Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iranian Alert -- July 1, 2004 [EST]-- IRAN LIVE THREAD -- "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"
The Iranian Student Movement Up To The Minute Reports ^ | 7.1.2004 | DoctorZin

Posted on 06/30/2004 9:00:11 PM PDT by DoctorZIn

The US media almost entirely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, “this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year.” Most American’s are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East.

There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. I began these daily threads June 10th 2003. On that date Iranians once again began taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Today in Iran, most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy.

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.

In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.

This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.

I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.

If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.

If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alsadr; armyofmahdi; ayatollah; cleric; hughhewitt; humanrights; iaea; insurgency; iran; iranianalert; iranquake; iraq; islamicrepublic; jayshalmahdi; journalist; kazemi; khamenei; khatami; khatemi; moqtadaalsadr; mullahs; persecution; persia; persian; politicalprisoners; protests; rafsanjani; revolutionaryguard; rumsfeld; satellitetelephones; shiite; southasia; southwestasia; studentmovement; studentprotest; terrorism; terrorists; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
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”

1 posted on 06/30/2004 9:00:13 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
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”

2 posted on 06/30/2004 9:02:10 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Bush: Iran, Palestinian Terrorists Hinder Freedom

July 01, 2004

The fight against terrorism among Palestinians and against tyranny in Iran is part of the struggle for freedom in the Middle East, President Bush said.

Bush on Tuesday ended a NATO summit in Istanbul by calling for greater democracy in the Middle East and comparing struggles against violence and terrorism in the region.

“We see the struggle in Iran, where tired, discredited autocrats are trying to hold back the democratic will of a rising generation,” he said. “We see it in the Holy Land, where terrorist murderers are setting back the good cause of the Palestinian people who deserve a reformed, peaceful and democratic state of their own.”

3 posted on 06/30/2004 9:03:25 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Bush Derides Iranian Leaders as 'Tired, Discredited Autocrats'

July 01, 2004
The Straits Times
Los Angeles Times, Washington Post

ISTANBUL - A day after Iraq regained sovereignty, US President George W. Bush pushed for greater democratic reforms in the Middle East, saying to do so does not call for embracing the cultural excesses of American society.

Speaking on Tuesday at the end of a visit here for a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit, Mr Bush said the birth of democracy in Iraq was sending a message to the region that pressure was growing in the Middle East for openness and reform, the Boston Globe reported yesterday.

He challenged leaders in the region to 'recognise the direction of the events of the day'.

But he also acknowledged Muslim concerns that American-style democracy could bring unwanted cultural changes to the region.

'Some people in Muslim cultures identify democracy with the worst of Western popular culture and want no part of it. And I assure them, when I speak about the blessings of liberty, coarse videos and crass commercialism are not what I have in mind,' he said.

'There is nothing incompatible between democratic values and high standards of decency.'

Speaking at Turkey's Galatasaray University, he praised his host country, Turkey, as a model of what freedom and tolerance can bring.

A major theme of Mr Bush's speech was to encourage Iraq, a predominantly Muslim country, to develop a secular democracy that includes protections for minority religious groups.

He called for similar changes in Iran and Syria.

'The rise of Iraqi democracy is bringing hope to reformers across the Middle East,' he added.

'A free and sovereign Iraq is a decisive defeat for extremists and terrorists because their hateful ideology will lose its appeal in a free and tolerant and successful country.'

In the 27-minute speech, he apologised to Muslims for Americans who 'speak in an ill-informed and insulting manner about the Muslim faith'.

Citing the common origins of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, he appealed in return for more tolerance and respect from the Muslim world.

'Whatever our cultural differences may be, there should be respect and peace in the House of Abraham,' he said.

Mr Bush also singled out several countries in the Muslim world for criticism, including Syria and Iran.

He derided Iran's leaders as 'tired, discredited autocrats (who) are trying to hold back the democratic will of a rising generation'.

He also made a pointed but veiled reference to Saudi Arabia and other allies in the region with repressive regimes.

'Leaders throughout that region, including some friends of the US, must recognise the direction of the events of the day,' Mr Bush said.

'Any nation that compromises with violent extremists only emboldens them, and invites future violence.'

Earlier this month, the Bush administration pushed for an initiative by industrial countries to encourage democratic reforms in the region.

Some Middle East leaders had derided the initiative as Western interference in domestic affairs.

The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal had also given Middle East governments fresh ammunition to criticise America's commitment to human rights and democratic values.,4386,259204,00.html

4 posted on 06/30/2004 9:04:11 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Time to Get Moving on Iran

June 25, 2004
The Jerusalem Post
Caroline Glick

Thursday morning it was announced that the eight British servicemen who were nabbed by Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the Shatt al-Arab waterway on the Iraq-Iran border earlier in the week had been released to the custody of the British Embassy in Teheran.

