Replies

Attack Iran, US chief ordered British

By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 30/06/2004)

America's military commander in Iraq ordered British troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and grabbed disputed territory, a senior officer has disclosed.

An attack would almost certainly have provoked open conflict with Iran. But the British chose instead to resolve the matter through diplomatic channels.

"If we had attacked the Iranian positions, all hell would have broken loose," a defence source said yesterday.

"We would have had the Iranians to our front and the Iraqi insurgents picking us off at the rear."

The incident was disclosed by a senior British officer at a conference in London last week and is reported in today's edition of Defence Analysis. The identity of the officer is not given.

"Some Iranian border and observation posts were re-positioned over the border, broadly a kilometre into Iraq," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.

The incident began last July when Revolutionary Guards pushed about a kilometre into Iraq to the north and east of Basra in an apparent attempt to reoccupy territory which they claimed belonged to Iran.

Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez then ordered the British to prepare to send in several thousand troops to attack the Revolutionary Guard positions.

The Revolutionary Guard Corps has 125,000 soldiers, making it 25 per cent larger than the entire British Army, and is equipped with 500 tanks, 600 armoured personnel carriers and 360 artillery weapons.

The incident is reminiscent of the exchange during the Kosovo conflict between the American general, Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander Europe, and Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the British commander.

When Gen Clark told Gen Jackson to send British troops into Pristina airport to prevent Russian troops from taking control Gen Jackson refused. He was reported to have said: "I am not going to start World War Three for you."

The Iran-Iraq incident lasted around a week and was resolved by a telephone conversation between Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Kamal Kharrazi, his Iranian counterpart, British officials said.

"It did look rather nasty at the time," one official said. "But we were always confident it was a mistake and could be resolved by diplomatic means. We got in touch with Baghdad and said, 'Don't do anything silly; we are talking to the Iranians.' "

While Mr Straw was trying to resolve the issue peacefully, British military commanders on the ground were calming their Iranian counterparts, the ministry said.

The Revolutionary Guard was believed to be behind the seizure of eight Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel last week after they strayed across the disputed border between Iraq and Iran.

The eight men, who were delivering patrol boats to the Iraqi riverine patrol service, were released - but not before they were paraded blindfolded on Iranian television.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/30/wiran30.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/06/30/ixportal.html

DEMOCRACY IN ARABIA?

Liberal scoffers underestimate its prospects.

by Amir Taheri
Weekly Standard
June 28, 2004

AT THE CLOSE of the recent G-8 summit in Sea Island, Georgia, sighs of relief could be heard in palaces across the Middle East where unelected leaders wield near-absolute power.

The summit had been expected to produce a clarion call for reform in the only part of the world still largely unaffected by changes that have reshaped global politics since the end of the Cold War. Instead, it settled for a string of bland admonitions.

Anxious to avoid fresh charges of unilateralism, and responding to demands from French president Jacques Chirac and German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, President Bush toned down his call for a democratic revolution in the greater Middle East.

But though the message from Sea Island has disappointed many moderates in the region, the process of change triggered by the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq shows no sign of coming to a close. In liberal circles in Europe and North America, the idea that George W. Bush could inspire any democratic revolution may provoke derision, but in the Middle East, U.S. action in Afghanistan and Iraq is seen as marking the end of an era--the era in which the region's politics was dominated by pan-Arabism and Islamism.

The Taliban was the epitome of Islamism: No one could claim to be more Islamist than Mullah Muhammad Omar. The Iraqi Baath represented the most radical version of Arab nationalism, inspired by Nazism and communism. If anybody could have created the pan-Arab Utopia, it was Saddam Hussein. The defeat of those two "models" has given democrats in the Muslim world a chance to get their message through to the masses previously captivated by Islamism and pan-Arabism.

"The genie will not return to the bottle," says Iraqi scholar Faleh Abdul-Jabbar. "There is a growing feeling in the region that the days of despotic regimes are numbered."

"The thing is, this is open debate that wasn't there three or four months ago," Jordan's King Abdullah told the Washington Post last week. "Once you open that door, it is very hard to shut it. So countries that are resistant to it are now having to look at the issues of reform."

One reason for this optimism is the belief that the Bush administration is determined to shift the United States from being a supporter of the status quo in the Middle East to being a champion of democratic change.

"The United States understands that its security is contingent on change in the Middle East," says Saudi novelist Turki al-Hamad. "The Americans have learned that as long as our societies are not reformed, they cannot be safe."

During the past few months the Muslim world has witnessed a series of conferences devoted to reform, change, and democratization.

Last month's Arab League Summit in Tunis, though it avoided the word democratization, approved a set of changes designed to broaden the base of political decision-making. A couple of weeks before that, the issue had topped the agenda of a major regional conference in Jordan. Similar conferences have been held in Kuala-Lumpur, the Malaysian capital, the Yemeni capital of Sanaa, the Lebanese capital Beirut, Turkey's cultural capital Istanbul, and Alexandria in Egypt. All these conferences endorsed the clear message that for Muslim nations democratic reform is the only way out of "a historic quagmire."

To be sure, the debate on whether Islam is compatible with democracy is not over. But many in the region believe that the issue now is the necessity of democracy for Muslims rather than its compatibility with Islam.

The fact that almost no one in mainstream Islam regrets the demise of the Taliban and the Iraqi Baath shows that, contrary to claims by some "Islamologists," the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not love despots and are not prepared to fight for them.

Some countries in the region--among them Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman--are already moving towards the open-society model, albeit at widely different paces. All have held elections that, though not free and fair by Western standards, could be regarded as acceptable by the standards of the so-called developing world.

Other countries--notably Saudi Arabia and Egypt--have accepted the need for reform but are trying to limit the power that the ruling elites would have to relinquish to make change meaningful.

The Saudi dynasty has launched a series of "national dialogue" sessions to assess public opinion on reform. The latest, held in Jeddah last week, focused on women's rights and produced 19 demands which, if implemented, could make Saudi women full citizens for the first time. Egypt and Iran are toying with the idea of emulating the so-called Chinese model, combining political repression with economic liberalization. A version of that model is already in place in Tunisia. Still frozen in their despotic ways are Libya, Sudan, and Syria.

Despite a public relations drive to improve his image abroad, Libya's dictator, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, continues to preside over one of the region's most repressive regimes. In Syria, however, pressure for change is on the rise. Last week a coalition of eight parties called on President Bashar Assad to end the monopoly of its Baath party on political power and accept pluralism "as a principle of national politics."

Most regimes in the region are committed to holding elections in one form or another, abandoning the claim that only informal consultation is acceptable in Islam.

Perhaps more important, words and phrases that denote democratization are being heard in conversations and read in newspapers: opening, dialogue, participation, consent, pluralism, separation of powers, rule of law, due process, free enterprise, civil society, good governance, human rights, gender equality, accountability, and transparency.

Cynics might suggest that all this is nothing but the tribute that vice pays to virtue. The despots may talk of democracy as a tactic to weather the storm created by the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, but they will revert to their traditional methods of rule by violence and bribery. And there is, of course, no guarantee that any elections they hold will not be "fixed" to confirm the power of the rulers. Whether the cynics are right depends largely on what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq in the coming months.

The Afghans are scheduled to hold their first-ever free elections in September, followed by the Iraqis, who will go to the polls in January 2005. To be held under international supervision, the Afghan and Iraqi elections could produce the first accurate picture of opinion in two key Muslim countries. As things stand, there is every chance that both elections will be won by moderate conservatives who recognize the importance of power sharing and popular participation in decision-making.

