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”
Bush: Iran, Palestinian Terrorists Hinder Freedom
July 01, 2004
JTA
jta.org
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.”
http://www.jta.org/brknews.asp?id=112507
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.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,259204,00.html
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.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1088046788592&apage=4
UK Servicemen 'Forced' Into Iran
June 30, 2004
BBC News
BBCi
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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3854921.stm
Slovakia Supplies Iran With Weapons
June 30, 2004
Middle East Newsline
MENL
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.
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/july/07_01_4.html
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.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/445931.html
We must face up to Iran's real ambitions
ARDRESHIR ZAHEDI
‘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.
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=750812004
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!
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?
Iran's Clerics Fear Rise of Democratic Iraq
July 01, 2004
Reuters
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.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040701-120114-2544r.htm
Tory Call For Iran Apology
July 01, 2004
Scotsman
Scotsman.com
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.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=752422004
Iran Says Britain "Incorrect" Over Captured Sailors
July 01, 2004
AFP
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.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1145060.htm
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.
http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10014139%255E1702,00.html
UK Demands Return of Navy Boats
July 01, 2004
Guardian
Matthew Tempest and Agencies
The row over the British servicemen detained by Iran reopened this morning, as Downing Street demanded the return of the navy's boats to reveal whether the flotilla had strayed or been forced into Iranian waters.
Last night the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, re-ignited the smouldering dispute by revealing that the sailors, having been debriefed by navy officers, claimed they had been forced into Iranian territory before being taken captive.
Although the eight sailors were released after a three-day diplomatic stand-off, Tehran has so far stalled on returning the boats, and with it their satellite navigational equipment.
This morning the prime minister's official spokesman said "We still want our boats returned, not least because that would help finally to resolve what did happen, because of the navigational equipment on board.
He added: "The boats were on an entirely routine operation. There was no intention to go into Iranian waters. Our own inquiries are continuing, as the Ministry of Defence Statement says, and we are discussing this with the parties involved.
"Obviously this is a matter which our ambassador in Iran takes up with the Iranian minister for foreign affairs on a daily basis."
Mr Hoon last night said the MoD was still investigating the men's claim that they were "forcibly escorted into Iranian waters", but castigated the Iranians for blindfolding the men and parading them on television.
Today the shadow foreign secretary, Michael Ancram, demanded a "full apology" from Iran if the claims were true.
But at today's lobby briefing, reporters pressed the PMOS on whether, in the light of Mr Hoon's statement, the government had been hasty in apologising for the alleged incursion into Iranian waters.
The spokesman said: "I think the important thing was to ensure the safe return of the men involved. And that was done. The discussions about the boats continue.
"What is also important is that Geoff Hoon has made it clear that we disapproved of the blindfolding of the men and we will not expect a recurrence of such behaviour."
In a clear sign of the frosty London-Tehran relations, the spokesman made it clear " we will speak our mind when necessary", and said the boats issue was only one of many dividing the two countries.
"There are issues that we deal with with Iran, we will deal with them one by one and we will attempt to resolve them one by one," he said.
Mr Ancram told the BBC this morning that the incident created " an extraordinary strain on Iranian-British relations".
"We were required to apologise for what appeared to have been trespassing into Iranian waters," he said.
"Our servicemen were paraded blindfolded and humiliated. The equipment still has not been returned.
Iran had "a lot to lose" from the episode, he said.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1251573,00.html
Repression increases with approach of Students Uprising anniversary
SMCCDI (Public Announcement)
Jun 30, 2004
The repression is increasing each day as the 5th anniversary date of the Students Uprising of July 9-14, 1999 is approaching. The Islamic regime is no more hiding its firm intention to try to smash any popular action as it's fearing the conjunction of internal riots with its very grave International conditions.
Threats are made publicly, by regime's official such as Ali Yoonessi, against "those intending to size the July 8th (anniversary of the Students Uprising) in order to endanger the national security". The situation in most cities is like a state of foreign occupation and is similar to the Nazi regime's repressive processes during Europe's captivity.
The official circles are spreading, each day, news on new public death sentences rendered by the regime's Judiciary force . The move is intended to increase the fear among the population while eliminating opponents under false labels.
Activists are placed under observation or are arrested without any explanation. Families are warned about the dangers for their lives if their sons or daughters chose to brave the Islamic state.
Thousands of members of the regular security forces along with elements of the special units and anti-riot forces and foreign mercenaries have been deployed in the Iranian Capital and in main cities, such as, in Esfahan, Kermanshah, Hamadan or Oroomiah (former Rezai-e). These forces guided, often, by plainclothes men affiliated to the repressive Bassij force or the Intelligence Unit of the Pasdaran Corp. are carrying the open task of intimidation by harassing anyone in the streets or often beating and arresting young boys or girls.
The persistent sexual discrimination, one of the main pillars of the Islamic republic, has been increased and women are harassed, arrested or even beaten for the "non respect of Islamic principles".
Cars and homes are searched in the middle of the night and electronic equipments, such as, satellite receivers or computers are confiscated even without any kind of phony mandate.
Rumors are spread by the regime circles about the dangers created by the Islamic republic's collapse in reference to the territorial integrity of Iran and the split of the country by foreigners.
But despite all these measures, the popular resistance it's getting organized and thousands of Iranians are planning to demonstrate in most cities on July 8th in order to support the students and freedom lovers in their struggle for reaching Democracy and Secularity in Iran. Already sporadic and limited strikes are touching several industrial or service sectors, such as, Nursing or Education.