Remarking on the transfer of the British sailors and marines who had been pictured blindfolded and forced to apologize for trespassing into Iranian territorial waters on Iranian state television, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw expressed his gratitude to the Iranian government for its cooperation in settling the matter. "I'd like to express my thanks to my colleague, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, for his assistance," Straw said.

This is all very diplomatic and pleasant. In an earlier day, when diplomacy was used as an arm of a nation's interest, Straw would not have been thanking the Iranians for backing down after having committed an act of war, indeed of piracy, against Great Britain. He would have been issuing an ultimatum backed by a massing of British troops, already conveniently nestled along the border in Basra. But such are not our times.

Last week a Jordanian military court convicted and sentenced 15 al-Qaida terrorists to prison terms for their roles in planning attacks against American, Israeli, and Jordanian intelligence targets in the kingdom. Of the 15, only one terrorist was actually in Jordanian custody for the trial. The rest, 12 Jordanians and two Iraqis, are happily sheltering in Iran, awaiting their next opportunity to strike.

This week, as Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was congratulating himself and the security services for bringing levels of terrorist attacks down 75 percent over last year, IDF and Shin Bet units were preventing yet another suicide bombing in the capital. Two Fatah terrorists, the dispatcher and the bomber, were arrested in a-Ram, north of the capital. Their arrest led to the seizure of a 10-kilogram bomb, hidden in a child's school bag that was being transported in a taxi from Nablus. Interrogation of the would-be mass murderers uncovered that Hizbullah, Iran's terrorist proxy, had ordered the bombing.

As we know, Shi'ite terrorist Moqtada el-Sadr, who launched a guerrilla war against coalition forces and moderate Shi'ites in southern Iraq this past spring, takes his orders from the ayatollahs in Iran. US intelligence services have also pointed a finger at Iran for sponsoring al-Qaida forces in Saudi Arabia and for sheltering senior al-Qaida commanders in the Islamic Republic.

Commenting on the interdiction of the British patrol boats and their crews this week in National Review Online, Iran expert Michael Ledeen raised the possibility that the boats and their crews had been interdicted by the Iranians because they were laying ship-detection sensors in the waterway.

This, he explained, is necessary to protect the Iraqi oil terminals in Basra from further sabotage, which has rendered the Iraqi oil industry a virtual hostage to terrorist forces that have repeatedly attacked pipelines and terminals over the past year.

Much of the sabotage, according to Ledeen, has been sponsored by Iran, which has an interest in seeing not only the destabilization of Iraq but a precipitous rise in oil prices before the US presidential elections, in the hopes that such an event will bring about the defeat of President George W. Bush at the polls.

To a certain degree, Straw can be forgiven for his obsequious prattle about the cooperation Britain received from the Iranian government after the same government committed an act of war against Straw's country. After all, Britain wanted to make sure its men were released unmolested. But how does one explain France?

At the same time as the British servicemen were being humiliated on Iranian television (the Arabic channel, to ensure the widest possible regional audience no doubt), a high-level official French delegation was visiting the Iranian capital to celebrate the reinstatement of Air France's flight service between Teheran and Paris.

According to The Teheran Times, Serge Degallaix, political adviser to French Prime Minister Jean Pierre Raffarin, told his Iranian hosts that France "believes that Iran has the right to acquire nuclear technology meant for peaceful purposes." So, at least under Jacques Chirac, France, which was behind the Iraqi nuclear weapons program in the 1970s and 1980s, is consistent in its approach. It believes that oil rich rogue states have the right to pursue nuclear capabilities.

And France is also consistent it its wish to appease these dictatorships. Last June, dovetailing the conclusion of a number of lucrative business deals between French companies and Iran, the French police launched a crackdown on members of an Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran. They arrested 164 members and launched investigations against 17 on terrorism-related charges. Yet one year later, French human rights officials noted this week in a demonstration against the crackdown, not one indictment has been filed.

Iranian officials continued to press the French to crackdown on the group during the delegation's visit to Teheran. Degallaix assured his hosts that France considers the group a terrorist organization and would not allow it to operate in the country.

All of this Anglo-French brown-nosed wrangling and Iranian aggression directly follows the latest resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency on the status of Iran's nuclear weapons program. The resolution, which is considered "harsh," was drafted by France, Britain, and Germany, the three nations whose foreign ministers interceded on Teheran's behalf last year to ensure that the mullocracy was given a stay of undetermined length before it would face UN Security Council sanctions for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by advancing its nuclear weapons program.