Success in the Afghan and Iraqi elections could help bring Muslim politics out of the palaces, army barracks, mosques, and streets, and direct it into new channels such as political parties, parliaments, and law courts. The tepid message from Sea Island, then, is not the end of the story.

Transforming the greater Middle East from an area of despotism and darkness into one of democracy and development requires the same vision and determination that led the Free World to victory over the Soviet "Evil Empire" less than a generation ago.

The same people who laughed at Ronald Reagan for believing that communism could be defeated now dismiss Bush's call for democratization in the Middle East as another sign of American naiveté. Professional anti-Americans shudder at the thought that "someone like George W. Bush" might actually not only win the war on terror but also help the Muslim nations join the mainstream of global human development. President Bush should trust his instinct and remain committed to helping the Middle East take the path of democratic change.

Amir Taheri is the author of ten books on the Middle East and Islam.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/5318

DoctorZin Note: Interesting insight...

THE TIME OF KILLING
"It's time for Bin Laden himself to die"

Tue Jun 15, 2004 09:03
Harper's Magazine July 2004 p. 22 (www.harpers.org)

From an April 5 interview with Omar Bakri Muhammad, a suspected member of Al-Qaeda and head of Al Muhajiroun, a radical Islamic group based in London. Of the eight suspects arrested on March 30 for planning to execute a terrorist attack in London, seven are known to have been Muhammad's protégés. The interview was conducted by Paulo Moura and appeared in the April 18 edition of Publico, a Portuguese daily.

Q. Your home is full of books. Are all of them about Islam?

Yes. All of my six thousand books. Except for that one [British Law], which was given to me, but it's simply pathetic.

Q. How can one live in the United Kingdom without accepting British law?

It's forbidden for Muslims to obey man-made laws.

Q. You say you want to see the Islamic flag flying at Number 10 Downing Street. Is that a dream or an agenda?

I believe that one day it will happen, because this is my country. I like living here. God said: "Don't live among nonbelievers unless you call for their conversion."

Q. Were the 9/11 attacks legitimate?

Sure they were. America attacked Somalia, Sudan, Iraq. If you attack any Muslim in any place, it's like you attack them all in all places. They have the right to retaliate, but not where they are under the covenant of security. A Muslim can never be involved in a terrorist attack in the country where he is living legally.

Q. So a Muslim from the U.K. can't carry out a terrorist attack here, but if he goes to a foreign country . . .

That is another story.

Q. What could justify the deliberate killing of thousands of innocent civilians?

We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and nonbelievers. And the life of a non-believer has no value. There's no sanctity in it.

Q. But there were Muslims among the victims.

According to Islam, Muslims who die in attacks will be accepted immediately into paradise as martyrs. As for the others, it is their problem.

Q. Is there any difference between incurring civilian casualties in attacking military target and attacking civilians as a target?

We are not hypocrites. We don't say: "I'm sorry, it was a mistake." We say: "You deserved it." We assume the purpose is to kill as many people as possible, to spread the terror, so that people in the West think: "Look what happened to us!" and realize that every time they send beautiful Apache helicopters and F16 aircraft, the purpose is also to kill women and children. How many people died in Afghanistan? They carpet bombed day and night, and a number was never released. One hundred sixty thousand? Who were those people? In Madrid were there 196 of 197? They were counted one by one.

Q. Is terror the only way to make people aware of this?

Terror is the language of the twenty-first century. If I want something, I terrorize you to achieve it. To support George Bush is a kind of terrorism. To support Al Qaeda is the same. Everybody is involved. Every Muslim is a terrorist, every non-Muslim is a terrorist. This is the "time of killing." It is predicted in the divine text. Muhammad said: "I am the prophet of mercy," but he also said:" I am the prophet of massacre." The word "terrorism" is not new among Muslims. Muhammad said: "I am the prophet who laughs when he's killing the enemy." It is not only a question of killing. Its laughing while we are killing.

Q. Do you believe there will be a big attack in London?

It's inevitable. Several attacks are being prepared by several groups. I regret that, because the first thing the government will do after that is to deport me, along with my family.

Q. Many people say you belong to Al Qaeda.

It's an honor that people are saying that. They don't associated me with belly dancers or homosexuals but with the best people that ever existed, after the Prophet and his companions. Nobody had ever dreamed of such a deed, to launch airplanes against two skyscrapers. Al Qaeda is not a group one can join.

Q. But they have cells in Europe.

They have cells with a mission. And the missions are always suicide missions. That's why when we uncover a cell it no longer exists.

Q. When a group wants to stage an attack, do they contact Al Qaeda?

No. People are recruited. They stay in sleeper cells, behaving normally, with low profiles, waiting for a mission. It will be their first and last mission. it will be their first and last mission. That's why it is impossible for the police to infiltrate Al Qaeda.

Q. Who many members does Al Qaeda have?

About 11,000. They gather, they spread all over the world, and they gather again. If they didn't recruit, they would disappear, because their destiny is death. It's time for Bin Laden himself and his companions to die.

Q. Bin Laden will commit suicide?

I think he should. They are a group who gather to fight and die. They have to be consistent.

Q. If Bin Laden dies will Al Qaeda survive?

Of course. They were a group, but now they are a phenomenon. September 11 made Muslims understand that they have power. A new chapter of history has begun. That's why we have initiated a new calendar. We are now in the Year Three of Al Qaeda era. Many youths dream of joining Al Qaeda, and there are many freelance groups ready to launch operations similar to Al Qaeda's. The Madrid attack was committed by one of those groups.

Q. Are there many of those freelance groups in Europe?

More an more. Which is very dangerous. Here in London there's a very well-organized group. They call themselves Al Qaeda Europe. They spread a lot of propaganda through the Internet and email, and they appeal to young Muslims. I fear they are preparing a big operation.

Q. When do we know an attack is really from Al Qaeda?

It's easy. First, they are always large-scale operations. The operative has to make sure he kills the most people possible. Second, Al Qaeda always leaves its fingerprints: a clue, like a car with the Koran inside, or a tape to be found by the police. Third, the attacks always occur in two or three places at the same time. Finally, the language. I just need to read one sentence in their communiqués to recognize their doctrinal accuracy: there's no sign of nationalism, they never all themselves Arabs or Palestinians, just Muslims. They always speak of martyrdom, of death.

Q. What does Al Qaeda want?

Terror. They are engaged in a defensive jihad against those who attacked Islam. In the long run, they want to reestablish the Islamic state, the Caliphate. And to convert the whole world.

Q. Can the United States negotiate with Al Qaeda?

Al Qaeda is, by nature, an invisible entity, not a state. Once they knock down the corrupt governments of Muslim states, replace them with Islamic governments, and rebuild the Caliphate, they could, as a state, negotiate with the United States. First, they will say: We will give you the oil and we will live in peace on condition that we can spread Islam freely in the West. If the Americans don't allow us to do so, then the Caliphate will have to declare war.

Q. Aren't Muslims living here more interested in assimilating?

Muslims first immigrated in the 1940's for economic reasons. They were called "Pakis" and "Coconuts," and mistreated. They didn't care: they were only concerned about food and shelter. The second generation assimilated: the children were called "Bobby," and listened to Madonna. We have come to tell them they are members of a great nation, and that this is not their culture. There are 50 million Muslims in the West. The next step is to convert the Westerners. We started by giving self-esteem back to Muslims living here.

