Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year! 
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”
Posted on 05/29/2004 9:01:35 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
Report says Iran trains suicide bombers
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/29/world/iran_quake040529
Death toll rises in Iran quake
Last Updated Sat, 29 May 2004 10:53:31
TEHRAN - Rescue teams were being flown into northern Iran Saturday, a day after earthquake killed at least 45 people and injured about 400 others.
The quake, measuring 6.2 in magnitude, caused serious damage in the city of Sari – and in more than 80 villages scattered througout the Alborz mountain range.
Workers remove rocks along the Chalous road in north Iran (AP photo)
Many of the dead appeared to be drivers and their passengers caught in rockslides along the mountain road linking Tehran with the Caspian Sea city of Chalous.
The epicentre was located in the Mazandaran province town of Baladeh, 70 kilometres north of Tehran.
The tremor shattered some windows in the capital and sent startled residents running into the streets.
There have been dozens of aftershocks. Iran sits on seismic fault lines and is prone to earthquakes.
In December, an earthquake killed about 40,000 people in the southeastern Iranian city of Bam.
Iran May Pass Nuclear Capability to Nuclear Terrorists, Washington Times Warns
•“Given the nature of the Iranian government — a regime striving to obtain nuclear weapons that has supported terrorism from its inception a quarter-century ago — it would be folly to simply dismiss the possibility that it might decide to transfer nuclear weapons to one of its terrorist allies, writes the Washington Times in an editorial, based on an assessment of Iran's nuclear program offered by Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute.
•President Mohammad Khatami acknowledged on Thursday that Iran would not achieve its goal of having its nuclear file closed at the June 14 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors, but he added that he did not consider that fact as serious.
Supreme Leader Asks New Majles to Focus on “Non-Political” Issues
•In a message to MPs read at the first session of the seventh Majles, the Supreme Leader called on the lawmakers to avoid factional disputes. He declared the disputed February 20 elections, in which the Guardians Council rejected 2,400 reformist candidates, “fair and free,” and directed the new MPs to focus on what he called “non-political issues.”
Opposition Activists Stage Sit-in Protest in Front of the UN Offices in Tehran
•A number of members of the independent opposition group the Democratic Front staged a sit-in protest in front of the UN offices in Tehran. During the past month, the wave of arrests and prosecution of activists have increased, the Democratic Front's spokesman Hasan Zarezadeh Ardeshir tells Radio Farda. The reason maybe the nearing of July 9, the anniversary of the 1998 police attack on student dorms, he adds. For that reason, we have decided to continue our sit-in protest indefinitely, he says. (Amir-Mosaddegh Katouzian)
http://www.radiofarda.com/transcripts/topstory/2004/05/20040527_1530_1122_1443_EN.asp
How come I'm not surprised?
Judiciary to Prosecute Nabavi
Despite cancellation of prosecution of numerous MPs by the Judiciary, this branch still intends to file suit Mohammad Reza Ali Hosseini, Behzad Nabavi, Mohamad Reza Khatami, Ali Akbar Mousavi Khoeini and Jafar Kambozia, reported by Etemad newspaper.
Human Rights Activists Critical of UNHRC
In a letter to the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, a number of human right activists in Europe and Northern America lambasted the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) for dropping Iran's case from its agenda. This letter has called on the United Nations to choose a permanent supervisor, overseeing human rights issues of concern in Iran, reported by Sharg newspaper.
Iran Democratic Front Calls for Freedom of Members
According to this reformist daily, Iran Democratic Front headed by Heshmatollah Tabarzadi posted a declaration in several websites, announcing detention of several members during the recent days. This declaration pinpointed if these members are not released, Iran Democratic Front will stage a sit-in, reported by Sharg newspaper.
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_2436.shtml
Israeli Threats to Raid Iran's Nuke Facilities a Political Bluff
May 29, 2004, 08:52
IRNA
An Iranian lawmaker said here on Thursday that Israel's likely air raid on Iranian nuclear facilities is a mere political show-off.
