Iranian Alert -- June 25, 2004 [EST]-- IRAN LIVE THREAD -- "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"

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”

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”

Iran Told Europeans it Would Resume Nuclear Program

June 25, 2004
The Associated Press
Ha'aretz

WASHINGTON -- Iran has told three European nations that it will resume building parts for centrifuges used in the uranium enrichment process, backing off an earlier promise, a U.S. official said Thursday.

Tehran on Thursday sent a diplomatic note to France, Germany and Britain saying it will resume the work, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, told a House International Relations subcommittee. The centrifuges are used to make the enriched uranium that can be used as nuclear reactor fuel or in making bombs.

Iran's leaders have been hinting that they intended to resume the construction.

The United States accuses Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran insists its program is aimed only at producing energy. The International Atomic Energy Agency this month rebuked Iran in a European-drafted resolution for not cooperating enough in the investigation into its nuclear program.

Hasan Rowhani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, has said the three key European powers promised to work toward closing Iran's nuclear dossier by June if Iran stopped making centrifuges.

Iran stopped building centrifuges in April and accused Europeans of reneging on their promise. It has said it is no longer committed to its promise.

The State Department also is investigating every shipment to Iran of material or technology that could be used to make nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, Bolton said later Thursday at the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=443181&contrassID=1&subContrassID=8&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Government Stifles Defiance of Iranian Dress Codes

June 24, 2004
Feminist Daily News
feminist.org

In cities throughout Iran, governmental authorities have ordered a crackdown on women in lighter dress this summer. The conservative government, which came to power in February, has ordered that any woman seen defying the Iranian female dress code will be subject to fines, prison and even flogging.

The BBC NEWS quoted one police chief as saying these alterations to dress are a source of “social corruption,” and warning that any woman doing so will be punished.

Iran’s interpretation of Islamic law regarding women’s dress dictates that women must wear the chador, a long, loose-fitting black cloak worn over clothing, and a head covering. In past summers, under a pro-reform government, Iranian women have modified these laws to suit their individual needs, wearing shorter, lighter colored coats, as the authorities turned a relatively blind eye. Summer temperatures even in northern cities such as the capital Tehran reach highs in the upper 90s, making the dark chador even more oppressive for women.

This hard-line approach is at odds with the many gains women have made since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Women currently make up 65 percent of university entrants in the country and play a large role in the public work force.

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8514

U.S. and Iran: Beneath the Roiled Surface

June 23, 2004
Stratfor
George Friedman

We are in a pattern of escalating confrontation between Iran and the United States and its allies. Two issues have surfaced. There is the question of Iran's nuclear program. And there is the more urgent question of Iran's capture of three British patrol boats along the Iraq-Iran frontier. Neither of these surface issues is trivial, but the underlying issues are far more significant. The fact that they have surfaced indicates how serious the underlying questions are, and points to serious tensions between the Iranians and the United States.

Iran has historically faced two threats. Russia has pressed it from the north; during and after World War II, the Soviets occupied a substantial part of Iran, as did the British. The other threat has come from the west -- from Iraq, from its predecessor states or from states that have occupied Iraq, including Britain. The collapse of the Soviet Union has gone a long way toward securing Iran's northern frontier. In fact, the instability to Iran's north has created opportunities for it to extend its influence in that direction.

Iraq, however, has remained a threat. Iraq's defeat in Desert Storm decreased the threat, with the weakening of Iraq's armed forces and constant patrolling of Iraqi skies by U.S. and British warplanes. But what Iran wanted most to see -- the collapse of the hated Saddam Hussein regime and its replacement by a government at least neutral toward Iran and preferably under Iranian influence -- did not materialize. One of the primary reasons the United States did not advance to Baghdad in 1991 was the fear that an Iraqi collapse would increase Iran's power and make it the dominant force in the Persian Gulf.