The resolution, issued last week stated that the IAEA members "deplored" the fact that "Iran's cooperation has not been as full, timely, and proactive as it should have been." The resolution is a detailed list of the finding of highly enriched uranium at Iranian nuclear facilities that has not been adequately explained. The IAEA will meet again to discuss the Iranian nuclear program in September.

The fact is that everyone knows that the Iranians are actively pursuing their nuclear weapons program and that this program may already be producing bombs. Estimates last year were that Iran will have the nuclear fuel cycle down and be capable of producing several atomic bombs per year by next year. For no apparent reason, as Iran moves full speed ahead on its uranium enrichment programs and insists that the international community "accept Iran as a member of the nuclear club," the estimated timeline of Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons capabilities has been moved to 2006.

Remarking on the IAEA resolution, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Monday that, at the next IAEA meeting in September, "judgments can be made as to what action might be appropriate." A veiled threat perhaps? Perhaps. Yet it is hard to escape the fact that this statement parrots those made a year ago after the IAEA's first inspection of Iranian nuclear facilities in Nantanz showed evidence of uranium enrichment activities. And the IAEA is still issuing resolutions.

When we look at Iran's brazen defiance of all international norms of behavior – with its support of terrorists, acts of aggression on the high seas, and confrontational advancement of its nuclear weapons program – we must ask the question, what is the US waiting for?

In a statement on the Iranian nuclear program last April, Bush said, "It is intolerable for the peace and the stability in the Middle East if they [the Iranians] get a nuclear weapon, especially when their stated objective is the destruction of Israel." Yet, according to The Wall Street Journal, there have been "a disturbing number of quiet remarks in Washington and other Western capitals recently to the effect that the world will just have to 'get used to' the idea of the Iranians having nukes." Indeed, when we look at British and French appeasement of the mullahs and we see Powell talking about maybe taking some action (perhaps economic sanctions that will take years to implement and still will be ineffective as oil prices rise to $60 a barrel) in September, we see that when the international community speaks, it doesn't have much to say about the single largest threat to the survival of the State of Israel today.

And in the meantime, here in Israel, the first target for the Iranian bombs, we obsess over whether and when and how Jews will be thrown out of their homes and communities in the territories and get flustered over remarks by US Ambassador Dan Kurtzer about the need to speed up the demolition of the so-called outpost communities of mobile homes on hilltops in Judea. We pontificate endlessly and vacuously about whether or not it is a good idea for Egypt to train a 30,000 man Palestinian army that will be deployed on the outskirts of Ashkelon.

In light of the failure of any outside power to take a concerted stand on Iran, we must ask the question: Are our leaders, like their Western counterparts, quietly resigned to our nuclear annihilation as we quibble over strategic irrelevancies and lesser orders of threats?

Because if there is the slightest chance that the answer is yes, we had better set about replacing them with others who are not, as quickly as possible.

5 posted on 06/30/2004 9:04:58 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

UK Servicemen 'Forced' Into Iran

June 30, 2004
BBC News

Eight British servicemen taken captive by Iran were "forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial water", the Ministry of Defence has said. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said the six Royal Marines and two Royal Navy sailors maintained they had been operating in Iraqi territorial waters.

The servicemen were held for three days sparking a stand-off with Britain.

Mr Hoon added: "We are very concerned about the blindfolding of the men and have made representations to ... Iran."

Failure to meet deadline

The men were captured after their patrol boats were said to have strayed by mistake into the Iranian side of the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

Iran said the vessels had entered its waters without prior permission.

But Mr Hoon said: "In a recent debriefing the crews have said that they were operating inside the Iraqi border and were forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial waters.

"Our assessment continues and will be greatly assisted by the retrieval of navigational information in the Global Positioning System equipment carried by the crews."

Mr Hoon said the Iranians had failed to comply with Tuesday's deadline to return equipment carried by the men including three boats, radios and navigational equipment, weapons and ammunition.

Following the servicemen's release Iran's foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi said the equipment would be returned.

One of the men returned home on Wednesday due to medical reasons connected with the incident and a further two were sent back to Britain as their tour of duty had ended.

Porous border

The remaining five are continuing their work in Iraq.

The MoD said the detainees had been part of a Royal Navy training team heading to Basra when they were detained by Iranian guards.

They had been helping to re-train the Iraqi river patrol on a waterway renowned for its use by smugglers and foreign militants trying to infiltrate Iraq.

The southern stretch of the Shatt al-Arab forms the border between Iran and Iraq.