Member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission at the 6th Majlis Hassan Qashqawi told IRNA that Israel has made the threat to build up pressures on Iran and get concession on the eve of the June meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors. Certain news sources quoted the U.S. intelligence services as claiming recently that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had in a meeting with the U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington on April 24 received permission for raiding Iran's nuclear facilities.
The Israel is said to intend to launch the raid in August. Qashqawi said that although the threat is a mere "political show-off", Iran should enhance its combat readiness to thwart any threat.
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_2433.shtml
That's a strange map. I haven't seen the quake put that far west on ANYone's map. In fact, in that location, it's doubtful it could have broken windows in Tehran. All the maps I've seen locate the quake either directly north or northeast of Tehran.
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Takes Message to Chatham
May 29, 2004
Roanoke
Jen McCaffery
CHATHAM -- Iranian activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi has described the struggle for women's rights to audiences at Stanford and Harvard universities this spring and is headed for the United Nations.
In between, the internationally known champion of human rights traveled to Chatham Hall, a small boarding school for girls, for a speech Wednesday night. Students, teachers and Iranian natives living in Roanoke and other locations filled the auditorium to hear Ebadi speak.
Ebadi, a small woman who looked tired from her travels, told the crowd through a translator that she doesn't think Islam and democracy are mutually exclusive. Education, not military action, is the key to establishing democracy, she said.
"I do not believe in the theory of the clash of civilizations," Ebadi said. "That is a theory to justify war."
A former judge in the Iranian capital of Tehran, Ebadi has witnessed firsthand how her country has changed since the revolution of 1979, when conservative clerics took over the westernized country and instituted Islamic law.
Ebadi came to Chatham Hall at the suggestion of an alumna, Olga Davidson, who teaches women's studies at Brandeis University in Massachusetts. Ebadi's speech was part of a series the school has sponsored, called "Women's Voices Changing the World."
Other speakers in the series have included the first female president of Ireland, Mary Robinson, and the poet Nikki Giovanni.
Ebadi described herself as an Islamic modernist, someone who believes that religion should be subject to 21st-century interpretations, not just fundamental ones.
We "have to educate people that Islam is not a religion that would not be compatible with the modern world," Ebadi said. "Rather, it's the governments that hide their dictatorships under the cloak of Islam."
Ebadi, along with other female judges in Iran, was forced to resign after the revolution. She described the painstaking effort Iranian women have undertaken to achieve more parity under the law.
She and other Iranian women challenged custody laws, which dictated that if a couple separated, boys could live with their mother only until they turned 2 and girls until they turned 7.
Some Iranian women protested, but the government always said that was the law of Islam and that it was unchangeable, Ebadi said.
"But when all the women came together, the government had to retreat and began to accept our work, and admitted that what it had done was not Islam, Ebadi said. Now a mother has custody until the child turns 7, then it's up to the court to decide which parent the child should live with.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee wrote of Ebadi: "In an era of violence, she has consistently supported nonviolence. It is fundamental to her view that the supreme political power in a community must be built on democratic elections."
Ebadi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year, also said Iranian women are well-educated. Sixty-three percent of university students in Iran are women, she said. And the government has recently allowed women to serve as judges again.
Ebadi condemned terrorist attacks such as those of Sept. 11, 2001, as an abuse of Islam. But she argued that the religion itself should not be blamed for the actions of fundamentalists and argued that fundamentalism is dangerous in all religions.
At a news conference just before her speech, Ebadi responded to a question about the American invasion of Iraq. She said she thought the United States invaded Iraq because leaders thought Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons.
She added that such weapons were not found and that the United States at one point was a friend to Saddam Hussein. She also said that Western countries gave Saddam Hussein bombs, which he used against Iranians and Kurds.
She said she thought the United States should get out of Iraq as soon as possible and let Iraqis determine their own rule.
Roanoke County resident Kal Pezeshcan was one of several Iranian natives who came to hear Ebadi speak. Pezeshcan, a finance director at Berglund Ford in Salem, has followed Ebadi's career. He has also remained in contact with his relatives in Iran. He said that the situation for women in Iran has gotten better over the years, largely because of the efforts of people such as Ebadi.