Q. Don't you fear that the terrorist attacks make Westerners hate Islam?

The number of conversions increased a lot after September 11.

Q. If you had freedom to spread Islam, would it be easy to convert Westerners?

No doubt about it. Because the West has no answers about the meaning of life and death, which is life's biggest challenge. Western culture is not more than entertainment. Before September 11, I used to go to every campus in this country, giving lectures. Every time, I have many conversions to Islam. Of British people, blond, blue-eyed.

Q. Before September 11 they allowed you to do that freely?

I never broke the law. In 1990, I issued a fatwa against the prime minister. I said, number one, that every Muslim had the obligation to kill him. Police arrested me the same day. But, number two, I said the fatwa was for every Muslim except those living legally in the U.K., which meant no Muslim under my jurisdiction. They released me.

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=61429;article=26042;title=Iran%20News

IRAN VERY SERIOUS RESUMING NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES

By Safa Haeri
Posted Tuesday, June 29, 2004

PARIS, 29 June (IPS) As Iran’s top negotiators starts new round of negotiations with the European Union and international inspectors visited one of Iran’s sites said it was a nuclear lab, Iranian analysts said Tehran is “very serious” in resuming enriching uranium programs.

“Iranians are absolutely ready and prepared for any standoff and fight with both the European Union’s three big powers and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)”, Mr. Morteza Ra’issi, an Iranian journalist who covers regularly the meetings of the Vienna-based IAEA told the Asia Times Online of Hong Kong, referring to the last letter round of showdown between Iran in the one hand, Britain, France and Germany and the IAEA on the other.

The tumultuous relations escalated after Hojjatoleslam Hasan Rohani, the Secretary of the Supreme Council for National Security (SCNS) and the country’s top negotiator with the IAEA and the Europe’s “Big-3” informed them about Iran’s decision to resume enriching uranium, the issue at heart of Iran’s row with the IAEA, Europe and the United States.

Speaking at the Majles two days ago, Mr. Rohani explained at length to lawmakers why Iran had decided to resume enriching uranium and other activities related to producing nuclear energy for civilian uses.

The basis for the decision is that since Britain, France and Germany have not respected their part of the Tehran Agreement of last October, the Islamic Republic feels free of its engagements, he said.

"We have announced to the three European countries that the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to resume the manufacture and assembly activities on June 29", he said.

The official also rejected IAEA director general Mohamed ElBarade’i’s allegations of concealment in the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

"Mr. ElBarade’i and the agency had found one contradiction (in Iran’s declaration of its nuclear program), but they apologized for that and said they were mistaken", Rohani said.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi echoed Rohani’s views, saying the Europeans` failure to honour their pledges had forced Iran to rethink its cooperation.

"Our policy regarding the International Atomic Energy Agency has not changed ... what has caused a change is the Europeans` failure to fulfil their pledges. Given that the three European countries have not honoured their commitments according to the Brussels meeting, we see no reason to keep up our part of commitment", the official Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Mr. Asefi as having indicated.

Both officials however stressed that nothing has changed as it regards the IAEA inspectors` free access to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

"The agency’s inspectors will operate as before, having access to all facilities and facing no problem”, Mr. Asefi assured, adding, "Cooperation must be bilateral; we prefer the language of understanding and friendship to the language of threats and intimidation".

Mr. Ali Larijani, a Revolutionary Guard’s commander who was the Head of Iran’s Radio and Television and now seats at the SCNS as the personal Representative of Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i stated on Thursday that Iran had “never accepted to shut down its uranium enriching programs”.

“What Iran had agreed was to suspend enriching uranium on a voluntary basis. This does not mean that we accepted to put an end to it”, he explained, adding that enriching uranium is Iran’s “full and recognised right”, he said, referring to the agreement concluded on 21 October between foreign affairs ministers of Britain, France and Germany with Mr. Rohani in which Iran accepted to suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment, including "the assembly and testing of centrifuges" as well as signing the Additional Protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty against the transfer of advanced nuclear technology to Tehran for “peaceful purposes”.

But in the process, IAEA inspectors found that not only Iran had not stopped enriching uranium, but had acquired more modern centrifuges needed for the purpose, an essential step for producing nuclear energy.

The France, Britain, Germany-sponsored Resolution approved by the IAEA’s Governors at their last meeting in Vienna had angered Tehran to the point that several hard line lawmakers at the present conservatives-controlled Majles had urged the Government of President Mohammad Khatami to get out of the NPT.

Iran argue that under NPT regulations, it is entitled to receive advanced nuclear technologies and that the Europeans Big-3 had promised to assist Iran on that line. All Iranian leaders, insisting that they are not after the nuclear bomb, repeat this point constantly, but have dramatically failed to convince the international community.

Speaking with the pro-conservative “Mehr” news agency, Mr. Ala’eddin Broujerdi, the Chairman of the Security and National Affairs Committee of the Majles said, “We shall work for finishing with this humiliating attitude (of IAEA and Europe) and resume enriching uranium and if the government does not agree, we shall force it to come along” and assured Mr. Rohani of the “full support” of the Majles concerning resumption of uranium activities.

Expressing disappointment at the letter, Berlin, London and Paris said they were preparing a joint response to Iran's announcement that it was breaking a three-month-old deal with them in order to resume production of centrifuges used for uranium enrichment.

John Bolton, the US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security said Tehran's letter, also sent to the IAEA, was proof of Iran's intent to reprocess uranium as part of a covert nuclear weapons program.

"This is an act of defiance of the IAEA board of governors, it is a thumb in the eye of the international community", Bolton told a congressional committee.

"They may react bitterly or heighten pressure on us, but that is not important", Mr Rohani told parliament, in comments broadcast live on state radio.

According to Iranian observers, Mr. Rohani’s letter confirms the progressive shift of the ruling conservatives from the era of détente initiated by the powerless Khatami towards a more radical line in both foreign and domestic scenes.

“That might also explain the capture of the three British patrol boats and their crew of eight military servicemen on Monday in the Iranian side of the Arvand Roud (Iranian name of the Shat el Arab border river between Iran and Iraq)”, said Mr. Sadeq Saba, Iran affairs senior commentator of the BBC.

“The conservatives feel that on the nuclear issue, they have the support of the majority of the population. At the same time, based on the long experience they have with the European Union, they are certain that the Big 3 would not yield to Washington to the point of referring Iran’s nuclear issue to the Security Council”, Mr. Ra’isi pointed out.

In his view, not only the Europeans do not want ending their traditional policy of critical dialogue with Tehran, but also knowing Iran’s power and influence in the region in general and Iraq in particular, fears that an isolated Islamic Republic would be less cooperative with the international community seeking restoring peace and security to Iraq and the Middle East.

“Among the different options, the best available long-term sustainable option is engagement by providing incentives, as the Euro-3 have already started”, AFP quoted a European diplomat as having indicated.

In fact, a joint U.S.-EU statement, issued after talks between President Bush and European leaders in Ireland on Saturday stopped short of threatening new action to punish Iran, but said they were disturbed by Iran's recent announcement of its intention to resume manufacturing and assembly centrifuges and called on Iran to rethink its decision".