6 posted on 06/30/2004 9:05:40 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Slovakia Supplies Iran With Weapons

June 30, 2004
Middle East Newsline

WASHINGTON -- Slovakia has been cited as a weapons supplier to Iran. The New York-based Human Rights Watch said in a report that Slovakia has been a leading supplier of conventional weapons to totalitarian regimes. The regimes included Iran and sales to African states.

Entitled "Ripe for Reform," the report cited the use of Slovakia as a way-station for weapons to countries restricted by international or European Union sanctions. The report said international brokers have changed key data on weapons shipment to enable them to leave Slovakia.

In September 2001, the report said, several hundred Iranian rocket-propelled grenades were seized at Bratislava airport. The RPGs were determined to have been destined for Iran.

7 posted on 06/30/2004 9:06:07 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

The Iran file has not been closed

By Yossi Melman

This week Iran put an end to the question of how long it would continue playing cat-and-mouse with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As of this week, the Iranian answer is - No more games. We've had it.

A few days ago, Iran dispatched a letter to IAEA headquarters stating that on June 29 it would renew its centrifuge-aided uranium-enrichment program. Uranium enrichment is a process to produce the refined fuel used to operate nuclear reactors. It is mainly intended for reactors for civilian objectives, but it is also used in processes that have the purpose of producing nuclear weapons.

In the letter, Iran said it intends to construct and assemble centrifuge components and test them under IAEA supervision. The statement makes it clear that Iran intends to resume assembly of centrifuges and then operate them, in order to ascertain their effectiveness.

The statement does not mean it will immediately commence operation of the centrifuge facilities on an industrial scale - production of enriched uranium in large quantities. Moreover, Iran continues to adhere to its commitment to permit IAEA inspectors to supervise these processes.

To produce high-concentration uranium, the centrifuges - hollow cylindrical containers - are loaded with natural uranium and are then spun at extremely high speeds. The centrifuge components are found in factories and defense plants that are primarily engaged in missile production.

If and when assembly of the centrifuges is complete, Iran would have to decide if it will install them in the factory in Natanz for which they are ostensibly intended.

"It's a brinkmanship policy," a senior IAEA official told Haaretz, "a policy that's meant to test just how exposed the international community's nerves are, and especially those of the United States, regarding the Iranian nuclear program."

There is nothing new in the Iranian desire to achieve nuclear capability as an expression of national strength and honor. It has passed like a common thread through Iranian administrations for four decades or so, starting during the pro-Western regime of Shah Pahlavi.

Essentially, the initiative to set up most of the nuclear facilities, laboratories and sites now scattered throughout Iran - the large, 100-megawatt reactor now being constructed in Bushehr, and the nuclear research centers in Tehran and Isfahan - began with the help of knowhow and technology of companies from the United States, Canada and Western Europe in the 1960s and `70s.

The West ended its nuclear cooperation with Iran following the fall of the Shah's regime and the rise to power of the ayatollahs. However, the latter found alternate sources for the requisite knowhow and equipment, and the training of scientists - Russia, Pakistan, North Korea and India, as well as through Iranian intelligence, which operated a purchasing and smuggling network that targeted the countries of Western Europe.

As during the Shah's monarchy, Islamic republic spokesmen claim that the quest for nuclear capacity is for peaceful purposes - generating electricity - and not for producing nuclear weapons. Therefore, Iran under the spiritual leaders Khomeini, and his successor Ali Khamenei, continued to ostensibly adhere to its international commitments.

It is a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a series of supervision agreements (NFT Safeguards) with IAEA. But in essence, as was made clear from reports filed in the past two years by IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei, it systematically abrogated the agreements.

American threat

The turning point was two years ago, when an opposition group of Iranian exiles revealed to the international press that Iran was building a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. It was subsequently revealed that Iran was building a heavy-water reactor in Arak.

Given these revelations, the international community placed heavy pressure on Iran to step up its cooperation with the IAEA. In the background was an explicit American threat to pass on the "Iranian file" to the UN Security Council, which has the authority to impose sanctions.

The threats, and the Iranian concerns, did the trick. At least outwardly, Iran became more cooperative. It revealed new facilities, allowed IAEA inspectors to visit them and take samples - for instance, there was a surprise inspection last Monday at the Lavizan site north of Tehran, which American intelligence suspects is serving for clandestine military nuclear activity.

During the cooperation phase, Iran also went to the trouble of submitting documents and documentation on purchases of equipment and technology. The peak of this cooperation came in the wake of an ultimatum issued in September 2003 by IAEA and three European countries - Germany, France and Britain.