Though Iranian women are still required to cover themselves in public, in private, they wear makeup and jewelry, said Pezeshcan, who has visited the country many times since moving to the United States in the 1970s.
"What you see outside and what you see inside is totally different," Pezeshcan said.
http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story167568.html
Conservative Becomes Iranian Parliament Speaker
May 29, 2004
Reuters
ABC News
Iran's parliament has elected the country's first non-cleric assembly speaker since the 1979 revolution, following February polls in which conservatives overturned the reformist majority.
Conservative party leader Gholamali Haddadadel, whose daughter is married to a son of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is viewed as a pragmatist. The parliamentary vote was broadcast live on state radio.
Iran's parliament speaker not only steers debates in the chamber but also votes in powerful committees such as the Supreme National Security Council.
The speaker sits on the Expediency Council that arbitrates between parliament and the Guardian Council, the Islamic Republic's 12-man constitutional watchdog.
Iran's new parliamentarians, who took over the reins of power with chants of "Death to America", voted overwhelmingly for Mr Haddadadel to replace Mehdi Karroubi. Of the 266 who cast votes, 196 backed Mr Haddadadel. Iran's parliament has 290 seats.
Mr Haddadadel heads the Islamic Iran Developers Party, Abadgeran, that leads a coalition at the heart of Iran's new parliament. He has said hardline parties will aim to transform Iran into an "Islamic Japan".
In his inaugural address he attacked the US occupation of Iraq and fighting in Shiite holy cities.
"This nation will not forgive those who desecrate the holy shrines," he said. His words were greeted by a chorus of "Death to America".
Many reformists dismissed February's election as a bloodless coup after the Guardian Council banned thousands of reformist candidates from standing.
Technically, Mr Haddadadel's appointment is temporary because lawmakers who voted for him have not yet approved each other's credentials. However, this approval is considered a formality.
Two traditional conservatives take over as deputy parliament speakers, replacing two of Iran's most outspoken reformists.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1118927.htm
Overdoing Chalabi
May 28, 2004
The Stratfor Weekly
George Friedman
On Feb. 19, in a piece entitled "Ahmed Chalabi and His Iranian Connection," Stratfor laid out the close relationship Chalabi had with the Iranians, and the role that relationship played in the flow of intelligence to Washington prior to the war. This week, the story of Chalabi, accused of being an Iranian agent by U.S. intelligence, was all over the front pages of the newspapers. The media, having ignored Chalabi's Iranian connections for so long, went to the other extreme -- substantially overstating its significance.
The thrust of many of the stories was that the United States was manipulated by Iran -- using Chalabi as a conduit -- into invading Iraq. The implication was that the United States would have chosen a different course, except for Chalabi's disinformation campaign. We doubt that very much. First, the United States had its own reasons for invading Iraq. Second, U.S. and Iranian interests were not all that far apart in this case. Chalabi was certainly, in our opinion, working actively on behalf or Iranian interests -- as well as for himself -- but he was merely a go-between in some complex geopolitical maneuvering.
Iran wanted the United States to invade Iraq. The Iranians hated Saddam Hussein more than anyone did, and they feared him. Iran and Iraq had fought a war in the 1980s that devastated a generation of Iranians. More than Hussein, Iraq represented a historical threat to Iran going back millennia. The destruction of the Iraqi regime and army was at the heart of Iranian national interest. The collapse of the Soviet Union had for the first time in a century secured Iran's northern frontiers. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan secured the Shiite regions of Afghanistan as a buffer. If the western frontier could be secured, Iran would achieve a level of national security it had not known in centuries.
What Iran Wanted
Iran knew it could not invade Iraq and win by itself. Another power had to do it. The failure of the United States to invade and occupy Iraq in 1991 was a tremendous disappointment to Iran. Indeed, the primary reason the United States did not invade Iraq was because it knew the destruction of the Iraqi army would leave Iran the dominant power native to the Persian Gulf. Invading Iraq would have destroyed the Iraq-Iran balance of power that was the only basis for what passed for stability in the region.
