Iranian Alert -- April 21, 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.

The Dream of Iraqi Democratization vs. the Reality of Iraqi Violence

By Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 20, 2004

Current conditions in Iraq are deeply sobering. As described in the April 18 Washington Post, the insurgency, with its kidnappings and its savage murders of foreign aid workers, has extended beyond Fallujah and Najaf to other parts of the country, making it too dangerous for foreigners to go outside the areas occupied and guarded by the Coalition and thus bringing the Iraqi reconstruction efforts to a halt. In addition to the non-performance and desertions by the Coalition-trained Iraqi security forces, many Iraqis employed by the Coalition and the various reconstruction projects are failing to come to work, afraid of being murdered by their fellow Iraqis for cooperating with foreigners. If these conditions persist, President Bush's entire strategy for Iraq will be doomed.

What has gone wrong? As I've been saying since last summer, the erection of a new government in Iraq presupposes the first law of all governments, that it have a monopoly on the use of force. Yet instead of focusing on the need for such a government and on the practical requirements for creating such a government, we've been pouring most of our energy and hopes into creating the mechanisms of democratic elections—imagining, in excited reverie, that the cart of universal rights and democratic proceduralism could pull the horse of sovereign national existence.

Thus, when challenged on the viability of Iraqi democratization on ABC's "This Week," Condoleezza Rice echoed the oft-expressed view of President Bush and leading neoconservatives, that all people in the world want rights, that they want good things for their sons and daughters, and that they don't want a knock on their door in the middle of the night—from which it follows, Rice believes, that all peoples in the world including Moslems are capable of creating and maintaining a democratic form of government. The obvious problem with this Pollyannish view is that the desire of individuals for those nice things, even the desire of the majority of the people in a given country for those nice things, does not necessarily mean that they will possess the collective will to put down the lawless minorities in their midst and thus be able to have those nice things. It is not a sign of wisdom in our political and intellectual elites that they fail to see this elemental truth of political existence.

Another way of understanding the situation in Iraq is that our leaders have disregarded the lesson of Vietnam: If you're going to fight a war, either fight to win or get out. In the Iraqi context, winning means destroying the jihadist or Ba'athist forces that threaten the Coalition, and, as indicated above, creating a successor Iraqi government that will have the force and energy to maintain its own existence. But instead of such a strategy, we've had the "stay the course" mantra. "Staying the course" does not mean victory. "Staying the course" means adhering to a policy that is not leading to victory and that is not even logically designed to lead to victory. As far as anyone can tell from the president's own remarks, "staying the course" simply means showing resolve, soldiering on, and enduring the insurgents' attacks as long as they keep coming at us. But the question is, what if the insurgents keep coming at us? What do we do then? What policy do we have in place to eliminate the insurgents—both those from within Iraq and those entering the country from outside? To my knowledge, this is a question that Bush has never addressed and that he has never even been asked. Thus we not only lack a policy aimed at victory in Iraq, we have not even had a national debate aimed at formulating such a policy. We have had a parody of a debate, in which the Left mindlessly screams, "Bush lied," and the Right stolidly replies, "Stay the course."

If the administration had seriously contemplated the true obstacles to democratic transition, they might have approached Iraq in a very different way. They might, for example, have concluded that victory in Iraq cannot be achieved without winning a much larger victory in the Moslem Mideast as a whole. As Michael Ledeen has argued over and over, the war against militant Islam is a regional war, but we're fighting it only as a local war. As long as neighboring Moslem countries keep sending jihadis and other insurgents into Iraq, the stabilization of Iraq, and therefore the construction of a free government there, is an impossibility.