The ultimatum hinted to Iran that unless it accepted their relatively conciliatory proposals, it would face more rigid steps that were being initiated by the Americans. Iran, at the initiative of the moderate leadership of President Mohammad Khatami and the foreign ministry, agreed to suspend the steps related to uranium enrichment, and sign the "supplementary protocol" (although it itself has not yet been ratified).

This document enables IAEA to carry out unannounced and invasive inspection visits. In exchange, the three European countries assured Iran that they would provide it with enriched uranium and advanced technology, and would act to remove the "Iranian file" from the IAEA agenda.

The Iranian readiness to accept this give-and-take arrangement reflected the tactical victory of the moderate (reformist) camp over the advocates of a rigid line, chiefly Ali Khamenei, commanders of the Revolutionary Guards and Hassan Rohani, the head of the Supreme National Security Council, which is responsible for formulating nuclear policy in Iran.

Throughout the past two years, the IAEA secretary-general composed quarterly reports that reflect Iran's evasive and elusive policy. In most of the reports, ElBaradei emphasizes Iranian cooperation and the access enjoyed by the inspectors to equipment and facilities.

But at the same time, almost every report also revealed new findings that proved that Iran was violating its commitments, because it was concealing information, was not reporting as required, was clandestinely purchasing equipment (such as centrifuges from the smuggling network of the Pakistani scientist Dr. Abdul Kadir Khan) and was essentially operating for 18 years a dual nuclear establishment - one open and accessible, for civilian objectives, the other covert, for military purposes.

Fear of sanctions

ElBaradei's most recent report, filed in June, was the straw that broke the camel's back. Germany, France and Britain initiated an IAEA resolution that sharply deplored Iran's nuclear activity. At the same time, the extremists in Iran shook off what they saw as useless compromising.

"The Europeans pledged that the Iranian file would be closed in June, and they have not met their commitments," said Hassan Rohani. Therefore, Iran announced that it was stopping its suspension policy and was resuming activities that would culminate in uranium enrichment.

Iranian officials are now concerned about the discussion to be held in September by IAEA at which a resolution might be adopted to send the case to the Security Council for a decision. Such a step could presage the start of a process that would culminate in imposing of sanctions and harsh international isolation.

Adherents of the rigid line are also preparing for the possibility that after the imposition of sanctions by the Security Council, the United States - along with Israel - might be liable to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities. Against this background, a plethora of fiery declarations has been issued in the past month in the Iranian media.

In a meeting with commanders of the Republican Guard, Khamenei declared that Israel soon intended to attack the nuclear and military facilities of Iran. It was reported that Khamenei ordered the resumption of the long-range missile production project - the Shihab 4 and Shihab 5, which could threaten Europe. There are also hints of an Iranian willingness to carry out suicide missions against Western and Israeli targets.

Muhammad Ali Samadi, the spokesman of the Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign, said (according to a press compilation produced by the MEMRI Institute) that 2,000 volunteers had already signed up for missions in "occupied Palestine" and against the American occupation forces in Iraq.

And the head of the Revolutionary Guards' division for strategic actions said at a gathering of volunteers for suicide missions that tactical action could generate strategic gains and cited the example of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Even so experts in Israel and the IAEA emphasize that the Iranian announcement on uranium enrichment is worded cautiously, and shows that Iran is choosing to walk a fine line. Ostensibly, the announcement hastens a direct conflict between Iran and IAEA, the U.S. and the EU. But in reality, Iran is leaving itself a wide margin for action, and may still return to the starting point.

8 posted on 06/30/2004 9:09:34 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Ashok Leyland plans to set up Iranian facility
New Delhi, June 30 (UNI) Ashok Leyland is mulling to establish a facility in Iran for assembling CNG trucks and buses and the country's second largest truck and bus maker is in talks with gas firm GAIL and the Iranian Government to forge a joint venture for the project.

However, the investment, equity ratio and timeframe for the project is yet to be decided, an official with Leyland said pointing Tehran's interest in the venture.

''The company has plans to set up an assembling facility near Tehran whereas GAIL would help in establishing the CNG distribution network.

''The Iranian firm will supply natural gas to be piped to several cities where it will be compressed and dispensed to automobiles,'' the official added.

Ashok Leyland has alreay forayed into Sri Lanka with the setting up of an assembling factory for manufacturing 15,000 trucks and buses every year.

9 posted on 06/30/2004 9:10:00 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

We must face up to Iran's real ambitions


‘The question is what kind of Iran the world could live with, not whether it desires nuclear weapons’

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 brought back by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, Dominique de Villepin, France’s foreign minister, and his German counterpart, Joschka Fischer, was presented as a solemn accord committing Iran to strict limits to its ambitious nuclear programme.