Iran Develops a Strategy

Subsequently, Iran's goals were simple: First, Iraq should never pose a threat to Iran; it never wanted to be invaded again by Iraq. Second, Iran should be in a position to shape Iraqi behavior in order to guarantee that it would not be a threat. Iran was not in a position to act on this goal itself. What it needed was to induce outside powers -- the United States in particular -- to act in a manner that furthered Iranian national interests. Put somewhat differently, Iran expected the United States to invade Iraq or topple Hussein by other means. It intended to position itself to achieve its primary national security goals when that happened.

From the end of Desert Storm to the fall of Baghdad, Iran systematically and patiently pursued its goal. Following Desert Storm, Iran began a program designed both to covertly weaken Hussein's regime and to strengthen Iranian influence in Iraq -- focusing on Iraq's Shiite population. If Hussein fell under his own weight, if he were overthrown in a U.S.-sponsored coup or if the United States invaded Iraq, Iran intended to be in a position to neutralize the Iraqi threat.

There were three parts to the Iranian strategy:

1. Do nothing to discourage the United States from taking action against Iraq. In other words: Mitigate threats from Iran so the United States would not leave Hussein in place again because it feared the consequences of a power vacuum that Iran could fill.

2. Create an information environment that would persuade the United States to topple Hussein. The Iranians understood the analytic methods of U.S. policy makers and the intelligence processes of the Central Intelligence Agency. Iran created a program designed to strengthen the position of those in the United States who believed that Iraq was a primary threat, while providing the United States with intelligence that maximized the perception of Hussein as a threat. This program preceded the 2003 invasion and the Bush administration as well. Desert Fox -- the air campaign launched by the Clinton administration in December 1998 -- was shaped by the same information environment as the 2003 invasion. The Iranians understood the nature of the intelligence channels the United States used, and fed information through those that intensified the American threat perception.

3. Prepare for the fall of Hussein by creating an alternative force in Iraq whose primary loyalty was to Iran. The Shiite community -- long oppressed by Hussein and sharing religious values with the Iranian government -- had many of the same interests as Iran. Iranian intelligence services had conducted a long, patient program to organize the Iraqi Shiite community and prepare the Shia to be the dominant political force after the fall of Hussein.

As it became increasingly apparent in 2002 that the United States was searching for a follow-on strategy after Afghanistan, the Iranians recognized their opportunity. They knew they could not manipulate the United States into invading Iraq -- or provide justification for it -- but they also knew they could do two things. The first was to reduce the threat the United States felt from Iran. The second was to increase, to the extent possible, the intelligence available to those in the Bush administration who supported the invasion.

They accomplished the first with formal meetings in Geneva and back-channel discussions around the world. The message they sent was that Iran would do nothing to hinder a U.S. invasion, nor would it seek to take advantage of it on a direct state basis. The second process was facilitated by filling the channels between Iraqi Shiite exiles and the United States with apparently solid information -- much of it true -- about conditions in Iraq. This is where Ahmed Chalabi played a role.

In our opinion, Iranian intelligence knew two things that it left out of the channels. The first was that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs had been abandoned. The United States did not invade Iraq because of WMD, but used them as a justification. The Iranians knew none would be found, but were pleased that the United States would use this as a justification. The second thing Iran kept from the United States was that Hussein and his key aides did not expect to defeat the United States in a conventional war, but had planned a guerrilla war to follow the fall of Baghdad.

The Iranians had a specific reason for leaving these things out. They knew the Americans would win the conventional war. They did not want the United States to have an easy time occupying Iraq. The failure to find WMD would create a crisis in the United States. The failure to anticipate a Baathist guerrilla war would create a crisis in Iraq. Iran wanted both to happen.

The worse the situation became in Iraq, the less the United States prepared for the real postwar environment -- and the more the credibility of President George W. Bush was questioned, the more eager the United States would be in seeking allies in Iraq. The only ally available -- apart from the marginal Kurds -- was the Shiite majority. As the situation deteriorated in the summer and fall of 2003, the United States urgently needed an accommodation with Iraq's Shia. The idea of a Shiite rising cutting lines of supply to Kuwait while there was a Sunni rising drove all U.S. thinking. It also pushed the United States toward an accommodation with the Shia -- and that meant an accommodation with Iran.