In the first Iranian reaction to the EU-U.S. statement, the hard line Keyhan evening daily, one of the mouthpieces of Ayatollah Khameneh’i repeated that the authorities might now consider pulling out of the nuclear NPT.

"The joint statement shows the true nature and objectives of America and its (European) allies to deny the Islamic Republic access to nuclear technology. We shall no doubt reach the point that in order to safeguard our sovereignty and interests, exit from the NPT would presents itself as the only logical and legal choice, a decision we should have taken much earlier, but however it is not late yet", said Mr. Hoseyn Shari’atmadari, a high-ranking Intelligence Ministry officer specialising in interrogating political and intellectual dissidents, appointed by Mr. Khameneh'i as the daily’s editor.

“Fortunately, the fundamentalist seventh Majles is determined in not approving the Additional Protocol and one might hope that it would also consider getting Iran out of the NPT”, he added.

Resuming his weekly briefing with reporters after months of suspension, Mr. Abdollah Ramezanzadeh said the government of President Mohammad Khatami is out of the nuclear issue.

“The Government has no say in this matter. Hojjatoleslam Rohani talks (to the IAEA or Europe), decides and informs. The government just carries out what is decided and told to execute, like introducing the Additional Protocol to eh Majles and things like that”, he told reporters, confirming what every one knew.

ENDS IRAN IAEA 29604

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/june/iran_iaea_29604.shtml

Nuclear Terrorism Realities

June 28, 2004
The Washington Times
I-wei J. Chang

A nuclear catastrophe could occur if terrorists gained access to nuclear weapons or weapons-grade materials, and if regional conflicts or instability degenerated into wars in which nuclear weapons were used, said a report by researchers at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace to a Nonproliferation Conference last week.

Nuclear terrorism on the one hand, and regional proliferation and conflict on the other, are the two most pressing nuclear threats facing the world today, according to "Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security," the preliminary report by George Perkovich, Joseph Cirincione, Rose Gottemoeller, Jon Wolfsthal and Jessica Mathews. The final version is to be released in January to the next U.S. administration.

Unlike countries, which may fear retaliation, terrorist groups could be undeterred about using nuclear weapons to achieve a political agenda, the Carnegie report said.

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has expressed interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. While terrorist groups are not believed to have the ability to produce nuclear weapons, they may be able to seize such weapons or materials from other countries.

The report, issued at the conference in Washington, recommends securing nuclear weapons facilities, particularly those in the former Soviet Union, and ending worldwide the production of weapons-usable nuclear materials.

"If the U.S. and others just keep doing what they are doing today, a nuclear 9/11 is more likely than not in the decade ahead," said Graham Allison, director of Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

"Nuclear terrorism is, in fact, preventable," Mr. Allison said. "It is a challenge to international will, determination and stick-to-itiveness, not to our technical capabilities."

Russia and the United States, which have the two largest stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium left over from the Cold War, must take the lead, the report said.

U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recently urged a Global Threat Reduction Initiative, to repatriate all Russian and U.S. nuclear fuel from research reactors around the world by 2009.

"This is neither a question of will, nor a question of resources," Mr. Abraham said June 14 at the National Press Club.

However, trends indicate Russia and the United States are re-emphasizing the role of nuclear weapons, said former Sen. Sam Nunn, a Georgia Democrat who served four terms ending in 1997 and a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Nunn said U.S.-Russian agreements such as the Moscow Treaty don't seek a complete dismantlement of their nuclear arsenals, sending "a bad message to the rest of the world." He called on the American and Russian presidents to remove their nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert, which makes possible launching in 15 minutes.

If this were accomplished, Mr. Nunn said, "we could immediately eliminate the threat of rapid assured destruction and dramatically reduce the chances of an accidental, mistaken or unauthorized launch."

Today, eight nations have nuclear weapons, according to the report. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) stipulated that only China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — the five countries that detonated nuclear bombs before Jan. 1, 1967, and the only permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — would constitute the nuclear world order.

The United States is the only country to have used atomic weapons — against Japan in 1945 to hasten its World War II surrender.

Israel, India and Pakistan are the three other nuclear-weapons states. North Korea and Iran also seek nuclear weapons and the deterrence such weapons confer.

Several countries have ended nuclear weapons programs since the 1970s, including Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Germany, Japan, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and Yugoslavia. Recent examples are Iraq and Libya. The Carnegie report said many of them have the economic and technical resources to restart a nuclear program, and should be dissuaded.

The Carnegie report said that after nuclear terrorism, the most dangerous challenges are regional nuclear proliferation and conflict in Northeast Asia, the Middle East and South Asia.

Pakistan poses another concern, particularly after its head scientist A.Q. Khan and his associates were discovered to have operated a black market, selling nuclear designs and components to Libya, Iran, North Korea and possibly other countries.

"A nuclear North Korea is not some distant, potential reality, but something that exists here and now," said Kurt Campbell, former deputy assistant secretary of defense.

Agence France-Presse reported in late April that U.S. analysts believed North Korea had at least eight nuclear weapons, rather than two as previously suspected.

North Korea is "in the nuclear-weapons game," Mr. Campbell said. Asian nations continue to ignore this reality because they see greater urgency in the tension-ridden Taiwan Strait, he said. They may change their outlook if North Korea conducts missile tests, as it did in 1998, he added.

The Carnegie draft report made a bold recommendation: Any attempt by North Korea to export nuclear materials or weapons should be considered an "act of war against the United States."

But the United States is unlikely to attack North Korean nuclear facilities because it lacks support from allies Japan and South Korea, said Robert Gallucci, dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

On the other hand, if the United States believed that North Korea had transferred fissile material to another country or a terrorist group, "it should be considered an act in which we would follow rapidly with the force to end the problem and make sure that it would never happen again." In this case, Washington would not need the concurrence of its allies to protect its security interests, said Mr. Gallucci, a former negotiator of the 1994 Agreed Framework.

In the Agreed Framework, brokered during the Clinton administration, North Korea agreed to stop reprocessing plutonium in exchange for two light-water nuclear reactors to generate electricity. In November 2002, North Korean officials admitted they had developed a secret nuclear program in violation of the Agreed Framework, and Pyongyang subsequently withdrew from the NPT. Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found strong evidence last month that North Korea transferred almost two tons of uranium to Libya in 2001.

The Bush administration's bottom line is "complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement" of North Korea's nuclear program, though Mr. Campbell said the administration is divided on one policy toward Pyongyang. The U.S. should "prepare for the possibility that North Korea is unwilling to abandon its nuclear capabilities," said the Carnegie draft report.

"From North Korea's standpoint, it is no longer bound by the NPT because it withdrew from the treaty last year, so we are back to square one," said Byung-se Yun, a minister at the South Korean Embassy in Washington.

The draft report also recommends strengthening U.S. security alliances with South Korea and Japan to "enhance deterrence and stability on the Korean Peninsula" and reduce incentives for other countries to go nuclear.

The fissure in U.S.-South Korea relations over a common North Korea policy, coupled with China's rise as a military power, may limit U.S. influence in the region, said Scott Snyder, senior associate for international relations at the Asia Foundation.

"The weakening of the U.S.-Korea alliance enhances the likelihood that North Korea indeed may be able to attain nuclear status," he said, "because the absence of our ability to depend on that alliance severely constrains U.S. options to dealing with North Korea."