Now, however, we know that this was not the full picture. 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 defence 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 behaviour". How they came to believe that a regime that violates its own constitution every day might honour an agreement signed with "infidels" remains a mystery.

As far as the "Iranian nuclear challenge" is concerned, we are back where we were nine months ago - while Iran’s nuclear programme has advanced by nine months. A string of statements from the ruling mullahs in Tehran show that the Islamic republic no longer feels committed to a moratorium on its uranium-enrichment programme. Nor will the new Islamic majlis (assembly), dominated by radicals, be in a mood to approve additional protocols to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty 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.

Iran cannot be forced to unlearn knowledge accumulated since the 1950s. Iran was one of the first developing countries to acquaint itself with the awesome universe of nuclear science. Iran’s first nuclear reactor was installed in Tehran in 1955 and the first batch of Iranians sent to Europe and the United States to study nuclear physics and related subjects were back home by the early 1960s. By the mid-1970s, Iran had a well-educated and motivated corps of nuclear scientists who undertook research into all aspects of the new technology, including its military applications.

The Islamic revolution of 1979 forced many Iranian scientists into exile and threw the nation’s nuclear programme into a hiatus that lasted until 1990. Since then, Iran, having revived aspects of its nuclear programme, has enticed some scientists back and trained new ones.

The second thing that cannot be done is to deny Iran the right to develop and use nuclear energy. The need for such energy was felt as early as 1970, when projections showed that Iran might need all of its oil production for domestic consumption by the year 2010. Iran’s subsequent economic decline, caused by revolution, war and the flight of millions of skilled Iranians, has changed those projections.

But there is no escaping the fact that were Iran to return to the path of economic growth it would need other sources of energy in order to keep its oil exports as a means of earning foreign currency. Developing nuclear energy is one option. It was adopted by the former regime and has been the policy of the Islamic republic since 1989.

The third thing that we cannot do is force Iran to cut the nuclear- technology circle into two halves, one civilian and one military. This is simply not possible. All nations with a civilian nuclear base are capable, if they so decide, of moving into the military sphere of nuclear technology as well. This fact was well known to policy makers in the shah’s regime.

The Iranian strategy at the time was aimed at creating what is known as a "surge capacity", that is to say to have the know-how, the infrastructure and the personnel to develop a nuclear military capacity within a short time without actually doing so. No firm time frame was established then. But the assumption within the policy-making elite was that Iran should be in a position to develop and test a nuclear device within 18 months.

Under the shah, however, Iran was genuinely committed to working for nuclear disarmament. Iran campaigned for a "nuclear-free zone" in the region covering the Caspian Sea basin, the Persian Gulf and the broader Middle East. Iranian efforts, erratically supported by the US, ran into opposition from the Soviet Union, which did not wish to withdraw nuclear weapons from territories that neighboured the region.

Anyone with any knowledge of Iranian politics would know that the present regime in Tehran is strategically committed to developing a nuclear "surge capacity" if not a full arsenal of nuclear weapons. The real question, therefore, is whether the region and the rest of the world feel comfortable with the idea of a revolutionary regime, claiming a messianic mission on behalf of Islam, arming itself with nuclear weapons.

A peaceful Iran with no ambitions to export an ideology or seek regional hegemony would be no more threatening than Britain, which also has a nuclear arsenal. The real debate on Iran, therefore, can only be about regime change. And this is precisely the issue that the Europeans are loath to acknowledge as a legitimate topic of discussion.

Iran is passing through a crisis caused by what could only be described as historic schizophrenia. One half of Iran’s split personality represents the Khomeinist revolution and still dreams of conquering the world for its version of Islam. This Iran is determined to have a nuclear arsenal if only to insure itself against military pressure and action by its foes in the region and beyond.

The Islamic republic will not openly cross anyone’s borders, because its strategy is based on "exporting" its revolution through low-intensity warfare, largely conducted by local militants in targeted countries, as we now see in Iraq. The Islamic republic needs a nuclear capacity to raise the stakes if and when anyone - the US or Israel, for example - decides to take punitive military action to check its ambitions. This is precisely the strategy adopted by North Korea since the mid-1990s.

The other half of Iran’s split personality represents a nation-state that is trying to absorb its revolutionary experience and re-emerge as a normal player in mainstream international life. If and when this half wins, it would make little difference whether or not Iran has a nuclear "surge capacity". The question is what kind of Iran the world could live with, not whether the Islamic republic desires nuclear weapons.