Such an accommodation was reached in the fall of 2003. The United States accepted that the government would be dominated by the Shia, and that the government would have substantial Iranian influence. During the Ramadan offensive, when the lid appeared to be flying off in Iraq, the United States was prepared to accommodate almost any proposal. The Iranians agreed to back-burner -- but not to shut down -- their nuclear proposal, and quiet exchanges of prisoners were carried out. Iran swapped al Qaeda prisoners for anti-Iranian prisoners held by the United States.

Things Fall Apart

Two things happened after the capture of Hussein in mid-December 2003. The first was that the Iranians started to make clear that they -- not the Americans -- were defining the depth of the relationship. When the United States offered to send representatives to Iran after an earthquake later in December, the Iranians rejected the offer, saying it was too early in the relationship. On many levels, the Iranians believed they had the Americans where they wanted them and slowly increased pressure for concessions.

Paradoxically, the United States started to suffer buyer's remorse on the deal it made. As the guerrilla threat subsided in January and February, the Americans realized that the deal did not make nearly as much sense in January as it had in November. Rather than moving directly toward a Shiite government, the United States began talking to the Sunni sheikhs and thinking of an interim government in which Kurds or Sunnis would have veto power.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani -- who is an Iranian -- began to signal the United States that trouble was brewing in Iraq. He staged major demonstrations in January, calling for direct elections -- his code words for a Shiite government. The United States, no longer pressured and growing uneasy about the enormous power of the Iranians, did two things: They pressed ahead with plans for the interim government, and started leaking that they knew the game the Iranians were playing. The release of the news that Chalabi was an Iranian agent was part of this process.

The Iranians and al-Sistani -- seeing the situation slipping out of control -- tried to convince the Americans that they were willing to send Iraq up in flames. During the Sunni rising in Al Fallujah, they permitted Muqtada al-Sadr to rise as well. The United States went to al-Sistani for help, but he refused to lift a finger for days. Al-Sistani figured the United States would reverse its political plans and make concessions to buy Shiite support.

Just the opposite happened. The United States came to the conclusion that the Shia and Iran were completely unreliable -- and that they were no longer necessary. Rather than negotiate with the Shia, the Americans negotiated with the Sunni guerrillas in Al Fallujah and reached an agreement with them. The United States also pressed ahead with a political solution for the interim government that left the Shia on the margins.
The breakdown in U.S.-Iranian relations dates to this moment. The United States essentially moved to reverse alliances. In addition, it made clear to al-Sistani and others that they could be included in the coalition -- in a favored position. In other words, the United States reversed the process by trying to drive a wedge between the Iranians and the Iraqi Shia. And it appeared to be working, with al-Sistani and al-Sadr seeming to shift positions so as not to be excluded.

Iran Roils the Surface

It was at that moment that the Iranians saw more than a decade of patient strategy going out the window. They took two steps. First, they created a crisis with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear weapons that was certain to draw U.S. attention. Second, they seized the British patrol boats. Their point? To let the United States know that it is on the verge of a major crisis with Iran.

The United States knows this, of course. Military planners are updating plans on Iran as we speak. The crisis is avoidable -- and we would expect it to wax and wane. But the fundamental question is this: Are American and Iranian national interests compatible and, if they are not, is either country in a position at this moment to engage in a crisis or a war? Iran is calculating that it can engage in a crisis more effectively than the United States. The United States does not want a crisis with Iran before the elections -- and certainly not over WMD.

But there is another problem. The Americans cannot let Iran get nuclear weapons, and the Iranians know it. They assume that U.S. intelligence has a clear picture of how far weapons development has gone. But following the U.S. intelligence failure on WMD in Iraq -- ironically aided by Iran -- will any policy maker trust the judgment of U.S. intelligence on how far Iran's development has gone? Is the U.S. level of sensitivity much lower than Iran thinks? And since Israel is in the game -- and it certainly cannot accept an Iranian nuclear capability -- and threatens a pre-emptive strike with its own nuclear weapons, will the United States be forced to act when it does not want to?