Groups of young are preparing devices intended to retaliate to any kind of brutal attack by the regime's militiamen. Talks are made for a better coordination of the event and in order to bring the regime to split its forces by making them less effective.
The Iranian Diaspora is getting more united and organized as well, and in addition to special editions planned by most Iranian and Persian speaking satellite TV and radio networks, hundreds of Iranians are going to participate in demos which will take place in most European and N. American cities. A partial listing of these actions is available in the "Demonstrations" section of the Movement's website and will be mass email within the frame of a "SMCCDI Urgent Action Call" inviting everyone to participate in order to show solidarity with the Iranian people and rejection of the Islamic regime.
Posters, graphics, poems, songs and statements of solidarity are made or written by Iranians and their foreign supporters at the occasion of the anniversary.
http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6879.shtml
6/30/04 - IRAN MAY FACE SANCTIONS
The following is an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government:
The International Atomic Energy Agency has passed a resolution that “deplores” Iran's failure to fully disclose its nuclear activities. The resolution calls for Iran to answer “on an urgent basis” all outstanding questions in the coming months. The discovery of a clandestine nuclear program has fueled suspicions that oil- and gas-rich Iran is covertly developing nuclear weapons under the guise of pursuing nuclear power for civilian purposes.
Iran responded to the I-A-E-A by threatening to restart its uranium enrichment program. U.S. Ambassador to the I-A-E-A Kenneth Brill says that, “If Iran were to follow up on its many repeated threats to abrogate its commitments to the Europeans to suspend its enrichment work, it would be another demonstration of their true colors, that they are determined to have an enrichment program and one that goes well beyond the needs for a power program.” That, says Ambassador Brill, “underscores their desire to pursue military purposes for their nuclear program.”
U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli says the resolution by the I-A-E-A shows that nations are reaching a consensus on the dangers posed by Iran's nuclear program:
“Let's go back two years. Two years ago, the United States was saying, 'Iran had a program. Iran was a danger.' And everybody was saying, 'Oh, come on, you guys are crazy. You guys are just beating up on Iran because you got it in for them.' Two years later, everybody is on board [saying] 'there is a program. There is a clandestine nuclear program. It is a problem and we are seized of the matter, and we are united in demanding action.'”
The I-A-E-A will take up Iran's case again in September and could send it to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says the Iranians “have been put on notice. . .that the international community is expecting them to answer its questions and to respond fully. . . . We will have a chance to examine their response in September,” says Mr. Powell. “And at that time, judgments can be made as to what action might be appropriate.”
http://www.voanews.com/Editorials/article.cfm?objectID=6EB1DC7D-510C-4F92-9A769CE142A5B78F
Iranian FM Rejects Calls to Stop Nuclear Program [Excerpt]
July 01, 2004
The Associated Press
The Wall Street Journal
MEXICO CITY -- Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi on Wednesday rejected international pressure to halt his country's work on centrifuges for its nuclear program.
Speaking to reporters during an official visit to Mexico, he said the aims of Iran's nuclear program were peaceful and he defended his country's plans to build nuclear energy facilities.
"We have no obligation to postpone the construction of the centrifuges," Mr. Kharrazi said.
The centrifuges are used to make the enriched uranium which can be used as nuclear reactor fuel or to make bombs.
He said that Iran will keep working closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency and said that "they have the assurance we are not trying (to develop) nuclear arms." The agency earlier this month approved a resolution rebuking Iran for past nuclear cover-ups. The U.S. accuses Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons.
Mr. Kharrazi met with Mexican President Vicente Fox on Wednesday to discussed building closer business ties and creating new cultural exchanges between their two countries. Both rich in oil and gas reserves, Mexico and Iran established diplomatic relations in 1964.
http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=07&d=01&a=11
Iran Stages Annual Army Exercises Near Iraq Border [Excerpt]
July 01, 2004
Dow Jones Newswires
The Associated Press
TEHRAN -- The Iranian army began its annual military exercises Thursday near the border with Iraq, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
The three-day exercises are taking place in a 20,000 square-kilometer area of southwestern Iran , near the Iraqi city of Al-Amareh - where U.K. troops of the multinational force are stationed.
The maneuvers are in the same area where Iran 's Revolutionary Guards detained eight U.K. servicemen in three river patrol boats last month for allegedly crossing on to Iran 's side of the border's Shat Al-Arab waterway.
Some 20,000 Iranian troops as well as fighter aircraft and helicopters are taking part in the exercises, the official agency quoted military spokesman, Brig.-Gen. Mohammad-Ali Armanfar, as saying.
http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=07&d=01&a=12
What's Iran Up To? [Excerpt]
July 01, 2004
The Wall Street Journal
Review & Outlook
That's what U.S. authorities wondered as they expelled two security guards at the Iranian mission to the United Nations last weekend, after the mission was warned repeatedly against permitting its employees to videotape the Statue of Liberty, the subway, bridges and other New York landmarks.
For a dismaying answer, consider the statement made two weeks ago in Tehran by one Hassan Abassi, head of the Revolutionary Guards' Center for Doctrinaire Affairs of National Security Outside Iran's Borders. (Quite the job description.) "We will map 29 sensitive sites in the United States and give the information to all international terror organizations," the New York Sun quotes Mr. Abassi as saying.
In a June 17 report, Memri -- the Middle East Media Research Institute -- reports a nearly identical statement by Mr. Abassi about compiling a target list of "29 sensitive sites." And also: "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."
http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=07&d=01&a=13