Iran's possible ambitions to produce nuclear weapons appeared more real last week as Iran announced it would resume enrichment activities, reneging on an October 2003 agreement with the United Kingdom, France and Germany to suspend fuel-cycle activities. Tehran did so after the IAEA board of governors criticized it for withholding information about its nuclear activities. Iran insists its program is for peaceful purposes, such as generating electricity.

In a region where Israel has nuclear weapons and other Middle Eastern states have, or are suspected to have, chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear Iran would add "grave volatility to an already conflicted region," the Carnegie report said. Egypt, Saudi Arabia or other nations might follow Iran's lead and initiate or renew nuclear programs, the report said.

European countries decided not to take Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council after the IAEA rebuke, but John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, told Congress last week that the United States is determined to do so.

So far, Americans have played "the bad cops" and Europeans are "the good cops," said Robert Einhorn, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "What's needed now is for the United States and Europeans to switch roles," he said.

Iran is unlikely to give up its nuclear program after investing many years and achieving progress in its enrichment activities, Mr. Einhorn said. Late last year, Iran said it successfully enriched small quantities of uranium using centrifuge and laser techniques, and separated a small quantity of plutonium, according to a 2004 report by the Congressional Research Service.

"I do know that without much stronger European sticks and much more attractive American carrots, the prospects [of Iran giving up its capability to have nuclear weapons] will be very small," Mr. Einhorn said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20040628-121252-5928r.htm

People of Islamic World Must Choose Democracy - Bush

American Forces Press Service - By Kathleen T. Rhem
Jun 29, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The "struggle between extremism and civilized values" is unfolding around the world, President Bush said today in Istanbul, Turkey. He cited Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Israel as places where people are struggling for reform and peaceful, democratic states.

"For citizens of the broader Middle East, the alternatives could not be more clear," Bush told an audience at Galatasaray University. "One alternative is a political doctrine of tyranny, suicide and murder that goes against the standards of justice found in Islam and every other great religion.

"The other alternative is a society of justice, where men and women live peacefully and build better lives for themselves and their children," he added.

The president said this cause "can never be served by the murder of the innocent."

He noted more than half the world's Muslims live in democracies, "from Indonesia to West Africa, from Europe to North America."

Bush cited surveys in Arab nations that show broad support for representative government and individual liberty. "We are seeing reform in Kuwait and Qatar, Bahrain and Yemen, Jordan and Morocco," he said. "We're seeing men and women of conscience and courage step forward to advocate democracy and justice in the broader Middle East."

Democracy in the Middle East also will lead to a safer United States, Bush said. "A hopeful Middle East will no longer produce ideologies and movements that seek to kill our citizens," he added.

He called this transformation "one of the great and difficult tasks of history."

Bush also discussed the way ahead for Iraq and praised NATO for agreeing to train Iraqi forces. "I am grateful to Turkey and other NATO allies for helping our friends in Iraq build a nation that governs itself and defends itself," he said.

But efforts to end terrorism and promote democracy can't be possible without "ties of trust and goodwill" between Eastern and Western cultures.

"Trust and good will come more easily when men and women clear their minds and their hearts of suspicion and prejudice and unreasoned fear," Bush said.

He cited examples of some Americans insulting Muslims and some Middle Easterners inciting hatred and violence as things that harm the cause of peace.

"All such talk, in America or the Middle East, is dangerous and reckless and unworthy of any religious tradition," Bush said. "Whatever our cultural differences may be, there should be respect and peace in the House of Abraham."

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6857.shtml

Iran to press on its nuke program "to the end" and to defeat US

AFP - World News (via Iranmania)
Jun 29, 2004

TEHRAN - Iran's powerful former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani asserted Tuesday that the Islamic republic would press on with its nuclear programme "to the end" and not even the United States would be able to stop it.

"The United States has put pressure on Iran since the Islamic revolution but has always suffered setbacks. This time too it will suffer a defeat and we will continue our programme to the end," he was quoted as saying by the official news agency IRNA.

Nevertheless, he did reiterate the clerical regime's policy to keep to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and cooperate with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"We are ready to work within the framework of NPT, with all our activities being transparent, so that they can see for themselves our nuclear programme is for peaceful and not military applications," he said.

Iran was earlier this month slapped with yet more criticism from the IAEA over hiding certain parts of its suspect bid to generate nuclear power. The US has also stuck by its view the country should be referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.

In retaliation, Iran backed away from a suspension of making parts for and assembling centrifuges to enrich uranium -- one of several "confidence building measures" in place while the IAEA continues its probe.

Rafsanjani, now the head of Iran's top political arbitration body, the Expediency Council, was asked when Iran could resume the actual enrichment of uranium -- a move that would spark a major crisis with the IAEA.

"The suspension was on a voluntary and temporary basis. Of course, Iran has not breached its pledge concerning suspension of uranium enrichment. What has been decided is to resume parts assembly and manufacture. This is only the beginning," he said.

The Islamic republic asserts its nuclear programme is simply aimed at meeting the future energy needs of it burgeoning population and freeing up its vast oil and gas resources for export.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6858.shtml

Iran spoils for a fight

Asia Times - By Safa Haeri
Jun 29, 2004

PARIS - If Iran really wants a showdown over its nuclear program, it is going the right way about it.

"Like a sumo wrestler, Iran has oiled itself for a further fight with both the European Union's three big powers and the International Atomic Energy Agency," an Iranian journalist who covers meetings of the Vienna-based United Nations watchdog IAEA told Asia Times Online, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Tehran said on Sunday that it will resume construction of centrifuges for uranium enrichment, but continue to suspend enrichment itself, a key step in making what can be bomb-grade uranium. Centrifuges refine crude uranium into bomb-grade material or nuclear fuel for power stations.

However, Iranian analysts closely watching Tehran's dispute with the IAEA over its controversial atomic activities say that Iran is "very serious" about resuming its uranium-enriching programs as well.

Last week, Hasan Rohani, the secretary of the Supreme Council for National Security (SCNS) and the country's top negotiator with the IAEA and the Europe's "Big 3" - Britain, France and Germany - sent them a letter in which he apparently informed them of Iran's decision to resume enriching uranium, the issue at the heart of Tehran's row with the IAEA, Europe and the United States.

Though the contents of the letter have not been made public, sources told Asia Times Online that on the basis "that Britain, France and Germany have not respected their part of the Tehran Agreement of last October, the Islamic Republic feels free of its engagements and will resume enriching uranium and other activities related to producing nuclear energy for civilian use".

In the October accord, Iran promised to freeze its enrichment activity. But now Tehran is angered that its nuclear project continues to dominate meetings of the IAEA, and says the Europeans promised to have Iran removed from the agenda in Vienna, but failed to deliver. Iran's decision also reflects dismay at the EU three as they co-authored a recent censure of Tehran at the IAEA.

Iran argues that under Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regulations, it is entitled to receive advanced nuclear technologies and that the "Big 3" had promised to assist Iran accordingly. All Iranian leaders, insisting that they are not after the nuclear bomb, repeat this point constantly, but have dramatically failed to convince the international community.

Washington, which has always argued against any compromise with Tehran on the issue of its nuclear activities and pushed for the matter to be referred to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions against the Islamic republic, is skeptical of the European engagement with Iran, insisting that it will help Tehran to continue its covert nuclear activities.

Rohani's letter was preceded by a declaration from Ali Larijani, the former head of Iran's Radio and Television who now sits on the SCNS as the personal representative of leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stating that Iran had "never accepted to shut down its uranium-enriching programs".