The destruction of the Iraqi regime would not only have made Iran secure, but also would have opened avenues for expansion. First, the Persian Gulf region is full of Shia, many of them oriented toward Iran for religious reasons. For example, the loading facilities for Saudi oil is in a region dominated by the Shia. Second, without the Iraqi army blocking Iran, there was no military force in the region that could stop the Iranians. They could have become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, and only the permanent stationing of U.S. troops in the region would have counterbalanced Iran. The United States did not want that, so the conquest of Kuwait was followed by the invasion -- but not the conquest -- of Iraq. The United States kept Iraq in place to block Iran.
Iran countered this policy by carefully and systematically organizing the Shiite community of Iraq. After the United States allowed a Shiite rising to fail after Desert Storm, Iranian intelligence embarked on a massive program of covert organization of the Iraqi Shia, in preparation for the time when the Hussein regime would fall. Iranian intentions were to create a reality on the ground so the fall of Iraq would inevitably lead to the rise of a Shiite-dominated Iraq, allied with Iran.
What was not in place was the means of destroying Hussein. Obviously, the Iranians wanted the invasion and Chalabi did everything he could to make the case for invasion, not only because of his relationship with Iran, but also because of his ambitions to govern Iraq. Iran understood that an American invasion of Iraq would place a massive U.S. Army on its western frontier, but the Iranians also understood that the United States had limited ambitions in the area. If the Iranians cooperated with U.S. intelligence on al Qaeda and were not overly aggressive with their nuclear program, the two major concerns of the United States would be satisfied and the Americans would look elsewhere.
The United States would leave Iraq in the long run, and Iran would be waiting patiently to reap the rewards. In the short run, should the United States run into trouble in Iraq, it would become extremely dependent on the Iranians and their Shiite clients. If the Shiite south rose, the U.S. position would become untenable. Therefore if there was trouble -- and Iranian intelligence was pretty sure there would be -- Shiite influence would rise well before the Americans left.
Chalabi's job was to give the Americans a reason to invade, which he did with stories of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But he had another job, which was to shield two critical pieces of information from the Americans: First, he was to shield the extent to which the Iranians had organized the Shiite south of Iraq. Second, he was to shield any information about Hussein's plans for a guerrilla campaign after the fall of Baghdad. These were the critical things -- taken together, they would create the dependency the Iranians badly wanted.
What the United States Wanted
The Americans were focused on another issue. The balance of power in the Persian Gulf was not a trivial matter to them, but it had taken on a new cast after Sept. 11. For the United States, the central problem in the Persian Gulf -- and a matter of urgent national security -- was the unwillingness of Saudi intelligence and security services to move aggressively against al Qaeda inside the kingdom. From the U.S. viewpoint, forcing Saudi Arabia to change its behavior was the overriding consideration; without that, no progress against al Qaeda was possible.
The United States did not see itself as having many levers for manipulating the situation in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis were convinced that ultimately the United States would not be able to take decisive action against the Saudis, and the Saudi government was more concerned about the internal political consequences of a crackdown on al Qaeda, than it was about the United States. It felt confident it could manage the United States as it had in the past.
The United States did not want to invade Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud was the foundation of Saudi stability, and the United States did not want it to fall. It wanted to change the Saudi strategy. Invading Saudi Arabia could have led to global economic disaster if oil shipments were disrupted. Finally, the invasion of Saudi Arabia, given its size, terrain and U.S. resources, was a difficult if not impossible task. The direct route would not work. The United States would take an indirect route.
If you wanted to frighten Saudi Arabia into changing its behavior without actually launching military operations against it, the way to do that would be: (a) demonstrate your will by staging an effective military campaign; and (b) wind up the campaign in a position to actually invade and take Saudi oil fields if they did not cooperate. The Saudis doubted U.S. will and military capacity to do them harm (since Kuwait would never permit its territory to be used to invade Saudi Arabia). The solution: an invasion of Iraq.
The United States wanted to invade Iraq as an indirect route to influence Saudi Arabia. As in any military operation, there were also subsidiary political goals. The United States wanted to get rid of Hussein's regime, not because it was complicit with al Qaeda, but because it might later become complicit. Secondly, it wanted to use Iraqi territory as a base to pressure Syria and Iran as well.