There is a compelling logic in Ledeen's argument, but also—especially in the light of our recent unhappy experiences in Iraq—a grave flaw. If it is crushingly expensive and murderously difficult to control and rebuild Iraq, how much more difficult would it be if we were also trying to do the same to Syria and Iran, and all at the same time? Ledeen replies that we don't need to conquer Syria and Iran physically and become responsible for running them; we only need to encourage and support the internal dissidents and reformers in those countries, much as President Reagan did the dissidents under Soviet Communism. He says the Mullahs' regime in particular is so internally weak that it is ready to fall, if, Reagan-like, we would deny its moral legitimacy instead of playing diplomatic footsie with it.

Ledeen's idea is certainly more coherent and comprehensive than anything the president has offered, and our foreign policy makers should consider it.

But if the administration had thoughtfully considered such an ambitious, victory-directed strategy, they might have concluded that the victory requisite to democracy cannot be achieved in any Arab Moslem country. Such a realization would have led to a total re-thinking about what to do with post-Hussein Iraq. They might, for example, have adopted the Daniel Pipes alternative. According to Pipes, it is impossible for a non-Moslem power to impose its will on a Moslem society in any enduring way, simply because the Moslems will never accept it. We should therefore forget about building democratic institutions in Iraq, put a democratically-minded strong man in power, and withdraw our forces as quickly as possible.

To sum up, the indispensable condition for a democratic Iraqi government—or for any stable, decent government in that country—is victory in the sense of the permanent suppression of jihadis and terrorists. If such a victory is not possible, then democratization is not possible, and some other approach must be found. Refusing to face this unpleasant choice, the Bush administration has situated itself between two stools, insisting on democratization as the linchpin of our Iraq policy and even as the basis of our own national security, while pursuing a "stay the course" mode that cannot, by itself, ensure the victory that is the very condition of democratization.

Let us hope that I am wrong, and that the insurgency soon collapses and the jihadist forces fade away, allowing the Iraqi people to continue forward to the "broad sunlit uplands" of freedom and self-government. But if that wished-for event comes to pass, it will have happened as much by good fortune as by any conscious plan on the part of the Bush administration.

Lawrence Auster is the author of Erasing America: The Politics of the Borderless Nation. He runs the weblog View from the Right.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13067

Prominent US Senator blasts UNCHR on Iran

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Apr 20, 2004

US. Senator Sam Brownback (KS-R) has blasted the United Nations for failing to censure the Islamic republic rime for its persistent and degrading human rights records. The most well known of US senators, among Iranians, has made of himself an ardent defender of Human Rights in countries, such as, Iran and China.

"I am extremely disappointed in the lack of action by the United Nations. Despite clear evidence of serious violations, the U.N. failed to pass resolutions that would have called these countries to account for their egregious behavior on human rights issues." Brownback has stated.

"Safeguarding the human rights of Iranians is a critical element of any policy to support Irans democracy movement. We must not let the tyrannical mullahs of Iran get off the hook so easily" He has emphasized.

He has also deplored the decision by the Western block of nations, led by the European Union, not to table a resolution censuring flagrant human rights violations by Irans ruling theocracy.

After visiting Iran late last year, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression Ambeyi Ligabo painted an alarming picture of the rights situation in Iran. [There was a] climate of fear induced by the systematic repression of people expressing critical views against the authorized political and religious doctrine and the functioning of institutions, wrote the human rights investigator in a report to the Human Rights Commission.

The State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for year 2003 was even stronger: The [Iran] Government's poor human rights record worsened, and it continued to commit numerous, serious abuses Continuing serious abuses included: summary executions; disappearances; torture and other degrading treatment, reportedly including severe punishments such as beheading and flogging; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention...

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_5826.shtml

U.S. Renews Easing of Some Iran Sanctions

Reuters, US
April 21st, 04
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration has extended a temporary suspension of some U.S. sanctions on Iran that were eased to speed relief supplies after a devastating earthquake last December.

The president of the American Iranian Council, Hooshang Amirahmadi, on Tuesday hailed the move as "another (U.S.) gesture of goodwill to Iran" but a State Department official dismissed the decision as "matter of fact, not political."