Like other major crises in history, the situation is not really under anyone's control. It can rapidly spin out of control and -- even if it is in control -- it can become a very nasty crisis. This is not a minor misunderstanding, but a clash of fundamental national interests that will not be easy to reconcile.

http://www.stratfor.com/

Iran Poll:

If you could change Iran, which country would it look like most?

-- USA 24.11 % (54)
-- Japan 8.93 % (20)
-- India 0.45 % (1)
-- Britain 3.57 % (8)
-- Germany 4.46 % (10)
-- China 0.00 % (0)
-- Switzerland 11.16 % (25)
-- Canada 15.18 % (34)
-- Turkey 3.57 % (8)
-- France 3.57 % (8)
-- Saudi Arabia 0.89 % (2)
-- Malaysia 0.45 % (1)
-- Australia 2.68 % (6)
-- Italy 5.80 % (13)
-- The Vatican 0.00 % (0)
-- Sweden 11.61 % (26)
-- Brazil 3.57 % (8)
Total Votes: 224

http://poll.mashregh.com/

Iran Will Resume Making Nuclear Centrifuges

AP - World News
Jun 24, 2004

WASHINGTON - Iran has told three European nations that it will resume building parts for centrifuges used in the uranium enrichment process, backing off an earlier promise.

Tehran on Thursday sent a diplomatic note to France, Germany and Britain saying it will resume the work, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, told a House International Relations subcommittee. The centrifuges are used to make the enriched uranium which can be used as nuclear reactor fuel or to make bombs.

Iran's leaders have been hinting that they intended to resume the construction.

The United States accuses Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran insists its program is aimed only at producing energy. The International Atomic Energy Agency this month rebuked Iran in a European-drafted resolution for not cooperating enough in the investigation into its nuclear program.

Hasan Rowhani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, has said the three key European powers promised to work toward closing Iran's nuclear dossier by June if Iran stopped making centrifuges.

Iran stopped building centrifuges in April and accused Europeans of reneging on their promise. It has said it is no longer committed to its promise.

The State Department also is investigating every shipment to Iran of material or technology which could be used to make nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, Bolton said later Thursday at the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6787.shtml

US slams Iran for "violation of pledge to EU and defying the international community"

AFP - World News (via Yahoo)
Jun 24, 2004

WASHINGTON - Iran on Thursday told Britain, France and Germany that it will resume production of centrifuges used for uranium enrichment despite a three-month-old deal with the Europeans to halt such work, a senior US official said.

John Bolton, under secretary of state for arms control and international security, said the announcement was a direct violation of Iranian pledges to the so-called "EU three" and proof of Iran's intent to reprocess uranium as part of a covert nuclear weapons program.

Bolton, a noted hawk within President George W. Bush's conservative administration, said Iran was in violation of its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was flagrantly defying the will of the international community and that the matter should be referred to the UN Security Council for possible imposition of sanctions.

"This is an act of defiance of the IAEA Board of Governors, it is a thumb in the eye of the international community," he told the House International Relations Committee.

"It has been our view, it remains our view (and) Iran's action today confirms our view that its nuclear weapons program is a threat to international peace and security and should be referred to the UN Security Council," Bolton said.

Bolton did not say how Washington had been informed of the Iranian announcement on centrifuges but said it appeared to be a direct response to a harshly critical assessment of Tehran's cooperation with the IAEA that was issued by the agency's governing board last week.

Iran's top national security official and nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani had said that in response to the IAEA criticism, Tehran could resume uranium enrichment activities but other officials suggested resuming the assembly of centrifuges was a more likely reaction.

There was no official Iranian announcement about the resumption of centrifuge production.

Such a move would violate Tehran's February agreement with Britain, France and Germany which had in October reached a deal with Iran for it to halt uranium enrichment.