Chalabi's claims about Iraqi WMD did not instigate the invasion, because the United States did not invade Iraq to get rid of WMD. An invasion would be the most dangerous route for doing that, because the other side might actually surprise you and use the weapons on your troops. You would use air strikes and special operations troops. What Chalabi did by providing his intelligence was, however, not insignificant. The administration had two
goals: the destruction of al Qaeda and protection of the United States from WMD. By producing evidence of WMD in Iraq, Chalabi gave Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz the tool they needed. By introducing evidence of WMD, they triggered an automatic policy against Iraq having them, which closed off an argument -- not really a raging argument -- in the administration. It was important, but not earth shattering.
There was a deeper dimension to this. The strategic planners in the administration were old enough to remember when Richard Nixon began the process that broke the back of the Soviet Union -- his alliance with China against the Soviets. During World War II, the United States allied with Stalin against Hitler, preventing a potential peace agreement by Stalin. The United States had a known policy of using fault lines among potential enemies to split them apart, allying with the weaker against the stronger. If the United States allying with Stalin or Mao was not considered beyond the pale, then the Bush administration planners had another alliance in mind.
The fault line in the Islamic world is between Sunni and Shia. The Sunni are a much larger group than the Shia, but only if you include countries such as Indonesia. Within the Persian Gulf region, the two groups are highly competitive. Al Qaeda was a Sunni movement. Following U.S. grand strategy, logic held that the solution to the problem was entering into an alliance of sorts with the Shia. The key to the Shia was the major Shiite power -- Iran.
The United States worked with Iranian intelligence during the invasion of Afghanistan, when the Iranians arranged relationships with Shiite warlords like Ahmed Khan. The United States and Iran had cooperated on a number of levels for years when it concerned Iraq. Therefore there were channels open for collaboration.
The United States was interested not only in frightening Saudi Arabia, but also in increasing its dependence on the United States. The United States needed a lever strong enough to break the gridlock in Riyadh. An invasion of Iraq would achieve the goal of fear. An alliance with Iran would create the dependency that was needed. The Saudis would do anything to keep the Iranians out of their oil fields and their country. After the invasion of Iraq, only the United States could stop them. The Saudis were trapped by the United States.
What Chalabi Didn't Say
What is important to see here is how the Iranians were using the Americans, and how the Americans were using the Iranians. Chalabi was an important channel, but hardly the only one. It is almost certain that his role was well known. Chalabi was probably left in place to convince the Iranians that the United States was naive enough to believe them, or he was there simply as a token of good faith. But nothing he said triggered the invasion.
It was what he did not say that is significant. Chalabi had to know that the Iranians controlled the Iraqi Shia. It is possible that he even told the Pentagon that, since it wouldn't change fundamental strategy much. But there is one thing that Chalabi should have known that he certainly didn't tell the Americans: that Hussein was going to wage a guerrilla war. On that point, there is no question but that the Pentagon was surprised, and it mattered a lot.
Chalabi did not share intelligence that the Iranians almost certainly had because the Iranians wanted the Americans to get bogged down in a guerrilla war. That would increase U.S. dependence on the Shia and Iran, and would hasten the American departure.
Iranian intelligence had penetrated deep into Iraq. The preparations for the guerrilla war were extensive. Iran knew -- and so did Chalabi. The United States would still have invaded, but would have been much better prepared, militarily and politically. Chalabi did not tell the Pentagon what he knew and that has made a huge difference in the war.
We suspect that the Pentagon intelligence offices and the CIA both knew all about Chalabi's relation to Iranian intelligence. The argument was not over that, but over whether this disqualified his intelligence. The Pentagon had made up its mind for strategic reasons to invade Iraq. Chalabi's intelligence was of use in internal disputes in the administration, but decided nothing in terms of policy. The CIA, understanding that Chalabi was not really a source in the conventional sense but was a geopolitical pawn, did not like the game, but didn't call the Department of Defense on it until after DOD got into trouble in Iraq -- and the CIA wanted to make certain that everyone knew it wasn't their mistake.