The decision to renew the suspension, which had been due to expire last month, became public on Tuesday, as the United States faces an increasingly chaotic conflict in Iraq and is looking to neighboring countries, like Iran, to help calm the situation.

An official Iranian delegation traveled to Iraq last week to try to defuse a standoff between radical Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and U.S. troops in the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.

Iran and the United States have not had formal diplomatic relations since the Iranian revolution when radical students held 52 American hostages for 444 days from 1979-1981.

President Bush, who has branded Iran part of an "axis of evil" with Iraq and North Korea, eased some sanctions last Dec. 31 so U.S. citizens and nonprofit groups could donate money directly to nongovernmental organizations working in Iran on reconstruction and relief efforts after an earthquake killed 26,000 people in Bam.

Under the initial 90-day measure, the administration also made it easier for relief groups to bring donated equipment such as satellite telephones and computers into Iran.

In a formal renewal letter, the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control said the temporary sanctions easing would be extended for another 90 days, effective March 25.

"It's certainly a gesture (to Iran). The United States didn't have to do it. The emergency in Iran is over," Amirahmadi, a professor and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University in New Jersey, told Reuters.

A State Department official, speaking anonymously, said he did not believe the issue received the kind of high-level attention that normally would occur if the administration was planning to send Iran a meaningful diplomatic signal.

"There's still a need in Iran for stuff to deal with the situation. The humanitarian crisis is still persisting," the official said.

In an interview in January, former national security adviser Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft predicted Bush would extend his decision to ease the sanctions and it would be desirable.

Scowcroft, who advised Bush's father and advocates dialogue with the Islamic state, said he believes the United States and Iran are "moving toward some kind of exchange, but at a glacial rate and neither side is enthusiastic about it."

Amirahmadi said, "The government (in Tehran) wants to work out its problems with the United States."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4886121

Dissident Imprisoned Lawyer Awarded by American PEN

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Apr 20, 2004

PEN American Center has named Nasser Zarafshan, a writer, translator and attorney serving a five year prison term for his criticism of the official investigation into the serial murders of writers in the late 1990s in Iran.

The award, which honor international literary figures who have been persecuted or imprisoned for exercising or defending the right to freedom of expression, will be presented at PEN's Annual Gala, this evening, at the Pierre Hotel in New York City.

Zarafshan is a member of the Iranian Writers' Association Kanoon and a distinguished member of the Iranian Bar Association. He acted as the legal representative for the families of two of five Iranian writers who were assassinated in November 1998 in what came to be known in Iran as the 'serial murders.' Those murdered included Majid Charif, an editorialist with the monthly Iran E Farda, writer-journalists Mohamad Mokhtari and Mohamad Jafar Pouyandeh, and a prominent couple, Darioush and Parvaneh Forouhar, who were freedom of expression activists.

In October 2000, members of the Judicial Organization of Armed Forces (JOAF) arrested Zarafshan after he gave a speech in the city of Shiraz publicly alleging that the Islamic regime's intelligence services were behind the 1998 serial murders in Tehran. He was charged with publishing information about the assassinations, imprisoned in December 2000, and released after a month pending trial. While he was in detention, authorities searched Zarafshan's office and alleged they had discovered alcohol and weapons. In February 2002 he was tried in a military court behind closed doors; the presiding judge was a prosecutor with the JOAF. He was sentenced on March 19, 2002 to five years in prison (2 years for disseminating state secrets, 3 for the possession of firearms) and 70 lashes for the possession of alcohol. Zarafshan has consistently denied the firearms and alcohol charges, claiming these were planted in his office by the authorities.

The regime's authorities have so far failed to explain why Zarafshan, a civilian, was brought before the JOAF, the purpose of which is to try members of the armed forces and Revolutionary Guards for violations of the military code. Purged dissident members of the Islamic Parliament had protested against the use of a military court in these circumstances, branding it "unconstitutional."