Bolton said Washington had always suspected that the Iranians had not completely stopped its centrifuge production, but that their statement to the Europeans on Thursday confirmed the US view.

He also said the move was a clear sign that Iran intended to resume uranium enrichment for its alleged weapons program.

"They have not, at least at this point, said that they would resume actual enrichment activities, but it seems to me perfectly obvious that Iran is not producing components for uranium centrifuges to use them as knickknacks in Iranian living rooms," Bolton said.

On Monday, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said it was essential for the Islamic republic to master the nuclear fuel cycle, but again denied the country was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6788.shtml

Humiliation of British personnel won't sour UK's relations with Iran

World News
Jun 24, 2004

LONDON - British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says an improved atmosphere in relations with Iran - often under strain in the last 25 years - won't be fouled over the detention of eight servicemen by the Iranian government.

"We work hard on these relationships and sometimes these relationships are complicated," Straw said Thursday after the eight men were handed over to British diplomats and taken to their embassy in the Iranian capital of Tehran.

"But I'm in no doubt that our policy of engagement with the government of Iran and the Islamic People's Republic of Iran is the best approach."

The eight men - six Royal Marines and two Royal Navy sailors - were detained on Monday after they strayed into Iranian territory while travelling on the Arvand River, which separates Iran and Iraq. They were delivering a patrol boat to Iraq's river police.

Although some reports in Iran indicated the Britons' boats, firearms and equipment would be kept, the country's foreign minister announced it would release the British property.

"We will hand over the boats and the equipment the British troops were carrying within the next five days," Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi was quoted as saying on state television.

There had been fears that the British servicemen would be charged with illegally entering Iranian territory and a group of protesters at the Tehran airport demanded they stand trial, according to a report from Iran.

Iranians opposed to Britain's role in Iraq have held a series of demonstrations outside the British Embassy in recent weeks.

It's expected the eight British servicemen men will rejoin their units in Iraq.

Two of the soldiers were shown on Iranian television apologizing for entering Iran, while all of the men were paraded for state TV in blindfolds.

The pictures led to angry headlines in Britain's tabloid newspapers.

The Daily Mail published a picture on Thursday of the men in blindfolds, their hands clasped on top of their heads, under the headline: "The final insult, Iran declares Navy men can go free, but can't resist one more act of humiliation."

Like many Western countries, Britain closed its embassy in Tehran after the Islamic revolution in 1979.

It was reopened in 1988 and since then ties between the two countries have been patchy, highlighted by a number of moments of tension, including the breaking off of diplomatic relations in 1989 over an Iranian edict ordering the assassination of British author Salman Rushdie.

Two years ago, another conflict erupted when Iran rejected David Reddaway as Britain's ambassador to Tehran on the grounds that he was a spy. He has since become Britain's high commissioner to Canada.

Straw has been a frequent visitor to Iran as he courted Kharrazi before the war in Afghanistan and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Relations hardened again earlier this month when Britain helped draft a resolution for the United Nations nuclear watchdog that was critical of Iran for failing to co-operate with inspections of its nuclear program.

Despite the twists and turns in relations between the two countries, the chairman of the all-party Commons foreign affairs committee said the government's policy is the right one, but hard-line factions within Iran cause uncertainty at times.

"There are competing clusters of power, both in terms of internal and external policies," Donald Anderson, a Labour MP, told British Broadcasting Corp. television.

"Iran is a very important country in terms of its strategic position (and) its oil reserves, and the government (has) made a decision . . . to seek, without begin naive . . . to engage with Iran and to exert as much influence positively as we can."

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6786.shtml

Reza Pahlavi's interview with BBC today:

http://www.rezapahlavi.org/audiovideo/bbc62404.html

Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East.

Good news...and I hope Iranians know we Americans are with you as you travel the rocky and perilous road to a free society.

70% of Iranians are under 30 years old.

They Want Their MTV!!!