Chalabi was a minor player in a dance between Iran and the United States that began on Sept. 11 and is still under way. The United States wants a close relationship with Iran in order to split the Islamic world and force the Saudis to collaborate with the Americans. The Iranians want to use the United States in order to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf. Each wants the other to be its hammer. In all of this, Chalabi was only an actor in a bit part.
The one place in which he was significant was negative -- he kept the United States in the dark about the impending guerrilla war. That was where he really helped Iran, because it was the guerrilla war that locked the United States into a dependency on the Iraqi Shia that went much farther than the United States desired, and from which the United States is only now starting to extricate itself. That is a major act of duplicity, but it is a sin of omission, not commission.
In a way, the Americans and the Iranians used Chalabi for their own purposes. The Iranians used him to screen information from the Americans more than to give false information. The Americans used him to try to convince the Iranians that they had a sufficient degree of control over the situation that it was in their interests to maintain stability in the Shiite regions. At this point, it is honestly impossible to tell who got the better of whom. But this much is certain. Chalabi, for all his cleverness, is just another used up spook, trusted by no one, trusting even fewer. Geopolitics trumps conspiracy every time.
http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/index.neo?page=center&storyId=232463
Ebadi softens her controversial stands
SMCCDI (Information Service)
May 29, 2004
http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6408.shtml
Shirin Ebadi, the controversial Nobel Peace Prize, seems having changed her tactics following witnessing a fierce peaceful and democratic manner opposition by members of the Iranian Diaspora. From softening some of her anti-US rhetoric and accepting the existence of "some" rights abuses in Iran to scarifying individuals or hosts with controversial background who are intending to legitimize the Islamic regime, she is trying to navigate in the turmoil created by the genuine and secular opposition groups located in the US.
Ebadi who has faced a mediatic debacle especially after the protest action made, at the UCLA, by several Iranian groups, composed of Monarchists and Republicans, seems having understood that she can't continue voicing a one sided Islamic regime's foreign policy and its promotion of sham "reforms from within" without softening her anti US rhetoric and acknowledging "some" aspect of the rule of terror and oppression in Iran. It's to note that few idealist or misinformed American writers continue to promote Ebadi based on the advices and information given by some few members of the Iranian Community, residing in the US. These writers forget that most of their sources were in their younger age part of the so-called Iranian Intelligentsia, such as Mohamad Sahimi or the very ambitious and deluded Mehranguiz Kar, who helped bringing the backwarded clerics to political power in Iran. Worst, some of them, such as, Kazem Alamdari and Nayereh Tohidi, teachers at UC, were part of fanatic Marxist Guerilla groups involved in several murders.
Anyhow Ebadi has been seen, recently, trying to calm the increasing anger of the Iranian community which is echoed for millions of enchained Iranians via the Los Angles and WDC based TV and Radio networks. Her anti US rhetoric has soften astonishingly and the latter has started to criticize the Islamic regime on several topics while refusing to attend controversial gatherings, such as the one, organized by IAPAC.
Of course, fidel to her past controversial and revolutionary background with Islamic roots, she still claim that the status of Iranian women has improved and that more than 63% of Iranian students are female. She omits to state that the Iranian women are in general much more advanced, compare to herself, in many aspects of their thoughts and aspirations from the first day of the 1979 Islamic revolution. The latter doesn't find necessary to mention that many studies, such as some branches of Medical schools or scientific studies, are banned for the current 63% female students in contrary to the secular education which existed before the Islamic revolution. Most of the current female students are condemned to follow studies, such as, in Textile or Wowing Rug which their industries are at the edge of collapse in Iran due to the ill policies of the ruling clerics and their Islamist technocrat advisors, such as, Ebadi's own brother who's an influential advisor of the current rgime.
Ebadi who made Human Rights Studies at Tehran University in 1973, is claiming that "the "limit" of Human Rights is traced by "Democracy". It's of course not necessary to remind that based on her idea, the Taliban regime was not in a total transgression of Human Rights principles nor as it will any type of so-called reformed Islamic regime in Iran which is Ebadi's main goal.
Empress Farah Pahlavi is one of the guests who have been invited to the marriage celebration of Prince Fredrik of Denmark with Mary Donaldson.