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_5824.shtml

Son of shah advocates democracy for Iran

By Christopher Marcisz
Berkshire Eagle Staff
Wednesday, April 21, 2004

WILLIAMSTOWN -- Reza Pahlavi admits his experience as a first-year Williams College student in 1979 was not typical. Like other college students he struggled through political science exams and French literature classes. But as the crown prince of Iran's Peacock Throne and son of Shah Muhammad Reza, he lived in a 12-room mansion on South Street with a company of bodyguards.

And while trying to quietly go about his studies, a revolution swept his homeland that would interrupt his education. After his first year, he left to join his father in exile in Cairo. A few months after the shah's death in July 1980, Pahlavi claimed the throne and began a lifelong struggle to remove the Islamic regime that has ruled the country.

Today, he is an advocate for secular democracy for his home country. He returned to Williamstown this week to speak to Williams College students and urge them to join the fight for change in Iran, a change he said could only be achieved through nonviolence and civil resistance to an illegitimate regime.

In an interview with local press yesterday morning, Pahlavi said that the clerical regime in Iran today has lost all authority with the people.

He cited February's parliamentary elections in which he said only 10 percent of eligible voters participated. The turnout is the subject of some dispute: According to the BBC, the reformist Interior Ministry put voter turnout at about 50 percent, while the conservative Council of Guardians said the figure is closer to 60 percent.

He said the regime has an interest in fostering instability throughout the region to maintain its stranglehold on power. This includes obstructing the Palestinian peace process, and aggressively developing weapons of mass destruction as a last-resort deterrent.

That interest in instability has extended to Iraq, he said, where the Iranian regime is sending agents and money to cripple the creation of a democratic Iraq. He went further, saying that the regime is also concerned about the rise of an alternative center of Shiite power in Najaf and Karbala, where non-theocratic mullahs like Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani would pose an additional threat to the regime.

"They need instability, they need terrorism to survive," he said.

Pahlavi said the world needs to be careful not to lend any legitimacy to the current regime, and should focus on supporting the active opposition within the country. Such an approach would bring peaceful change, and could be accomplished without the need for bloodshed.

"For people struggling for democracy, it is important psychologically to know they are not alone," he said.

He said comparisons to the overthrow of other repressive regimes, like the Soviet Union, are different from the case of Iran. He pointed out the complete lack of legitimacy of the current rulers, and the mixed signals such "photo ops" present to the world and the opposition.

"When you are at this stage of the game, a multi-prong approach makes no sense," he said. "There is nobody at this point, from the people's perspective, that has any authority in Iran."

He said that efforts by the European Union to raise human rights issues are inconsistent with dealing with a regime "that has no mo-tive, no interest, to be on the same page as you might be."

He said part of his mission is to spread the word among people in the United States to become en-gaged in the process.

Pahlavi has been a United States resident since 1984, and lives in suburban Washington with his wife and two daughters. He said he would gladly return to a secular and democratic Iran, though he said his particular role in the country's government would be up to the people.

He said his goal now is simply to get to a national referendum in which the Iranian people can de-termine how they want to govern themselves. He said that goal is "nonpartisan."

In his 2002 book, "Winds of Change," Pahlavi devotes a chapter to the merits of a constitutional monarchy system, saying that countries like the United King-dom, Japan, and the Netherlands, all have such a system and are clearly democratic.

"I am not at this time concerned about what will happen to me," Pahlavi wrote. "If called upon to assume my royal duties, it would be the greatest honor bestowed on any individual. If not, in terms of my personal convictions, I see it as my civic duty to discharge my re-sponsibilities to my homeland and state, albeit as a simple citizen."

Normal student life

According to Eagle reports, during his time at Williams Pahlavi tried to live a normal student life despite extensive security measures, which were tightened after his cousin was assassinated in Paris in December 1979. But the only apparent incident was when his collie bit a neighbor's leg in Feb-ruary 1980, and was ordered re-strained for 10 days.