'Testing Time' Seen For Tehran

June 25, 2004
The Washington Times
Sharon Behn

John R. Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, warned yesterday that Iran could face a tough time against the United States and its allies if it persists with its program of nuclear defiance.

"A testing time with Iran is coming," said Mr. Bolton at an American Enterprise Institute luncheon.

Later testifying before a House committee, Mr. Bolton said Iran told three European nations yesterday it will resume making uranium centrifuge parts, breaking an agreement it had struck with Britain, France and Germany in February.

Mr. Bolton said the United States had never believed that Iran had ceased making the parts and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors last week said it was troubled that Tehran had continued to do so.

"They have not, at least at this point, said that they would resume actual enrichment activities but it seems to me it is perfectly obvious that Iran is not producing components for uranium centrifuges to use them as knickknacks in Iranian living rooms," Mr. Bolton told the House International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia.

"This is an act of defiance of the IAEA board of governors. It is a thumb in the eye of the international community," he added.

Last week the IAEA board of governors unanimously passed a resolution that sharply rebuked Iran for not cooperating fully with a U.N. investigation of Tehran's nuclear program.

Washington believes Iran is seeking to develop atomic weapons. Tehran says it wants nuclear power for electricity.

There is considerable U.S.-led pressure for the IAEA to refer the case to the United Nations Security Council, which could impose sanctions on Iran.

At the AEI luncheon, Mr. Bolton said Iran, as well as North Korea, would have to realize that U.S. action in Iraq, which under Saddam Hussein refused to comply with U.N. resolutions on its suspected weapons of mass destruction, has rewritten the "rules and consequences" of proliferation.

President Bush has termed Iran, North Korea and prewar Iraq as an "axis of evil."

The U.S.-led intervention in Iraq, Mr. Bolton said, has created "real world leverage that even Europeans privately acknowledge is useful" and would put teeth into any future U.N. resolutions.

"Never has the [Security] Council been so feared," he said.

Mr. Bolton said the critical view that the United States has lost credibility by failing to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was wrong.
"I suggest the exact opposite is true," he said. "We have earned enormous credibility" while sending a message to the rest of the world that proliferation will not be tolerated.

"Our actions have made a difference. This is not a theory — we have proof," he said, referring to Libya's decision to surrender its weapons program and North Korea's willingness to sit down to another round of six-party talks on denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula.

Mr. Bush's policies on proliferation and his decision to break away from past dependence on "cumbersome" treaties in favor of a robust use of sovereignty against rogue states and actors was the start of a new approach, he said.

• This article is based in part on wire service reports.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040624-093911-4081r.htm

More Than 70 Killed in Truck Crash in Iran

Friday, June 25, 2004

TEHRAN, Iran — A tanker truck carrying gasoline crashed into public buses in southeast Iran (search), killing more than 70 people, state television reported Friday.

The buses were stopped at a police station on the main road between Bam (search) and Zahedan (search) when the truck smashed into them Thursday evening, state TV said. More than 84 people were hurt, a local official told the station.

The tanker was carrying more than 4,500 gallons of gas.

(excerpted)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123721,00.html

Iran's Nuclear Ambitions [Excerpt]

June 25, 2004
The Wall Street Journal
Ardeshir Zahedi

Nine months ago, three European Union foreign ministers returned from a mission to Tehran with a "peace-in-our-time" sheet of paper that they hailed as a triumph for soft-power diplomacy.

The paper that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, France's Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and his German counterpart Joschka Fischer brought back was presented as a solemn accord committing the Islamic Republic to strict limits to its ambitious nuclear program.

Now, however, we know that this was not the case. The mullahs thought they were signing a purely procedural agreement to allow more inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. They had no intention of giving the EU or the IAEA a droit de regard on a key aspect of the Islamic Republic's energy policy and defense doctrine.

The "three wise men of Europe" have only themselves to blame for their real or feigned disappointment at what they see as "erratic Iranian behavior." How they came to believe that a regime that violates its own constitution every day might honor an agreement signed with the "infidel" remains a mystery. Tehran cannot but regard the recent IAEA resolution rebuking it for being uncooperative as a diplomatic fig leaf to cover an absence of policy on the part of the "soft-power" trio.

* * *

As far as the "Iranian nuclear challenge" is concerned, we are back where we were nine months ago -- while Iran's nuclear program has advanced by nine months. A string of statements from the ruling mullahs in Tehran shows that the Islamic Republic no longer feels committed to a moratorium on its uranium enrichment program. Nor will the new Islamic Majlis (assembly), dominated by radicals, be in a mood to approve additional protocols to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) of which Iran was one of the first signatories three decades ago. Despite recent statements to the contrary by the "supreme leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the talk from Tehran is that the Islamic Republic should be accepted as the latest member of the "nuclear club."

So what is to be done? To answer that question we must first recall what cannot be done. ...

http://www.wsj.com/public/us

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=06&d=25&a=6

Berlin, London Condemn Iran Over Centrifuge Parts

June 25, 2004
Reuters
Markus Krahm

BERLIN -- Germany and Britain Friday condemned Iran's decision to resume production of centrifuge parts and said they would work with France on a response.

Iran promised France, Germany and Britain last October it would suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment, a process of purifying uranium for use as fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons, in exchange for peaceful nuclear technology.

Centrifuges are machines that purify uranium gas by spinning at supersonic speeds.

The United States accuses Iran of developing atomic weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear power program, an allegation Tehran fiercely denies.

Last week, the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, unanimously adopted a resolution co-sponsored by the three EU states that "deplores" Iran's failure to cooperate fully with the agency's investigation of Tehran's nuclear program.

Before its adoption, Iran threatened to resume some or all of its enrichment activities if the toughly worded text was not softened. The Europeans refused to compromise during the weeklong negotiations on the text.

Tehran's decision has not formally been announced but was made public by U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton in Washington Thursday.

European diplomats said Paris and London had also received the letter, written by Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rohani. A diplomat on the IAEA board said the agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, also received a copy.

While declining to officially confirm receipt of the letter, the two responses to Tehran's decision were de facto confirmation.

"We are disappointed at the announcement to resume (production), which is not justified from our perspective. We regret it," a spokeswoman from Germany's Foreign Ministry said.

London's Foreign Office echoed Germany's remarks.

"We are disappointed by Iran's decision and are working with our partners about what to do," said a spokesman.

Germany, France and Britain would coordinate what steps to take next, the German spokeswoman added.

One European source said although it was too early to draw conclusions, it was possible the letter meant Iran had reneged on its agreement, which could have serious implications for the European Union's engagement with Iran.

The three EU states have adopted a strategy of engagement with Iran that contrasts sharply with the U.S. policy of isolating Iran and threatening it with U.N. Security Council sanctions for violating its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The IAEA began investigating Iran after an Iranian exile group reported in August 2002 that Tehran was hiding a massive uranium enrichment facility and other sites from the IAEA.

(Additional reporting by Madeline Chambers in London)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5517941

Tehran Should Have Been Bush's First Target

June 26, 2004
The Telegraph, London
Anton la Guardia

With Saddam Hussein gone, one could be forgiven for thinking that the world was finally done with the business of weapons of mass destruction and accusations of secret nuclear arsenals. But look at what is happening next door to Iraq, and the wranglings over Iran's nuclear program are all too reminiscent of the 12 years of crisis that culminated with the war to topple Saddam.

Some of the personalities at the forefront of last year's Iraq saga - notably the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei - have returned to centre-stage in the Iran nuclear affair. ElBaradei's categorical assessment that Iraq's nuclear program was dead and buried, and that intelligence on its revival was faulty or fabricated, fell on deaf ears in Washington and London last year. However, in the case of Iran ElBaradei offers no such reassurance.

Reading the IAEA's reports on Iran in the past year, there are reasons to fear that the mullahs, behind the guise of a civil nuclear power program, are secretly trying to build an atomic bomb.

A nuclear Iran would precipitate a Middle East arms race that could prompt Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to secure their own nuclear weapons. Israel is unlikely to sit idly by.

As the IAEA's governors met in Vienna this week to decide how to deal with Iran's latest evasions, ElBaradei said that Tehran kept "changing its story". Despite good progress, the IAEA chief said inspections "cannot go on forever". Sound familiar?

By the "axis of evil" doctrine of the US President, George Bush - which claims the greatest danger to the world is posed by states developing weapons of mass destruction and supporting international terrorists - the first candidate for US "pre-emption" should have been Iran, not Iraq.

According to the IAEA, Iran lied systematically for 18 years. It secretly mastered the most sensitive techniques of enriching uranium and reprocessing plutonium, which provide a route to nuclear weapons.

It has bought equipment from the same nuclear supermarket operated by the Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan that provided uranium enrichment centrifuges for the Libyan and North Korean atomic weapons programs. There is also a much stronger terrorist connection to Iran than to Iraq.

Iran sponsors Palestinian extremist groups, as well as Lebanon's Hezbollah movement. Western intelligence agencies believe that parts of the regime are harbouring some of Osama bin Laden's senior lieutenants.

Had the US and Britain had even half of this evidence to pin on Saddam, they would have had no problem securing that elusive second United Nations resolution authorising war.

So will the US go to war with Iran? Washington has not ruled out using force, and the idea of effecting "regime change" in Iran is attractive to many in Washington. But the reality is that for the next six to 12 months Bush has his hands full with fighting the insurgency in Iraq and overseeing the country's political transition. Having failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush will find it harder to argue for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program.

For the moment, the Iranian question is being handled by IAEA diplomacy. Britain, France and Germany have achieved some important successes such as convincing Iran to agree to more intrusive inspections, suspend uranium enrichment and reveal at least some of its nuclear secrets. But it is not enough.

The Europeans believe that by maintaining international "consensus", the mullahs can be boxed in to the point where either they decide that pursuing a nuclear weapons option is too costly or the Iranians commit a breach so egregious that it will be easier to rally support for punitive action. "Iran is a medium-term problem," a British official said. But this game of strategic patience rests on a key assumption: that Iran is still some years away from having an atomic bomb and that the nuclear program is in effect frozen by the current inspections.

What if Iran has a secret enrichment program that the IAEA has yet to detect? The US or Israel could try to bomb Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Military action would be extremely risky. It could destabilise an already precarious situation in the Middle East. It could deepen the "war on terrorism", or suck the US into an all-out war with Iran. It need not come to military action.

The Europeans should draw up a menu of EU sanctions that could be phased in if Iran does not comply with the IAEA by, say, September.

Iran also needs incentives. If Tehran gives up its nuclear weapons aspirations permanently and submits to rigid international controls, it should be assured of technical assistance for developing nuclear power to generate electricity. Tehran could also be given a guarantee it will not be attacked by the US.

The US is ready to give such a security assurance to North Korea, and is negotiating with Pyongyang despite its open repudiation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

There is good reason to begin talking to Iran. It is now the most important regional power in the Gulf. By deploying troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq the US has become Iran's close neighbour - and hostile neighbours can make life hell.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/06/14/do1401.xml

Movement to participate in University of Guelph's Radio Program

SMCCDI (Public Announcement)
Jun 24, 2004

The SMCCDI's Coordinator, Aryo B. Pirouznia, will participate, tomorrow, in a program broadcasted by the University of Guelph (Ontario/Canada) radio station. This interview which will be aired, from 02:00 PM EST, on the 93.3 FM wave can also be listened live on the internet by visiting: http://www.cfru.ca/

The program will be focused on issues, such as, Human Rights abuses and Iranians' legitimate aspirations, as well as, on the US policies and the reasons behind the open and massive support of President George W. Bush by millions of Iranians.

The download of WinAmp might be needed for Internet listeners in order to tap into the fast/slow live streaming.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6791.shtml