"What Iran had agreed to was to suspend enriching uranium on a voluntary basis. This does not mean that we accepted to put an end to it," he explained, adding that enriching uranium was Iran's "full and recognized right".

Explaining Iran's position on the nuclear issue to fellow lawmakers, Rohani informed the majlis (parliament) on Sunday of the country's decision to resume manufacture and assembly of centrifuge components, starting on Tuesday. "We have announced to the three European countries that the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to resume manufacture and assembly activities on June 29."

The official also rejected IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei's allegations of concealment in the republic's nuclear program. "Mr ElBaradei and the agency had found one contradiction [in Iran's declaration of its nuclear program], but they apologized for that and said they were mistaken," Rohani said.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi echoed Rohani's views, saying the Europeans' failure to honor their pledges had forced Iran to rethink its cooperation. "Our policy regarding the International Atomic Energy Agency has not changed ... what has caused a change is the Europeans' failure to fulfill their pledges. Given that the three European countries have not honored their commitments according to the Brussels meeting, we see no reason to keep up our part of commitment," the official Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Asefi as saying.

Both officials, however, stressed that nothing had changed with regard to IAEA inspectors' free access to Iran's nuclear facilities. "The agency's inspectors will operate as before, having access to all facilities and facing no problems," Asefi assured, adding, "Cooperation must be bilateral; we prefer the language of understanding and friendship to the language of threats and intimidation."

Speaking with the pro-conservative Mehr news agency, Alaeddin Broujerdi, the chairman of the Security and National Affairs Committee of the majlis said, "We shall work for finishing with this humiliating attitude [of the IAEA and Europe] and resume enriching uranium and if the government does not agree, we shall force it to come along," and assured Rohani of the "full support" of the majlis concerning the resumption of uranium activities.

Expressing disappointment at the letter, Berlin, London and Paris said they were preparing a joint response to Iran's announcement that it was resuming production of centrifuges. "We are disappointed at the Iranian decision," a Foreign Office spokesman in London said, adding: "We don't understand why they've taken this decision."

"The Foreign Ministry in Berlin regrets the announcement made by the Iranian authorities," a German spokesman said. In Paris, a diplomatic source said that France had received the letter and was consulting the other two states on how to respond. "We are working together with the British and the Germans toward a common and coordinated position on the matter," the French source said.

John Bolton, the US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security said Tehran's letter, also sent to the IAEA, was proof of Iran's intent to reprocess uranium as part of a covert nuclear weapons program. "This is an act of defiance of the IAEA board of governors, it is a thumb in the eye of the international community," Bolton told a congressional committee.

Iran insists its nuclear program is for civilian purposes, mostly producing much-needed electricity. "They may react bitterly or heighten pressure on us, but that is not important," Rohani told parliament in comments broadcast live on state radio.

According to Iranian observers, Rohani's letter confirms the progressive shift of the ruling conservatives from the era of detente initiated by the powerless President Mohammad Khatami towards a more radical line in both foreign and domestic scenes.

"That might also explain the capture of the three British patrol boats and their crew of eight military servicemen last Monday on the Iranian side of the Arvand Roud [the Iranian name of the Shat el-Arab border river between Iran and Iraq]", said Sadeq Saba, Iran affairs senior commentator of the BBC.

"The conservatives feel that on the nuclear issue, they have the support of the majority of the population. At the same time, based on the long experience they have with the European Union, they are certain that the Big 3 would not yield to Washington to the point of referring Iran's nuclear issue to the Security Council," the unidentified Iranian journalist told Asia Times Online.

In his view, not only do the Europeans not want to end their traditional policy of critical dialogue with Tehran, they also understand Iran's power and influence in the region in general and in Iraq in particular, and fear that an isolated Iran would be less cooperative with the international community seeking to restore peace and security to Iraq and the Middle East.

"Among the different options, the best available long-term sustainable option is engagement by providing incentives, as the Euro 3 have already started," a news report quoted a European diplomat as saying.

In fact, a joint US-EU statement, issued after talks between President George W Bush and European leaders in Ireland on Saturday, stopped short of threatening new action to punish Iran, but said they were disturbed by Iran's determination to resume manufacturing and assembly of centrifuges and called on Iran to rethink its decision.

In the first Iranian reaction to the EU-US statement, the hardline Keyhan evening daily, one of the mouthpieces of Ayatollah Khamenei, repeated that the authorities might now consider pulling out of the nuclear NPT.

"The joint statement shows the true nature and objectives of America and its [European] allies to deny the Islamic Republic access to nuclear technology. We shall no doubt reach the point that in order to safeguard our sovereignty and interests, exit from the NPT would present itself as the only logical and legal choice, a decision we should have taken much earlier, but however it is not late yet," said Hoseyn Shariatmadari, a high-ranking intelligence ministry officer specializing in interrogating political and intellectual dissidents, appointed by Khamenei as the Keyhan's editor.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6854.shtml

Two Iranian Guards at U.N. Expelled for Filming New York Sites

The New York Times
June 30, 2004

UNITED NATIONS, June 29 - The United States has expelled two security guards at Iran's United Nations mission after they were seen filming and photographing New York landmark buildings and parts of the city's transportation system, American officials said Tuesday.

"They were asked to leave because we were very concerned about their activities, which weren't compatible with their stated duties," said Richard A. Grenell, the spokesman for the American mission.

The language is common diplomatic wording for espionage cases.

The two men were ordered out last weekend after pairs of Iranian guards had been seen for the third time in two years videotaping bridges, tunnels, the Statue of Liberty and other landmark buildings, according to an American diplomat. He said the guards were not the same two men who had been seen in earlier incidents in June 2002 and November 2003. The expelled men, who were not identified, left Saturday night, the official said.

Stuart Holliday, a deputy American ambassador, said: "As we understand it, these individuals were moving around New York City and essentially surveilling, taking photographs of a variety of New York landmarks and infrastructure and the rest. But obviously this isn't something that's a part of protecting their mission here in New York."

Asked if the men could have been acting as tourists, Mr. Holliday said, "I think we have great confidence in the ability of federal law enforcement to determine what action and behavior is typical and what is atypical."

In Washington, Adam Ereli, a State Department spokesman, said, "They had been observed by the F.B.I. videotaping various locations from New York deemed to be sensitive."

Mr. Ereli said the filming and photographing by Iranian guards had been a "recurring problem," and despite repeated warnings it had continued.

While the photographing of such sites does not violate a law, security officials have been particularly vigilant about apparent surveillance of public buildings in New York since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the World Trade Center.

Morteza Ramandi, the press attaché at the Iranian mission at the United Nations, issued a statement confirming that the men had left and accusing the United States of "conjuring" the surveillance complaint.

"The guards in question never failed to observe any 'no photography' signs, and the videotapes and photos they shot consisted of obvious and popular tourist attractions in New York City, which are of interest to any visitors in this city, such as the Central Park, museums, parades and the like," Mr. Ramandi said. "And we categorically deny that they ever took any photos of anything of security or sensitive nature."

The state-run Iranian News Agency in Tehran said that Iran "deplored" the expulsions, and quoted an unidentified Foreign Ministry official as saying, "This is aimed at disrupting the daily routine of Iran's permanent representation office, and this is not in harmony with accepted norms."