• Ardeshir Zahedi was Iran’s foreign minister between 1967 and 1971, when he signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty on behalf of his country.

10 posted on 06/30/2004 9:11:25 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
I don't trust the Iranians like I do the ( somewhat) Turks. I think deep down they are just trying to use us. Anyone in the islam terror belt between Israel and India should prove there credentials as a freedom loving nation before getting my support . Most conservatives know that "students" protest just about anything. No offense but I think Iranian lobby groups in America are trying to hoodwink us out of our hard earned taxes. If Iran itself changes help her .. but till then this is a skeptical conservative.
11 posted on 07/01/2004 12:21:41 AM PDT by newfarm4000n (Taxes for social security is theft)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Click on the above picture to link to the Second Annual Viking Kitties Lightning Strike / Free Republic Online Fourth of July Fireworks Display. It starts July 1 and continues through July 4th!

12 posted on 07/01/2004 4:22:01 AM PDT by jriemer (We are a Republic not a Democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Three Iraqi Kurds hanged in Iran

From correspondents in Tehran
July 01, 2004
The Australian

THREE Iraqi Kurds convicted over a spate of armed robberies, extortion and rape have been hanged publicly in the northern Iranian city of Qazvin, Qods newspaper reported today.

It said the trio, identified only by their first names of Farhad, Salar, and Nejah, were convicted for "disrupting Iran's national security up to the level of Mohareb" – the Islamic term for war against God.

They were hanged yesterday the paper said, but gave no further details.

Murder, armed robbery, rape, apostasy (abandonment of religious faith) and serious drug trafficking are all punishable by death in Iran.,5744,10014139%255E1702,00.html

13 posted on 07/01/2004 5:55:29 AM PDT by F14 Pilot (John ''Fedayeen" sKerry - the Mullahs' regime candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven; MadIvan; GOPJ

Have you ever visited this thread?

14 posted on 07/01/2004 6:40:46 AM PDT by F14 Pilot (John ''Fedayeen" sKerry - the Mullahs' regime candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

I trust everyone (except Democrats and socialists in other countries) recognize the political elegance of putting Iran between the jaws of a liberated Afghanistan and Iraq?

15 posted on 07/01/2004 7:52:11 AM PDT by SpinyNorman (Al Queda, Al Jazeera, Al Gore, Al Franken: the four horsemen of the Apocalypse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpinyNorman
Of course. This is why the Mullahs of Iran are working so hard at creating insurrections in Iraq and Afghanistan. They know their days are numbered if democracy takes root in Iraq and Afghanistan.
16 posted on 07/01/2004 8:13:05 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran's Clerics Fear Rise of Democratic Iraq

July 01, 2004
Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN -- The rise of a secular, democratic Iraq could pose a threat to Iran's Shi'ite clerical establishment, which fears it would serve as a powerful model for moderate Iranians who seek change, clerics said.

Many senior clerics are particularly concerned about any shift in the center of gravity within Shi'ite Islam away from Iran's holy city of Qom, from which clerics wield immense political authority, toward Najaf in neighboring Iraq.

The emergence of Najaf coincides with the rise to political prominence of Iraqi clerics, such as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, who question the legitimacy of absolute rule by the clergy.

"Now Najaf, as a more moderate center, will regain the place it held for most of the past 1,500 years," said Hadi Qabel, a reformist midranking cleric from Qom.

"It will rejuvenate the role of clerics throughout the Shi'ite world. ... Iraqi moderate clerics like Ayatollah Ali Sistani do not consider ruling the country as their legitimate right," he said.

Monday's formal transfer of sovereignty from a U.S.-led coalition to an Iraqi interim government represents a further opportunity for the rehabilitation of Iraq's Shi'ite community, which was brutally suppressed under Saddam Hussein.

Iran fears Washington may promote Iraq as a model for Shi'ites to emulate in pressing for change in the Islamic state, which Washington accuses of harboring terrorists and pursuing nuclear weapons.

Since a revolution 25 years ago toppled a shah supported by Washington, Iran's Shi'ite supremacy has driven a policy hostile to the United States even as the country has wrestled with the issue of internal reform.

Reformists, including Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, have repeatedly warned their rival hard-liners against creating an anti-democratic "path of extremism" that he says risks alienating people from Islam.

They argue that blocking reform that could eventually see Iran become a democratic Islamic state could paradoxically help to promote Najaf as an alternative center.

"Iran's experience in the last 25 years proved that clerical rule did not strengthen the religion. Rather, it resulted in diminishing the standing of clergy and religion in the society," Sheik Qabel said from Qom.