Although he left Williamstown in 1980, members of Pahlavi's family stayed in town for several more years after he left. Although Pah-lavi would eventually continue his education elsewhere, his younger brother, Ali Reza Pahlavi, graduated from Mount Greylock Regional High School in 1984. His sister Farahnaz attended Ben-nington College, and his sister Leila attended the Pine Cobble School in Williamstown. The family sold the house, at 218 South St., in November 1984 and moved to Connecticut.

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/Stories/0,1413,101~7514~2097467,00.html

Iran arrests two for passing nuke secrets-paper

TEHRAN,
April 21, 04
(Reuters)

Iran has arrested two atomic experts for passing nuclear secrets to foreigners in what could be the first such arrests inside Iran's disputed nuclear industry, a newspaper reported on Wednesday.

Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are limited to generating electricity while Washington accuses it of pursuing a covert programme to build atomic arms.

"The two nuclear experts, who were transferring classified information abroad, were arrested by security agents after an extensive investigation," the hardline Ya-Lesarat weekly quoted an informed source as saying.

The weekly did not say who received the information, but such offences against Iran's secureity could carry the death penalty. No other such arrests have ever been reported.

Nuclear and government officials were not available for comment.

International concern about Iran's nuclear programme intensified in 2002 when an exiled opposition group said Iran was hiding a massive underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy-water production plant at Arak.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) has repeatedly echoed U.S. accusations that Iran has a secret atomic weapons programme.

The NCRI is the political arm of a left-wing armed group, the Iraq-based People's Mujahideen, considered by Washington as a terrorist group. It is opposed to Iran's clerical establishment.

Hoping to allay concerns about its nuclear programme, Iran has signed up to snap U.N. inspections of its nuclear facilities and suspended the assembly of uranium enrichment components.

Enriched uranium can be used to make fuel for power plants or to make bomb-grade material.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HAF132102.htm

John Kerry's Foreign Friends

By Mark Landsbaum
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 21, 2004

Foreign leaders’ apparent infatuation with John Kerry raises two disturbing questions voters need to consider before November: Why do these leaders prefer Kerry to President Bush, and what does their endorsement say about Kerry?

These questions are quite apart from the flap over whether Kerry actually had private endorsements from other foreign leaders, whom he still refuses to identify. Those anonymous endorsers, Kerry says, told him they, “can’t go out and say this publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, ‘You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy.’”

Far more important than whether Kerry has secretive supporters, are the questions raised by the public endorsements of other foreign notables, who have no qualms about being identified. For an assortment of reasons, they are a dangerous lot. None will be mistaken for supporters of American interests abroad.

Begin with appeasenik Spanish socialist Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain, who said, “I want Kerry to win…We’re aligning ourselves with Kerry. Our alliance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil.” Zapatero has recently begun withdrawing Spanish troops who had been serving alongside U.S. forces in Iraq. Like Kerry, who 30 years ago argued that it is better to withdraw than to combat the Communist threat in Vietnam, Zapatero prefers to withdraw from combating the threat of terrorism spawned in Iraq. Both men have viewed retreat in the face of evil as virtuous.

Then there’s the world’s most die-hard Stalinist, North Korean Communist dictator Kim Jong Il, whom European newspapers reported to prefer Kerry over President Bush. “Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and hawkish officials in his administration, Pyongyang seems to hope victory for the Democratic candidate on November 2 would lead to a softening in U.S. policy towards the country’s nuclear-weapons program,” according to London’s Financial Times, which also reported Kerry being broadcast in “glowing” terms on Korea’s state-operated radio.

It does not take an advanced degree in international relations to figure out that a Communist dictator building and selling nuclear weapons and developing missiles that can reach California probably doesn’t share a common view with most Americans of what is in their best interest.

And, of course, there’s avowed anti-Semitic former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed, who endorsed Kerry’s presidential bid, proclaiming, “I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world.” Mohamed last year urged fellow Muslim leaders to achieve a “final victory” over Jews who he said, “rule the world by proxy.” One wonders how this stance squares with Kerry’s recent revelation that he is of Jewish heritage.

There’s little nuance here. These international endorsements come from the cowardly, the evil and the vile. A socialist retreating in the face of terrorists, a Communist dictator insinuating nuclear showdown and an anti-Semitic hatemonger aren’t likely to have Americans’ best interest at heart when picking sides in the U.S. presidential election.

To Kerry’s credit he had the presence of mind to recognize venomous anti-Semitism when it reared it ugly self with Malaysia’s Mohamed’s endorsement. “John Kerry rejects any association with former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed, an avowed anti-Semite whose views are totally deplorable,” said Kerry foreign policy adviser Rand Beers.

Nevertheless, if these are the stripe of foreigners attracted to John Kerry, who then is repulsed by him? In Kerry’s 1997 book The New War, he even referred to Yasser Arafat as a “statesman.”

All this calls into question Kerry’s moral authority, and how others would perceive it. In short, if Kerry is admired by those who retreat from evil, those who threaten the U.S. with nuclear weapons and those who hate Jews, can Kerry be right for America? As columnist Joel Mowbray has noted, “Kerry expresses a sincere belief that terrorists can change their stripes, if only they have a positive role model.”

Kerry’s view of reality is consistent with that which has steered the Democratic Party since at least the presidency of Jimmy Carter. It is a worldview that refuses to acknowledge the existence of evil in the world, preferring instead to imagine there are only people and nations with differing interests. Consequently, Kerry and his ilk opt for the Rodney King approach to international relations: “Can’t we all just get along?”

The danger in this is that evildoers recognize it for what it is: appeasement. The even greater danger is that terrorists will interpret it for what it often signals: weakness. Enemies of the United States always will be attracted to Americans who make their job easier. Terrorists, Communists and anti-Semites are never won over by negotiation or by feeling their pain. They correctly interpret such naïve olive branches as signs of weakness, and can be counted on to press for more of what they want. As Chamberlain learned the hard way with Nazi Germany, going wobbly in the face of evil is no solution.

It is no surprise to find that Kerry prefers an expanded United Nations role, rather than the U.S. “going it alone,” on matters of terrorism and international threats. The UN is nothing if not institutionalized appeasement.

Kerry, who is becoming well known for his opportunistic flip-flops, at least has been consistent on this score. He sided against American interests in the Vietnam War when he unashamedly accused American GIs of committing murder and torture. He opposed American interests in his numerous votes against military procurement bills, and by refusing to fund the war effort in Iraq.

“Senator Kerry speaks with open contempt” of those nations that have sided with the Bush administration in the Iraqi war effort, according to Vice President Dick Cheney. “If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Senator Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition.”

If Kerry has such a dour view of those countries supporting U.S. efforts, and Kerry is so favorably viewed by foreign leaders whose interests certainly don’t jibe with U.S. interests, can Kerry be right for America?

Kerry has complained that the Bush “administration’s foreign policy is not making us as safe as we can be in the world.”

Will friends like Zapatero, Jong Il and Mohamed make us safer?

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13070

This just in from Banafsheh...

"Dear Friends,

PLEASE send this to everyone you know and tell them to do the same. The brave people of Iran require YOUR help and awareness as respective individuals, in order to empower their struggle against the theocratic fascists who are brutally destroying them. This scourge is no longer a problem that is specific to us Iranians; it is a cancer that is running it's tentincles, punk rampant throughout the world at large and they DO NOT live by the western credos of freedom and respect for their fellow man either. This may be my father today but tomorrow they will bring it to a neighborhood near you.

Thank you.

Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Feature Article

Tuesday, 20 April 2004

Iran: Rights Group 'Revolted' At Treatment Of Ailing Journalist

By Golnaz Esfandiari

Reporters Without Borders is expressing outrage over the treatment of ailing 75-year-old journalist Siamak Pourzand, who has been imprisoned in Iran since 2001. Pourzand, who is now in a Tehran hospital after suffering a heart attack, has reportedly been chained to his bed by authorities.

Prague, 20 April 2004 (RFE/RL) -- Iran's Siamak Pourzand, a well-known journalist and film critic, has been through some difficult times during the last three years.

In November 2001, Pourzand disappeared. Only later did relatives and friends discover that he had been arrested by Iranian police. He was held for months in solitary confinement with no access to either his family or to his lawyer.

In May 2002, Pourzand was charged with antistate activities and "links to monarchists and counterrevolutionaries" and sentenced to 11 years in prison. His trial was described by Human Rights Watch as a "mockery of justice."

Iran's state news agency reported that Pourzand had confessed to his crimes, but his family and human-rights groups say the confession was extracted using psychological pressure and torture.

Pourzand was granted prison leave in December 2002 but was re-arrested on 30 March 2003. Amnesty International and the media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) say he was held in solitary confinement in appalling conditions with no access to his own lawyer.

Now, Pourzand is in hospital in Tehran, after suffering a heart attack in late March and lapsing into a coma for a few days. His eldest daughter (from his first wife), Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, who lives in the United States, told RFE/RL that her father's condition is critical.

"After several strokes over the last few months, he finally had a massive coronary, and he was finally taken -- at the behest of the infirmary in prison and various doctors who have begged the judiciary system to have him treated in a more sophisticated medical facility -- he was taken to a public hospital entitled Modares, and there he has been chained to his bed with two [guards] around him," she said.

Pourzand's (second) wife, Mehrangiz Kar, is a prominent human-rights activist who also lives in the United States. She says she and Pourzand's children have had no direct contact with him since his re-arrest one year ago. His sister in Tehran is the only family member who had been able to meet him since his incarceration.

At that meeting, Reporters Without Borders says Pourzand was unable to walk, barely able to speak, and told his sister not to sign anything in connection with him.

Pourzand's daughter says Tehran's chief prosecutor, Said Mortazavi, told her father that he will not be released in the near future. "Mortazavi specifically told him two weeks ago that he wasn't going to let my father go because he's afraid that if he lets my father go that my father would basically divulge to the world the atrocities that are committed every day in the prisons of the Islamic Republic and the human-rights violations."

Pourzand's case has been noted by various international human rights groups, who have called for his release.

In a statement today, Reporters Without Borders said it was "revolted" by Pourzand's treatment and called for his release. RSF said it will hold the Iranian authorities responsible for the deterioration in Pourzand's health.

Agnes Devictor, of RSF's Iran desk, says Pourzand's case highlights the way journalists are treated in the Islamic Republic.

"Unfortunately, we already had one case -- Zahra Kazemi's case," she said. "She died in detention last year, and I think the Iranian authorities still do not understand that they have to change their way of dealing with journalists in jail."

Kazemi, an Iranian-Canadian photographer, was arrested last year in front of Tehran's Evin prison while taking pictures of the families of political prisoners. She later died in a hospital because of a blow she received to her head during her detention.

Many observers say Pourzand, who also ran a cultural center in Tehran, was arrested in an effort to intimidate intellectuals and prevent them from expressing critical views of the Iranian establishment.

Following Pourzand's arrest, several writers and journalists in Iran were questioned about a variety of issues.

Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi says, "My father is a cultural figure. He's never been a political activist, so to speak. He's just being used as a tool because these people feel the need to [silence] every single cultural figure and intellectual and free thinker of any age and background. It's the assassination of a character, breaking down the spirit."
---
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2004 RFE/RL, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Hamas Vs. America

New York Post - By Erick Stakelbeck
Apr 21, 2004

SATURDAY'S assassination of Hamas leader Abed Al-Aziz Rantisi represented a victory not just for Israel, but also for the United States in its ongoing war against radical Islamic terrorism. Hamas has been an avowed enemy of America for years.