Iran remains part of the Bush administration's "axis of evil," which included North Korea and Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since 1979, when the American Embassy in Tehran was seized and 52 American diplomats were taken hostage by radicals in the aftermath of the Islamic revolution that brought the country's cleric government to power. Iranian diplomats in New York represent their country only at the United Nations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/international/middleeast/30iran.html?hp

The Iraqi Nexus - Targeting the foreign fighters

National Review - By Jonathan Schanzer
Jun 30, 2004

There is a partisan debate going on inside the Beltway over the number of foreign terrorists inside Iraq. Democrats who seek to undermine the Saddam-al Qaeda link, which was a Bush administration rationale for invading Iraq, insist that only a few hundred "stray" foreign fighters are targeting U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Conversely, Republicans who seek to retroactively bolster the Bush administration's rationale to invade Iraq, insist there are more than 3,000 jihadis in Iraq, mostly al Qaeda fighters.

The truth lies somewhere in between. According to reliable intelligence estimates — both from Iraq and from inside the Beltway — foreign fighters in Iraq number no more than 1,000. Either that, or the U.S. military is just not catching any of them, which would be highly unlikely.

Thankfully, the numbers are drastically lower than they could be. Articles and websites published before the war suggest that al Qaeda expected many thousands of fighters to enter Iraq. An intercepted memo penned by al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, suggests that the terrorist organization is dismayed by dwindling numbers. Its leaders are struggling with recruitment even as anti-American sentiment is surging in the region. However few, these fighters are still wreaking havoc, having scored some of the more spectacular attacks, including bloody assaults against the U.N., the Jordanian embassy, Basra's oil installations, and multiple beheadings of hostages.

Clouding the picture are other fighters who may be joining their ranks. They include: Ansar al-Islam (the local al Qaeda affiliate from Kurdistan), the Zarkawi network, home-grown Sunni Islamists, nationalist guerrillas, former Baathist regime elements, Iranian-sponsored fighters, and Shiite militias. The terrorist threat in Iraq is best described as a number of overlapping and concentric circles representing different groups.

Given this new and dangerous reality, Bush administration detractors rightly charge that the American presence in Baghdad has prompted a larger terrorist problem. They ignore, however, the fact that Iraq's involvement in terror before the war contributed to the current problems. Iraq served as one of about three dozen smaller hubs for global terrorists in the lead-up to the war. Iraq was not an al Qaeda epicenter like Sudan or Afghanistan. But it also was not like the Philippines, which cooperates with Washington to stamp out al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein allowed a small number of foreign fighters from small jihadi groups around the Muslim world to train on Iraq soil in the late 1990s. It is likely that he also helped Ansar al-Islam operate in Kurdistan. This may have created an infrastructure for the foreign fighters in Iraq today.

But one cannot blame the small but dangerous foreign-fighter problem on Saddam. Before the war, Iran also allowed Ansar al-Islam to operate openly along its borders, ensuring the flow of goods and weapons. When the U.S. struck the Ansar enclave in March 2003, Iran permitted many fighters to flee across the border. After the war, Iran's military helped fighters cross back into Iraq to fight American soldiers in the Sunni heartland. The Kurds capture between three and ten fighters per week crossing the border.

Iran's influence reaches even further. In Basra, the Iran-sponsored Hezbollah operates openly. The Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat also reports that Iran sent approximately 90 Hezbollah operatives to Iraq just after the war. Thanks to Iranian money and logistics, the group has a rapidly growing presence in Iraq's predominantly Shia south.

From Iranians to al Qaeda fighters to jihadis who have slipped over the Syrian border, the threat of foreign fighters in Iraq is very real. And regardless of their origin — whether Saddam introduced them into Iraq, or if the invasion lured them there — America must defeat them. For one, victory in Iraq equates to winning the freedom and security of some 23 million Iraqis whose future is invested in American success. More broadly, victory would deflate an already dispersed al Qaeda movement. Al Qaeda is weaker than it was before 9/11. Defeating the jihadi movement on Middle Eastern soil would be a heavy blow to Osama bin Laden's affiliates. Conversely, defeat or retreat would create a perception that radical Islam is on the march, while American power is in decline.

The goal now is not to achieve political victory in Iraq to vindicate George W. Bush. The goal is to defeat the forces of radical Islam. Iraq has clearly become the most crucial front in the war on terror. Foreign fighters, no matter how few, are clearly a critical aspect to defeating the insurgency.

Jonathan Schanzer, a Soref Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, visited Iraq in January. This article was originally presented at a symposium organized by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies on "Iraq's Future and the War on Terrorism."

http://nationalreview.com/comment/schanzer200406300924.asp

Washington and Tehran - A Game of Tit-for-Tat

Stratfor Foundation - Analysis
Jun 29, 2004

Washington and Tehran are engaging in a series of diplomatic spats while Iran attempts to make the United States recognize its strength. The question is: How long will the United States let the game continue?

Analysis

The United States has expelled two Iranian security guards from New York City for taking photographs of local landmarks, infrastructure and transport systems. Washington said the two were involved in activities
"incompatible with their stated duties." In diplomatic terms: They were spies. The men, who worked security for the Iranian mission to the United Nations, were observed taking photos in June 2002 and November 2003.

The U.S. government has suspected the men were spies for at least two years, indicating that the June 29 expulsion was determined by the recent escalation in tensions between Tehran and Washington. Iran hopes to manage a crisis and redefine its role in the gulf -- with American cooperation. The United States, on the other hand, is demonstrating its determination to keep Tehran contained.

The situation will escalate in the coming weeks into a series of diplomatic tit-for-tat spats. Iran will likely respond to Washington's latest move with an expulsion of its own within the next two weeks, likely of a CIA operative it might have identified in Iran. Tehran probably would hold the detainee for interrogation and ultimately negotiate his release. Should Iran wait longer to respond, it would signal that Tehran did not expect Washington's move -- and had not prepared a counteraction.

Iran does not want a war with the United States. It does want a managed escalation in tensions that will force Washington to acknowledge Persia's natural and enduring hegemony of the gulf region. It also wants the United States and Britain to back off the nuclear
issue.

Iran has invited the Americans to play a game of diplomatic chess. The detention of the eight British sailors June 21 and their release three days later was meant as an opening salvo. The message broadcast to
Washington via London was that Tehran could and would have a say in the military and political affairs of Iraq and the gulf. Five days later, the United States made its move.

The decision by the United States to retaliate for the British sailor's detention -- rather than let London respond -- suggests Washington is happy to join the contest. It is likely both sides will continue to fuel
the crisis, with Iran taking carefully calculated moves meant to provoke a carefully calculated response -- and vice versa.

The critical question is how far Washington will let this go. Tehran is playing a subtle game and expects the United States to respond as carefully. Washington is not known for subtle responses in general -- and at this point in history has a low tolerance for political games with Muslim countries. It certainly is not going to cede hegemony in the gulf to Iran over the detainment of a few British sailors or a single CIA spy. Nor is Iran about to let its centuries-old dream of controlling the Persian Gulf go up in smoke over losing a couple of U.N.-based spooks.

This is just getting started.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6865.shtml

Freedom But at a Price

June 30, 2004
This is Gwent
Tom Whiteley

NEW LIFE: Iranian refugee Maryam pictured with her daughter and a friend

She loves her country - but Maryam was forced to flee Iran to save her life and the life of her daughter.

Tom Whiteley speaks to Maryam, now a refugee living in Newport, about escaping the country in which she feared she would be put to death, and her continuing longing for her homeland.