Fostering a supervisory role for clerics in Iraq and the creation of a more moderate center for Shi'ites in Najaf may challenge the authority and prestige of Qom's seminaries, analysts said.

"For this reason, Najaf will become more influential," said an analyst who asked not be named.

Despite the prevailing view, many Qom clerics support the idea of a separation between mosque and state that some Iraqi clerics have suggested, Sheik Qabel said.

"If security returns to Iraq, many clerics from Qom and other cities who share the same beliefs will move to Najaf," he said.

Saddam, a Sunni Muslim, killed tens of thousands of Shi'ites who form the majority in Iraq but were deemed a political threat.

By contrast, Shi'ite clerics rose to power after the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, which is also predominantly Shi'ite. Qom in central Iran became the center of political and religious authority.

"Saddam suppressed Shi'ite clerics brutally, but they have enough freedom now to reach the Shi'ite world," the analyst said.

Iranian Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi, also a moderate midranking cleric, believes Najaf's seminary will gain power as a nonpolitical Shi'ite learning center.

"Ancient Najaf seminary will become more powerful and will convey its supervisory views to the Iraqi government," Mr. Abtahi said.

But he rejected the idea that Najaf's seminary was a threat to Iran's theological centers.

"Even right now, there are different views in Qom seminaries, and I do not believe it will cause a huge exodus of Qom clerics to Najaf," he added.

17 posted on 07/01/2004 8:17:16 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Tory Call For Iran Apology

July 01, 2004

Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram today demanded a full Westminster statement from the Government and an apology from the Iranians over the apparent abduction of eight British servicemen.

Last night Geoff Hoon revealed that the sailors and marines claimed they were "forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial waters" before being taken captive and publicly humiliated.

He made the announcement in a written ministerial statement as MPs were going home at the end of the Parliamentary day.

But this is not good enough for Mr Ancram and Liberal Democrat spokesman Paul Keetch.

They want the Defence Secretary to come down to the Commons to give a full explanation of what happened and be quizzed by MPs.

And Mr Ancram said if it was true that the eight were "forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial waters that’s absolutely outrageous".

He said that this would put an "extraordinary strain" on relations between Iran and Britain which the government had been carefully improving.

Six Royal Marines and two Royal Navy sailors were captured after their patrol boats appeared to have strayed by mistake into the Iranian side of the Shatt al Arab waterway as they helped train the new Iraqi river patrol service. The servicemen were returned to British custody after a three-day stand-off.

18 posted on 07/01/2004 8:18:04 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran Says Britain "Incorrect" Over Captured Sailors

July 01, 2004
ABC News Online

Iran has defended its arrest last week of an eight-man British Royal Navy unit, asserting that London's contention they were forced into the Islamic republic's waters was "incorrect".

"We are surprised by the British Defence Minister's incorrect remarks," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement.

"Upon taking custody of the British sailors, the British charge d'affaires in Tehran signed a letter confirming that they had entered Iranian territorial waters illegally and unintentionally.

"The British apology is evident in this letter, and in addition (Foreign Secretary) Jack Straw talked to the Iranian Foreign Minister. He too said the sailors had unintentionally entered Iranian territorial waters," Mr Asefi said.

Britain's Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said on Wednesday that the eight servicemen were "forcibly escorted" across the national boundary from Iraq.

The six marines and two sailors were detained for three days in Iran last week, during which they were paraded blindfold on television and forced to publicly apologise for what they called a "mistake".

Iran insisted that the boats were intercepted only after they entered Iranian waters on the Shatt al-Arab waterway that divides southern Iraq from Iran.

19 posted on 07/01/2004 8:19:03 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Three Iraqi Kurds hanged in Iran

July 01, 2004
Agence France-Presse
From Correspondents in Tehran

Three Iraqi Kurds convicted over a spate of armed robberies, extortion and rape have been hanged publicly in the northern Iranian city of Qazvin, Qods newspaper reported today.

It said the trio, identified only by their first names of Farhad, Salar, and Nejah, were convicted for "disrupting Iran's national security up to the level of Mohareb" – the Islamic term for war against God.

They were hanged yesterday the paper said, but gave no further details.

Murder, armed robbery, rape, apostasy (abandonment of religious faith) and serious drug trafficking are all punishable by death in Iran.

Editor's note - With no transparency, the judicial system of the Islamic Republic of Iran hangs, executes and stones to death under the cover of fighting "moral corruption". The accuracy of these convictions are under serious question.,4057,10014139%255E1702,00.html

20 posted on 07/01/2004 8:19:37 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson