- UN atomic agency chief Mohammed El-Baradei is to hold talks in Iran next Tuesday to urge the government to cooperate fully with international monitoring of its nuclear program.

It will be the third visit to Iran by El-Baradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, since the IAEA began in February 2003 investigating whether the Islamic republic was secretly developing atomic weapons, as the United States alleges. The purpose of the visit is “to consult on outstanding issues relevant to the IAEA’s verification of Iran’s safeguards agreement” under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in a statement.

She had told AFP last week: “With the IAEA board of governors members calling for a comprehensive report for the next board meeting in June, Dr. El-Baradei wants to personally emphasize to the Iranians how crucial it is they act in a fully transparent and cooperative manner so that the open questions about Iran’s nuclear activities can be answered.”

Two IAEA inspectors arrived in Iran last Saturday to carry out more checks on the country’s nuclear program.

Iran had tried to put off the mission earlier this month after the IAEA condemned it for continuing to hide sensitive nuclear activities including designs for sophisticated P2 centrifuges for making enriched uranium which could be weapon-grade.

The UN team will focus its inspections on the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and the Isfahan nuclear technology centre. The Natanz plant is one of two sites where IAEA inspectors have discovered traces of highly enriched uranium. This substance can be used in civilian nuclear reactors to generate electricity but it can also be used as raw material for a nuclear bomb.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=42251&d=31&m=3&y=2004

Wales Trade to Make Debut Trade Mission to Iran

March 30, 2004
National Assembly for Wales
Press Releases

The first ever trade mission led by WalesTrade International (WTI) to Iran will leave for the [Persian] Gulf this summer.

The historic mission, which will be based in Tehran from 28 May - 2 June, will capitalise on the opportunities available from a nation which is enjoying strong economic growth and is increasingly recognised as a trading gateway to Central Asia.

Rob Thomas, Chief Executive of WTI, the overseas trade arm of the Welsh Assembly Government, said while Iran remained an extremely difficult market to penetrate, there were a growing number of opportunities for exporters across a range of sectors.

"This mission promises to be one of the most challenging missions we have undertaken since the establishment of WTI, but we feel it important to provide companies and organisations from Wales an opportunity to establish opportunities," he added.

Iran is a developing market that is seven times the size of the UK and twice as large as Turkey. The climate for trade and investment in Iran has improved in recent years and the economy has achieved a sustained rate of growth. Indeed, during 2002 GDP grew by some 6% and it is estimated that GDP will grow by a further 4% in 2003.

Regional Manager Larry Wilson added: "Iran is one of a few countries with a large population, which offers both high growth potential and the ability to pay for goods and services.

"Moreover, Iran has the advantage of a broad domestic industrial base, an educated and motivated workforce and geographical location, which gives it access to an estimated population of some 300 million people in Caspian markets, Persian Gulf states and countries further east.

"Iran is OPEC’s second largest oil producer and as a result there are significant opportunities for Welsh businesses that provide products/services to this sector. Opportunities also exist in non-oil sectors such as gas & petrochemicals, mining, power, agriculture (including packaging), environmental goods & services, telecommunications and the automotive industry."

As part of its support for Welsh exporters, WTI will consider contributing towards the overall cost of the mission. "Assistance is also available in obtaining pre-visit market research, identifying contacts and establishing meetings with prospective customers or partners," Larry added.

The cost of the mission including a WTI subsidy towards travel and accommodation is £470. For further information contact Larry Wilson on 029 2082 3540 email larry.wilson@wales.gsi.gov.uk

Notes

· WalesTrade International was created by the Welsh Assembly Government to act as the driving force in creating strategic business alliances between

Welsh businesses and their counterparts worldwide.

· Since its creation it has identified opportunities in excess of £1.8 billion

and has already assisted Welsh companies convert more than £247 million into actual orders.