What would it take for you to leave your family, your friends and your home for an uncertain life in a foreign country hundreds of miles away?

Even after 24 years of life under a regime which denied women the right to be educated or walk the streets alone, it wasn't until one Middle Eastern mother's life was in danger that she fled her home country.

Maryam (not her real name) and her husband and daughter, who are legally classed as refugees, live in Newport after coming to Britain last year.

They fled their home country of Iran after more than two months in hiding. Their nightmare began in 1979, when the Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah of Iran.

Maryam, now in her late thirties, says: "We were very young, only teenagers when it happened. We were a big middle-class family and a family who cared about education.

"After the Revolution, between 1979 and 1981 we had a very short and unstable atmosphere of freedom just for two years. This freedom was not given to us. This was what the people took for themselves."

But following the ascent of Ayatollah Khomeini to power, the new Islamic government began imposing fundamentalism on ordinary Iranians. And one of its first actions was to force women to wear the traditional headscarf, the hijab, at all times.

Maryam says: "The hijab they made us wear everywhere - in schools, universities and offices. It was not to be worn with family but as soon as a stranger comes. I believe in it as a moslem but it should not be compulsory for all people.

"It was a sign that there was more suppression on the way, for all the society but particularly for women.

"At the same time they smashed people, they harassed people and insulted people in the streets, especially those women who did not wear the hijab.

"Then men couldn't wear short-sleeved shirts. They had to cover their arms. Then they dismissed all women from the offices and brought in compulsory prayer in the offices.

"They started to suppress political parties. This meant that more suppression was on the way for us and we had a real feeling of fear. "People were killed in the streets and the jails. One of my friends was arrested - she was only 16 - just for speaking about her ideas. They didn't release her and after two years they executed her. That was after many, many tortures - putting out the cigarettes on her skin and so on."

In Maryam's youth Iran had been a prosperous country ruled by the Shah. But the Islamic Revolution soon affected every part of her life. She says: "Iran was more aggressive, more fundamental, more religious. They were very rude. If you were a woman out in public the Revolutionary Guards would come to you and ask who the man with you was and if it was your brother or husband. If you said `He's my cousin,' they would arrest both of you.

"They would ask you why you put on make-up and why you put on the clothes you were wearing. Indoors was the only place you were in freedom to speak and in freedom to write." In the 1980s, Maryam was arrested and imprisoned for distributing political leaflets.

She says: "I went to court and they sentenced me - they did it all in five minutes. The only evidence was one man who came along and said he'd seen me, and that was enough.

"Without any solicitor or lawyer or anyone to defend me, they sentenced me to four years in prison.

"We were in a room no bigger than an ordinary front room and there were 80 prisoners in that room. We couldn't sleep at the same time. We had to take turns. And every day they chose someone for execution and they would choose someone for whipping.

"In 1988, after my release, the Ayatollah ordered a massacre in all the prisons in Iran and they killed about 10,000 prisoners - mostly political prisoners.

"They would ask one question - if you agreed with them or not. If you said No you were shot. Most of our friends were executed in this year."

Maryam and her family were forced to flee when her husband argued with a man related to a member of the Revolutionary Guard. They were forced into hiding for two-and-a-half months before paying thousands of pounds to be smuggled out of Iran.

The family was officially declared refugees and will be eligible to apply for British citizenship in a year.

But while Maryam loves the freedom of Wales, she longs to return to the country and the family she has left.

She says: "I felt a very heavy thing on my heart which I cannot explain to anyone in Britain.

"The freedom we have here is good and I like that we have it, but it's how I can use this freedom to improve things and to tell my story to the world. "We are here alone. We can't have direct contact with our families and that is very difficult. My daughter says she is happy and sad. "In my dreams I am still in my country."

http://www.thisisgwent.co.uk/gwent/news/NEWS8.html

Movement pays tribute to Student Uprising in VOA TV program

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Jun 29, 2004

The SMCCDI Coordinator, Aryo B. Pirouznia, paid tribute to the Student Movement's glorious uprising of July 9, 1999, during a VOA Satellite and Internet TV program broadcasted tonight Worldwide.

Responding live to VOA anchor's Avi Davidi's question on the root of the uprising, Pirouznia stated: "The elements which lead to the uprising were in line with hopes which brought millions of Iranians especially the women and youth, in 1997, to vote for Mr. Khatami in what became famous as the governmentally managed "2nd Khordad Front". Prior to that date and as everyone should remember of the socio-politico and economic situation of that time, the general situation had reached the Dead End and an explosive level and we were witnessing bloody riots taking place in cities, such as, in Eslamshahr and Akbar Abad as early as in 1996."

He added: "Most voters went to the ballot boxes just in order to give a mandate to Mr. Khatami with the only hope to push, with a lesser cost, for "reforms from within". But as we witnessed, with the closure of the monitored press, those believes were turned to be false. The closure of the Salam Daily turned into a limited students demo and the brutal reaction of the regime which it attacked the students' dorm in Amir Abbad. This governmental attack and the murder of several students lead consequently to the Five days of Massive Students Uprising which shocked the entire World.

But, despite the brutal crackdown which followed, some students were believing that the rescue could come from Mr. Khatami and they were even calling for his help during the two first days of the uprising. It's to note that such wrong idea was spread by pro-governmental religious student associations which were in reality carrying the same goals than the regime's so-called reformists faction and in a total disregard for the deep aspirations of the Iranian people."

"What were the consequences of July 9th Uprising?" Davidi asked.

The SMCCDI Coordinator responded: "For sure when everyone witnessed that after five days of uprising, Mr. Khatami broke his silence and intervened only in order to qualify the students and protesters as just "bunch of hooligans", such statement helped to start pulling off the masks from Mr. Khatami and the regime faces. It showed that the Islamic regime, just as like as any other Ideological system and in its case a theocratic entity, has not the ability of being reformed from within. For so, everyone started to understand that the answer to the nation's deep aspirations is much beyond the boundaries of the Islamic republic regime.

"This understanding helped the gradual formation of various type of actions, such as, the Soccer Movement, the Workers Movement and various other popular demonstrations, such as, the strikes we're actually witnessing in many parts of the country. All are showing, in our days, the net radicalization of the Freedom Movement and the gradual formation of a necessary unity, among Iranians and freedom lovers, on specific axes, such as, Secularity, Democracy and Free elections for self determination.." he emphasized.

On June 14th and during another Satellite TV interview, with the popular NITV, the Movement's Coordinator called for the "Massive and Spread" celebration of the anniversary of the 1999 Students Uprising which will be held this year on July 8th. Speaking to NITV's anchor Cyrus Sharafshahi, Pirouznia stated: "While despite all pressures, increase of repression and the existing non official curfew, many of our comrades will gather, this year, around the universities areas; We're calling on all Iranians to transform each street or roof into a place for popular demonstration and show of rejection of the Islamic republic." This will force the regime to spread its forces and mercenaries and to be less efficient in cracking down. The World is waiting to see our action and true aspiration. Let's size the moment! "

The program (VOA's "News & Views" of 6/29/04) will be re-aired tomorrow morning, Iran local time, and can be seen on at the following link till 12:00 PM US EST by visiting: http://www.voanews.com/real/voa/nenaf/fars/pers1700v.ram . The interview can be seen from the minute 18':45'' of the program. It will transferred after 12:00 PM to the VOA website's archives section.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6859.shtml