U.S. news accounts routinely get this wrong: They suggest that up until Israel's assassination last month of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, Hamas was concerned solely with the destruction of Israel, and had no intentions of targeting the United States.

In fact, Yassin and Rantisi both spoke often of expanding Hamas' operations to include U.S. targets. Then, too, Hamas has long aligned itself with terror-sponsoring states like Syria, Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

That said, the group's animosity for America reached a new level in recent weeks.

One of Rantisi's last public appearances came on Easter weekend, as thousands of Palestinians took part in rallies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in support of the armed rebellion against U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq,

Speaking in Gaza, Rantisi called on Iraqis to "strike and burn" U.S. and Coalition forces, and "teach them the lessons of suicide actions."

Rantisi's comments - which came amid chants of "Death to America" and the burning of American flags by onlookers - were the latest in a long line of threats made by Hamas leaders toward the United States.

That is, until Monday, when Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal - speaking at a memorial service for Rantisi in Syria - called for a worldwide Arab and Muslim alliance to defeat the United States and Israel.

"Our battle is with two sides," said Meshaal. "One of them is the strongest power in the world, the United States, and the second is the strongest power in the region [Israel]."

Enter Muqtada al-Sadr, the extremist cleric who launched a violent power grab in Iraq this month. On April 3, Sadr vowed to serve as the "striking arm" in the region for Hamas and the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah. Since Israel has no troops in Iraq, it's obvious whom Sadr intends to "strike" in Hamas' name.

But Hamas has sent the same signal: Shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq last March, Sheik Yassin issued a fatwa (religious decree) ordering all Muslims to kill Americans wherever they were found if U.S. troops dared set foot on Iraqi soil.

As recently as last November, Yassin spoke of "striking the United States . . . in the appropriate place," a statement hardly befitting a man eulogized by a large segment of American media as an "elderly quadriplegic" and "spiritual leader."

But for sheer anti-U.S. vitriol, it is difficult to top Rantisi, who wrote an article published on a Hamas Web site in April 2003 titled, "Why Shouldn't We Attack the United States?"

In the article, Rantisi argued that attacking America was not only "a moral and national duty - but above all, a religious one." In another piece published soon after, he openly called for "terror against the United States."

Even before Rantisi's comments, however, Hamas had solidified its anti-American credentials by supporting the ousted Ba'athist regime in Iraq. In September 2002, Israeli agents videotaped a ceremony in Gaza City in which Sheik Yassin and other Hamas officials presented certificates and checks from the Iraqi government to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers

Yassin spoke at the rally, exhorting Palestinians to support Iraq in its confrontation with the United States. Tellingly, the participants stomped on American and Israeli flags upon entering the hall, and chanted pro-Saddam slogans.

But Hamas hasn't merely preached violence against America: It has also targeted U.S. citizens directly. In December 2003, Israeli authorities charged Jamal Akal, a Canadian citizen born in the Gaza Strip, with receiving weapons and explosives training from Hamas for use in terrorist attacks on Jewish targets in Canada and New York City.

And last April, two Hamas suicide bombers blew themselves up inside Mike's Place, a bar located next to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv that is frequented by U.S. government employees.

While previous Hamas attacks in Israel have claimed the lives of more than a dozen American citizens, these two incidents represent a troubling escalation in Hamas activity against the United States.

High-ranking Hamas officials have already managed to infiltrate America, the most notorious example being Musa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader now based in Syria. Marzook, who had been living in northern Virginia, was detained by U.S. authorities for 22 months and deported to Jordan in 1997.

Following Yassin's death, Marzook warned his former host country that "currently the U.S. is not a target [of Hamas], but in the future, only God knows."

Despite the media's reluctance to catch on, Hamas' recent statements and actions regarding America make clear that the future Marzook spoke of is now.

Erick Stakelbeck is senior writer for the Investigative Project, a D.C.-based counterterrorism research institute.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_5834.shtml

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.