· For details of the full range of services available from WalesTrade

International, call 029 2080 1046, or visit the websites www.walestrade.com
and www.masnachcymru.com.

http://www.wales.gov.uk/servlet/PressReleaseByDateServlet?area_code=37E752F2000942E000000A2E00000000&document_code=N0000000000000000000000000019487

PASSING THE BUCK ON TERROR

By AMIR TAHERI
NYPost.com
March 31, 2004

WHEN a bureaucrat wants to bury an issue, he refers it to a "special committee." And when heads of government wish to do the same, they call for a "special summit."

This is what the European Union leaders have just done with regard to their role in the global War on Terror. A ministerial conference last month failed to agree on a strategy, referring the whole package to the forthcoming "summit." But even then there is no guarantee that the E.U. summit won't try to pass the buck. Some E.U. members are already calling for the matter to be referred to yet another summit, this time that of the G-7 industrialized nations, meeting in the United States in June.

Those who are trying to pass the buck have a short memory: The G-7 have discussed terrorism at eight of their summits since 1976. The Halifax, Canada, summit in 1995 approved what was presented as an in-depth analysis of the threat that international terrorism posed to global stability.

The next year's G-7 summit (in Lyon, France) came up with a raft of measures to combat terrorism - which was designated as "a clear and present danger to international law and order." But only 11 of those 44 measures have so far been legislated by the nations concerned.

Why have the major powers been reluctant to treat the War on Terror as a genuine war? There are at least three reasons.

1) Many Western leaders can't free themselves from the philosophy of "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

This leads to a division of terrorist movements into good ones and bad ones. For example, successive British governments had no difficulty seeing the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as evil. But when it came to terrorist groups using British territory for planning and organizing attacks on other countries, the "freedom fighter" shibboleth quickly came to the fore. Until 9/11, visitors to London's Regent Park could see groups of bearded militants collecting money for terrorism in half a dozen Muslim countries while the British police watched with a straight face.

The French, for their part, wouldn't dream of classifying the Corsican terror gangs as "freedom fighters." But they turned a blind eye to terrorists who used French territory as a base for planning and financing mass murder in Algeria. Even when acts of terror were conducted on French territory, the authorities chose not to act for as long as the targets were not French citizens. (Between 1979 and 1997, for example, 17 Iranian opponents of the Khomeinist regime were murdered in France. The French didn't try to catch many of the culprits.)

In some cases, the Western elites manifest their pernicious admiration for some terrorist groups by using the phrase "resistance movement." A good part of the European media has banned the very term "terrorist" as an adjective for organizations that kill in the name of this or that cause, replacing it by euphemisms such as "militant," "radical" and (borrowing a term from Noam Chomsky) "people-based."

Few people noticed that Jose Luis Zapatero, leader of Spain's Socialist Workers' Party, used the term "Arab resistance" throughout the March election campaign in order to avoid the term al Qaeda, which had been favored by his rival, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.

2) Many nations are tempted to obtain an opt-out from the terrorist threat.

France tried this in the 1970s when it secured an "opt out" from Palestinian groups that then specialized in hijacking passenger aircraft. (For a while, Air France became the safest carrier in Europe.)

In the 1980s, when the Khomeinists practiced a policy of seizing hostages against the West, the Germans secured an "opt out" from Tehran. The mullahs ordered the capture of hostages from 21 different nationalities, from Americans to South Koreans and passing by French and British. The Germans were spared. (To thank the mullahs, the Germans invited Iran's Minister for Intelligence and Security Ali Fallahian to pay a state visit to the federal republic in 1991.)

The "opt out" trick played a key role in persuading millions of Spanish voters to switch from the governing People's Party to the opposition Socialist Workers' Party. Many Spaniards deluded themselves into believing that by withdrawing their troops from Iraq, they would secure an insurance against future terror attacks.

3) Many of the Western elite believe that terrorists can be weaned away from their evil ways through negotiations.

Such a delusion is almost natural in the case of politicians and intellectuals educated in a democratic tradition. But when it comes to facing terror, it could weaken the resolve without which victory cannot be achieved.

Even in the best cases, negotiating with terrorists can't produce a dependable outcome. The IRA has entered into a power-sharing process with the British government and the democratic parties of Northern Ireland. But it has been careful not to jettison its military assets. In other words, it is committed to normal politics for as long as this suits its interests.

Sometimes, the illusion that terrorists can be integrated into the normal political process leads to absurd claims. For example, there are those who call for "some form of negotiations" with the remnants of the Taliban or even what is left of al Qaeda.

What these would-be deal-makers don't realize is that terrorists of the Taliban and al Qaeda type don't believe in compromise and give-and-take. They would not be satisfied even with an unconditional surrender on the part of their real or imagined adversaries. They want those adversaries to become robots that can be manipulated the way the sheiks and mullahs desire.

This was amply illustrated in Afghanistan in 1998, when the Hazara of the Bamiyan and Maydan provinces surrendered and negotiated a peace settlement with the Taliban. It wasn't enough: The Taliban wanted the Hazara to abandon their Islamic faith and convert to the cult of Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. When the Hazara refused, they were massacred by the thousands.

FOR the global War on Terror to succeed, it is imperative that all those fighting it convince themselves that there is no good terrorism, and that the real or imagined nobility of a cause cannot justify the murder of innocent people.

Does this mean that armed struggle against oppressors should become something of the past? Not at all. Armed struggle obeys the rules of war, while terrorism recognizes no law. Also, armed struggle could be justified if it is in pursuit of goals that do not affect the freedom and dignity of individuals. Thus armed struggle to impose Taliban-style fascism on a whole people cannot be justified.

The major democracies must shed their illusions about ways of wiggling out of the War on Terror before they can mobilize the rest of the international community to face what is a serious threat to us all. The best insurance against terrorism is firm resolve.E-mail:

amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/17800.htm

Lockerbie's Dirty Secret

March 31, 2004
The Guardian
Paul Foot

As he basks in the success of his controversial visit to Libya, the prime minister has to grapple at once with an awkward letter. It was delivered on Monday by UK Families Flight 103 representing most of the British families bereaved by the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The letter starts by reminding Blair that the families supported his visit to Libya in the expectation that the talks with Colonel Muammar Gadafy would lead to more information about the bombing. Moreover, the letter says, their support for the visit was widely used by ministers to justify the visit to Libya. Yet the visit has not led to any more information about the bombing.

And recent letters to the secretary of the group, Pamela Dix - whose brother died at Lockerbie - from Baroness Symons, minister of state at the Foreign Office, and from the Crown Office in Edinburgh, have argued that any further questions to the Libyans about Lockerbie would not be helpful. In short, ministers took the credit of the families' support without asking a single question about Lockerbie to justify that support. In a sense of deep outrage, the families are asking the prime minister for a meeting to discuss Lockerbie as a matter of urgency.

More people died at Lockerbie than in Madrid, and you would have thought that the government, if only as proof of its horror at terrorism, would be keen to question its new friends in Tripoli about the bombing. Not so, apparently. So the only hard information the families have is that Abdul Basset al-Megrahi, a Libyan official, apparently working in intelligence, was convicted in January 2001 of bombing the airliner. How he accomplished this feat is still a mystery. The details of the crime did not emerge at the trial, which was held by Scottish judges sitting without a jury in Holland. It lasted 18 months and cost an estimated £50m.

Megrahi's co-accused was acquitted, so the prosecution's suggestion that the two men conspired to bomb the plane cannot be right. Indeed, the crucial evidence that the bomb was put on a feeder flight at Malta and was transferred twice, at Frankfurt and at Heathrow, was so thin it was derisory.

No one knows whether anyone else took part in this sophisticated crime of terror. One man has been convicted. The Libyan government has forked out many millions in compensation. And that, apparently, is the end of the matter. Many of the bereaved relatives, including Dix, are increasingly disturbed at the behaviour of ministers who talk business and politics to the Gadafy regime, but are not remotely interested in pressing anyone in it to tell the whole story about Lockerbie.

There is, in my opinion (not necessarily shared by the families), an explanation for all this, an explanation so shocking that no one in high places can contemplate it. It is that the Lockerbie bombing was carried out not by Libyans at all but by terrorists based in Syria and hired by Iran to avenge the shooting down in the summer of 1988 of an Iranian civil airliner by a US warship. This was the line followed by both British and US police and intelligence investigators after Lockerbie. Through favoured newspapers like the Sunday Times, the investigators named the suspects - some of whom had been found with home-made bombs similar to the one used at Lockerbie.

This line of inquiry persisted until April 1989, when a phone call from President Bush senior to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher warned her not to proceed with it. A year later, British and US armed forces prepared for an attack on Saddam Hussein's occupying forces in Kuwait. Their coalition desperately needed troops from an Arab country. These were supplied by Syria, which promptly dropped out of the frame of Lockerbie suspects. Libya, not Syria or Iran, mysteriously became the suspect country, and in 1991 the US drew up an indictment against two Libyan suspects. The indictment was based on the "evidence" of a Libyan "defector", handsomely paid by the CIA. His story was such a fantastic farrago of lies and fantasies that it was thrown out by the Scottish judges.

In Britain, meanwhile, Thatcher, John Major and Blair obstinately turned down the bereaved families' requests for a full public inquiry into the worst mass murder in British history.

It follows from this explanation that Megrahi is innocent of the Lockerbie bombing and his conviction is the last in the long line of British judges' miscarriages of criminal justice. This explanation is also a terrible indictment of the cynicism, hypocrisy and deceit of the British and US governments and their intelligence services. Which is probably why it has been so consistently and haughtily ignored.

comment@guardian.co.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1182390,00.html

Iranian Youth Organization to Supreme Leader Khamenei: 'What A Huge Lie You Are Telling!'

On the occasion of the Iranian holiday of Nourouz, or New Year, the Iranian Organization of Combatant Youth criticized a declaration by Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in which he thanked "enthusiastic" Iranian citizens for turning out in such large numbers for February's elections for the Majlis (parliament). Khamenei praised the citizens for thus "nullifying the plots of the enemies against Iran." The following is the organization's reaction:(1)
"We must say to him [i.e. Khamenei], 'What a huge lie you are telling!' The majority of the people of Iran know that, despite all the games and actions taken by the agents of the Velayat Faqih ['rule of the jurisprudent,' that is, Khamenei's] regime, and despite all their intervention in the 'forced elections,' it was declared that 51.5% of qualified [voters] participated in the elections. In dictatorial regimes, this cannot be called 'enthusiastic participation,' because in such regimes 98% of the people vote.

"As far as is known, in the recent forced election, only 14% of the eligible voters came to the polls. The highest estimate of [voter] numbers, which was in greater Tehran, was 400,000, [and] many of them were regime employees or their relatives, and many came to the polling places out of coercion or fear. And even so, some of them voted a blank ballot.

"Given the above facts, how can someone calling himself the 'Leader of Muslims' and 'the legitimate representative of the Hidden Imam' invent such a huge lie in the beginning of the New Year, about the voting by enthusiastic people – instead of just being quiet. Aren't you ashamed before God?

"My dear countrymen: The actions, deeds, and words of those who call themselves religious have made people question religious principles, and [also caused] many to turn away from Islam.

"The akhounds [clerics(2)] who rule Iran have no respect for the national rights of the Iranian people; rather, they use Islam to further their own satanic goals – even if this results in the ruin of the nation and the uprooting of religious principles. [But] the most important thing is that their own demonic games are protected at any price.

"My dear countrymen, we must wake up. Our homeland is going to wreck and ruin. In our current circumstances, we must unite. Our disunity is what the enemy of this godly land desires. We must unite in order to save our beloved Iran from the rule of these thieves and criminals. We must rebuild our land. We cannot remain silent, and we must have a united front with good plans.

"We must advance towards our sacred goal – liberty, justice, and equality."

Endnotes:
(1) http://khabarnameh.gooya.com/politics/archives/008021.php
(2) In Persian, this word has a negative connotation.

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD68904

Evidence Points to Iran Nuke Plan

March 31, 2004
Reuters
Louis Charbonneau

New intelligence on Iran has fuelled suspicions the Islamic Republic has a secret uranium enrichment programme, possibly aimed at producing fuel for an atom bomb programme, Western diplomats say.

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has been investigating Iran's atomic programme ever since an exiled opposition group reported in August 2002 that Tehran was hiding a massive enrichment plant at Natanz.

Under fire over U.S. suspicions that its nuclear power programme is a front for building atomic weapons -- a charge Iran denies -- Tehran agreed last year to submit to tougher IAEA inspections and suspend all enrichment-related activities.

But a group of Western diplomats who follow the IAEA said recent intelligence has provoked suspicion that Tehran moved enrichment activities away from Natanz to smaller sites that are part of a parallel programme U.N. inspectors have not uncovered.

"We've got lot of intelligence about small enrichment plants (in Iran) for some months, going back to the November (IAEA) board meeting," one Western diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity. The diplomat gave no details about the form of this intelligence.

Iran's ambassador to the United Nations in Vienna, Pirooz Hosseini, told Reuters in a telephone interview that the latest charges were "baseless" and "an attempt to destroy the fruitful cooperation between the IAEA and Iran."

An IAEA spokeswoman declined to comment.

"HIDE-AND-SEEK"

Allegations that Tehran, which says its nuclear programme is peaceful, may be hiding facilities from the IAEA are nothing new. However, the specific allegation that Tehran had shifted enrichment activities away from Natanz to smaller sites was first made publicly by an Iranian exile last month.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, formerly a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and now president of the Washington-based Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc., told Reuters on March 9 about a "recent meeting" of top Iranian officials who decided to shift enrichment activities to small, secret plants.

He said the group, which included Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had also decided to "speed up the nuclear weapons programme" to get a bomb by the end of 2005 and that Tehran "would pursue a deliberate game of hide and seek with the IAEA".

Washington lists the NCRI as a terrorist organisation and shut down its offices last year.

However, the NCRI has a good track record on Iran's atomic programme. Jafarzadeh said his latest information came from the same "well-informed sources inside Iran" that told him about Natanz and a heavy-water production facility at Arak in 2002.

Jafarzadeh's allegations appeared to receive support from a recent intelligence report, an analysis of which was obtained last week by the Los Angeles Times. This analysis, seen by Reuters, said Iran had set up a committee last year whose task was to hide activities from the IAEA's nuclear sleuths.

Among the allegedly hidden sites are some 300 plants making parts for centrifuges, which spin at supersonic speeds to purify uranium for use as fuel for power plants or in bombs.

Iran had suspended IAEA inspections on March 12, ostensibly in retaliation against an IAEA resolution that "deplores" Iran's failure to inform the U.N. of sensitive research on items like "P2" centrifuges capable of producing bomb-grade material.

Two weeks later Tehran let the inspectors return, though several Western diplomats said the retaliation may have been an excuse to buy more time to hide activities from the IAEA.

One Western diplomat said that the intelligence could not be considered the "silver bullet" that proved these allegations about a parallel enrichment programme beyond any doubt.

"Intelligence gives you well-founded suspicions," said the diplomat, who is convinced the suspicions about Iran's secret enrichment sites "are well-founded".

All the diplomats said that if Tehran had decided to hide enrichment facilities from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the IAEA would have great difficulty finding them without specific leads.

"An enrichment facility can be the least visible part of the fuel cycle. It looks like any other industrial site," one said.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040331/325/epzds.html

Britain, France, Germany condemn Iran's work on nuclear fuel cycle

AFP - World News (via Yahoo)
Mar 31, 2004

LONDON - Britain, France and Germany united to condemn Iran's decision to resume work on a key nuclear programme in apparent breach of a deal with the United Nation's nuclear watchdog.

Their criticism came after Iran's atomic energy chief Gholam Reza Aghazadeh said Sunday that work had resumed at the Isfahan installation in the centre of the country.

"This announcement sends the wrong signal about Iranian willingness to implement a suspension of nuclear enrichment-related activities," said a Foreign Office spokesman in London.

"It will make it more difficult for Iran to re-establish international confidence in her undertakings," he said, in a statement identical to ones issued in Paris and Berlin.

In a deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) brokered by Britain, France and Germany last year, Tehran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and related activities while UN inspectors delved into suspicions Iran was using atomic energy as a cover for developing nuclear weapons.

Iran, under massive international pressure to maintain the suspension, has consistently emphasised its right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to produce nuclear fuel for what it insists are strictly peaceful purposes.

"The uranium processing plant in Isfahan will produce all raw materials for the fuel cycle," Aghazadeh said on Sunday.

Britain, France and Germany have for the past seven months been working together in an effort to resolve international concerns about Iran's nuclear programme.

Foreign ministers from the three countries visited Tehran last October.

"Iran must explain her statement and her intentions," the Foreign Office statement said. "We reaffirm our firm support for the IAEA's ongoing work on this matter."

IAEA inspectors arrived in Iran on Saturday for a visit which Tehran had delayed earlier this month after the body condemned Iran for failing to report that it had designs for sophisticated P2 centrifuges for enriching uranium to levels that could be weapon-grade.

The IAEA has been investigating since February 2003 whether Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful, or devoted to secretly developing atomic weapons, as the United States alleges.

The body is to report its findings at a meeting in Vienna in June.

An IAEA ruling that Iran is in non-compliance with the NPT would send the issue to the UN Security Council, which could then impose sanctions on the Islamic republic.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_5533.shtml

Britain Wants Answers over Iran Nuclear Move

Scotsman - By Jamie Lyons
Mar 31, 2004

Britain tonight demanded that Iran explain its decision to resume work on a key nuclear programme in apparent breach of a deal with the UN.

Iran has announced a facility to convert uranium is to be brought into service despite its promise to suspend all uranium-enrichment activities.

The Foreign Office joined France and Germany in expressing concern.

“This announcement sends the wrong signal about Iranian willingness to implement a suspension of nuclear enrichment-related activities,” a spokesman said.

“It will make it more difficult for Iran to re-establish international confidence in her undertakings.

“Iran must explain her statement and her intentions. Also in this respect the forthcoming declaration, which Iran is committed to make under the Additional Protocol, will be of the utmost importance.”

The chief of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, Gholam-Reza Aghasadeh, confirmed the plans on state television.

He said the experimental phase of the Esfahan processing installation had begun and experimental production would start within 20 days

The Esfahan installation is listed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF), where the refining of yellow cake takes place to produce materials that can be then used to produce enriched uranium.

In a deal with the IAEA struck late last year, Tehran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment – and all related activities – while UN inspectors investigated suspicions the country was using a bid to generate atomic energy as a cover for developing nuclear weapons.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_5534.shtml

Cleric Disavows Iran's System

March 31, 2004
Arab Times
RTRS

NAJAF, Iraq -- With a few terse edicts issued from his office in the holy city of Najaf, Shi'ite cleric Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani has repeatedly forced the United States to change its plans for Iraq.

Sistani and a handful of other Shi'ite clerics in Najaf have emerged as a key political force in Iraq, after decades in which Shi'ites were oppressed during the rule of Saddam Hussein. Despite the power they wield through their influence over Iraq's 60 per cent Shi'ite majority, their followers say the Najaf religious establishment has no wish to become an Iranian-style theocracy ruling the country.

"Iraq's Shi'ites don't want a repeat of the Iranian experience, which is closer to a theocracy than democracy, for many reasons and because of its shortcomings," said Sheikh Abu Jafaar al-Naqawi, a follower of the moderate Ayatollah Mohammad Said Hakim, one of Najaf's leading clerics. Shi'ite scholars say Sistani's political interventions are aimed at ensuring that Shi'ites are given political influence in the new Iraq that is commensurate with their majority status, and that he has no wish to dominate Iraq's political arena. Pragmatic politics, not religious dogmatism, is what drives Sistani, his supporters say.

The cleric disavows Iran's political system, which is based on the concept of velayat-e faqih, a system of direct clerical rule devised by the founding father of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, while in exile in Najaf in the 1960s and 1970s. The toppling of Iran's secular pro-Western Shah in 1979 and Khomeini's establishment of a theocratic government produced an enduring Western fear of radical Shi'ite politics. Sistani's followers say he believes in leaving politics to politicians but will intervene from time to time to ensure that Islamic principles are upheld.

"The religious authority encourages politicians to engage in the political arena," said Sheikh Abbas Mussawi, a prominent senior cleric who follows and teaches Sistani's edicts. "If the religious authorities are forced to practice politics it will be to guide a future government." Radical clerics, like Moqtada al-Sadr, regard Washington as an enemy that is seeking to undermine Islam. But the more conservative grand ayatollah's in Najaf are seeking to work with the occupation, exerting political pressure when necessary.

Shi'ites say centuries of persecution has taught them the benefits of tolerance and a gradualist approach. Sistani has called frequently for the will of the Iraqi people to be respected, but has not argued for a theocracy. "None of the main Shi'ite religious scholars have called for an Islamic government, only for a government with an Islamic character that preserves Islam's identity," said Sheikh Ali Shawki, a senior scholar in Sistani's entourage.

The conservative clerical establishment has stressed the need to focus on spiritual and religious duties, and often discourages political activism among students at seminaries. Many clerics say they focus on piety, not politics. "Setting up Islamic rule now is a dream, and in circumstances such as now it would affect the liberties of others," said Sheikh Amin al-Hakim, a senior scholar at one of Najaf's many seminaries. "As men of religion our task is a purely religious one." Although Sistani has not left his house for years, and has avoided direct meetings with the leaders of the US-led occupation authority, he has been playing a careful political game, making his voice heard at key moments for maximum effect.

Sistani's religious clout is bolstered also by the enormous financial influence that control of the Najaf shrines affords senior Shi'ite clerics. His demands for democratic elections as soon as possible forced Washington to accelerate the timetable for polls. His objections to an interim constitution agreed in early March delayed its signing for several days - and may yet derail US plans to hand over sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30.

Sistani objects to a clause in the interim law which says that when a referendum is held to approve a permanent constitution, it can be vetoed if a large enough majority in three provinces rejects it, even if most Iraqis approve it. The clause was included at the insistence of Iraq's minority Kurds, who want guarantees that their autonomous rule of three northern provinces will not be challenged.

Sistani says the clause allows minorities too much power to undermine the
will of the majority. He has also said that plans for a presidential council composed of a Shi'ite, a Sunni and a Kurd will lead to sectarian and ethnic strife. Sistani has told the United Nations that he will not cooperate with a team it is sending to advise on the political transition in Iraq, unless it distances itself from the interim constitution. His intervention could force the US-led administration to rethink its plans.

Shi'ites on Iraq's US-appointed Governing Council are careful to seek his blessing on their policies and plans. They refused at the last-minute to sign the interim constitution after Sistani objected. They finally signed it after a meeting with him in Najaf at which he told them to go ahead if they wished.

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/world/Viewdet.asp?ID=2270&cat=a

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.