Just these 2 months they've gotten invitations from Jordan, Spain, Denmark, and Saudi Arabia. Including Egypt refusing to take the lion and sword flag down.
Back in the 80's the pro-West Iranian Royals hardly got invitations to any formal events.
Interesting Development... DoctorZin
Navy to Deploy Carrier Groups to Test Rapid Readiness (Is this odd or what?)
WorldNow
Posted on 05/29/2004 1:09:56 PM PDT by BabaOreally
Navy to Deploy Carrier Groups to Test Rapid Readiness
Click here to view this video report.
A major exercise soon to be underway will have a large part of the Navy fleet deploying out of Norfolk.
WAVY News 10 has learned the Navy is sending seven carrier strike groups out to sea.
The exercise is designed to test the Navy's new rapid deployment readiness.
Several Norfolk-based carrier strike groups will participate. The USS George Washington is already deployed. Two others, the USS Enterprise and USS Harry S Truman will leave soon.
Other carriers involved in the exercise include the USS John F. Kennedy, the USS John S. Stennis, and the USS Ronald Reagan - which left Norfolk on Thursday.
While the Navy won't say where the seven carrier groups are going, the carriers not already deployed are expected to be gone for only one to two months.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1144475/posts
Ebadi softens her controversial stands
SMCCDI (Information Service)
May 29, 2004
Shirin Ebadi, the controversial Nobel Peace Prize, seems having changed her tactics following witnessing a fierce peaceful and democratic manner opposition by members of the Iranian Diaspora. From softening some of her anti-US rhetoric and accepting the existence of "some" rights abuses in Iran to scarifying individuals or hosts with controversial background who are intending to legitimize the Islamic regime, she is trying to navigate in the turmoil created by the genuine and secular opposition groups located in the US.
Ebadi who has faced a mediatic debacle especially after the protest action made, at the UCLA, by several Iranian groups, composed of Monarchists and Republicans, seems having understood that she can't continue voicing a one sided Islamic regime's foreign policy and its promotion of sham "reforms from within" without softening her anti US rhetoric and acknowledging "some" aspect of the rule of terror and oppression in Iran. It's to note that few idealist or misinformed American writers continue to promote Ebadi based on the advices and information given by some few members of the Iranian Community, residing in the US. These writers forget that most of their sources were in their younger age part of the so-called Iranian Intelligentsia, such as Mohamad Sahimi or the very ambitious and deluded Mehranguiz Kar, who helped bringing the backwarded clerics to political power in Iran. Worst, some of them, such as, Kazem Alamdari and Nayereh Tohidi, teachers at UC, were part of fanatic Marxist Guerilla groups involved in several murders.
Anyhow Ebadi has been seen, recently, trying to calm the increasing anger of the Iranian community which is echoed for millions of enchained Iranians via the Los Angles and WDC based TV and Radio networks. Her anti US rhetoric has soften astonishingly and the latter has started to criticize the Islamic regime on several topics while refusing to attend controversial gatherings, such as the one, organized by IAPAC.
Of course, fidel to her past controversial and revolutionary background with Islamic roots, she still claim that the status of Iranian women has improved and that more than 63% of Iranian students are female. She omits to state that the Iranian women are in general much more advanced, compare to herself, in many aspects of their thoughts and aspirations from the first day of the 1979 Islamic revolution. The latter doesn't find necessary to mention that many studies, such as some branches of Medical schools or scientific studies, are banned for the current 63% female students in contrary to the secular education which existed before the Islamic revolution. Most of the current female students are condemned to follow studies, such as, in Textile or Wowing Rug which their industries are at the edge of collapse in Iran due to the ill policies of the ruling clerics and their Islamist technocrat advisors, such as, Ebadi's own brother who's an influential advisor of the current rgime.
Ebadi who made Human Rights Studies at Tehran University in 1973, is claiming that "the "limit" of Human Rights is traced by "Democracy". It's of course not necessary to remind that based on her idea, the Taliban regime was not in a total transgression of Human Rights principles nor as it will any type of so-called reformed Islamic regime in Iran which is Ebadi's main goal.
http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6408.shtml
Something happening behind the scenes?
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.