Iranian Alert -- July 16, 2004 [EST]-- IRAN LIVE THREAD -- "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"

The US media still largley 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.

Shiite Leadership Clash in Iran, Iraq

July 15, 2004
The Associated Press
Hamza Hendawi

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- For centuries, enmity between Arabs and Persians has shaped much of the Middle East - from the Arab conquests of the 7th century to the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s.

Now, with Shiites empowered in postwar Iraq, the gloves are off again. But this time, the antagonists are the Shiite ayatollahs of Iraq, a mainly Arab country, and Iran, formerly Persia.

At stake is the leadership of the world's estimated 170 million Shiites - and the outcome will have profound consequences not only for the two nations but the entire Islamic faith.

At the heart of the conflict is a rivalry between the holy cities of Najaf in Iraq and Qom in neighboring Iran.

A victory by Najaf's "quietist" school of thought, which places a cleric's spiritual calling ahead of involvement in politics, could deal a serious blow to the claim of legitimacy by Iran's ruling clergy. It could also provide a counter-ideology to the militant political Islam adopted by some Sunni Muslim groups in the region and which are behind the terrorism of recent years.

Iraq's Shiites have emerged from decades of oppression by a Sunni Arab minority when Saddam Hussein's regime fell 15 months ago. As the majority, they are now poised to dominate the country politically after a general election due in January.

Najaf's senior clerics refuse to be publicly drawn into the Najaf-Qom rivalry, but they don't conceal the nationalist undertones involved.

"It is the Shiites of Iraq who spread the faith in Iran," boasts Mohammed Hussein al-Hakim, son of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Said Hakim, one of Najaf's four top clerics. "Shiites appeared in Iraq centuries before there were any Shiites in Iran."

Similar sentiments are indirectly reflected by ordinary Iraqis, eyeing with suspicion Shiite political parties known to be closely linked to Iran or created there by politicians who found refuge there during Saddam's 23-year rule.

"For hundreds of years, the Iranians prevented Arabs from assuming the Shiite marjaiyah (top clerics)," laments Qays al-Khaz'ali, an aide of young cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militant movement has gained much of its popularity because of his repeated boasts of Arab descent and scathing criticism of Iranian-backed politicians and groups.

Iraq is the 7th century birthplace of Shiism, a faith born of a dispute over who succeeds the Prophet Muhammad after his death. It's home to the sect's most revered sites in Najaf and Karbala south of Baghdad and Samarra to the north of the Iraqi capital.

Shiites, however, did not become a majority in Iraq until the 19th century through massive conversions of Arab tribesmen frustrated by the injustices of the Sunni Ottoman rulers.

In Iran, Shiism became the official religion early in the 16th century but Shiites only became a majority in the 1800s. Ideological differences between the two communities always existed, but they were driven farther apart in the 20th century.

During 35 years of Saddam's Baath party rule, Iraq's Shiite majority was brutally oppressed and tens of thousands of Shiites, including clerics, were killed, jailed or deported.

Najaf's senior clerics were targeted. Those who dared to speak out against Saddam were killed. Keeping quiet meant survival, but also diminished influence and empty coffers.

In the meantime, Qom gained pre-eminence and Iran emerged as the world's bastion of Shiism after the 1979 Islamic revolution. It suited Saddam to see Najaf fade into insignificance, but the fall of his regime signaled the city's rebirth and the start of its journey to replace Qom as the world's foremost seat of Shiite learning.

Najaf's seminaries are filled with students again and the city's top clerics are renewing links with followers and loyal clerics across the world. Najaf's independence and energy is a far cry from Qom under the rule of the clergy.

"Qom seminaries have become very politicized," Iranian analyst Mohammad Hosseini said in Tehran. "Qom is the center of Iranian Shiite theology. Najaf is the center of global Shiism."

Reducing Qom to playing second fiddle to Najaf is not a purely religious matter.

Qom cleric and writer Mohammad Javad Akbarein says that unlike those in Najaf, Iran's senior clerics rely on government funds and patronage.

"The Qom seminary wants to remain as a pioneer platform for Shiite Islamic thinking and definitely doesn't want Najaf to take its place," he said.

Ironically the Najaf renewal is led by an elderly, Iranian-born cleric who settled in Iraq more than 50 years ago and is now considered the world's top Shiite authority.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, following in the footsteps of his mentor, the late Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei, belongs to the "quietist" school of thought, whose followers see it as the purist form of Shiism.

In contrast, the principal of "wilayet al-Faqeeh," or "the right of the most learned to rule," serves as the central ideological plank that supports the monopoly on power held by Iran's clergy since the Islamic revolution.

Al-Sistani, however, has influenced Iraq's U.S.-sponsored political process, demanding that a general election be held at the earliest date possible and that a permanent constitution must be written by elected, not selected, delegates. His supporters say such demands don't amount to meddling in politics, arguing that his intervention was much needed at a critical time for Iraq.
---
Associated Press reporter Naser Karimi contributed to this report from Tehran, Iran.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_SHIITE_LEADERSHIP?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

Iran - Nuclear Weapons

June 24, 2004
GlobalSecurity.org
WMD

Fissile Material Acquisition
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke1.htm

Iranian Statements
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2.htm

Western Assessments
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke3.htm

A.Q. Khan Network
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/khan.htm

A.Q. Khan & Iran
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/khan-iran.htm

Nuclear Facilities
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm

2002 Developments
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2002.htm

2003 Developments
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2003.htm

2004 Developments
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2004.htm

References & Links
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/links.htm

Iran's nuclear program began in the Shah's era, including a plan to build 20 nuclear power reactors. Two power reactors in Bushehr, on the coast of the Persian Gulf, were started but remained unfinished when they were bombed and damaged by the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war. Following the revolution in 1979, all nuclear activity was suspended, though subsequently work was resumed on a somewhat more modest scale. Current plans extend to the construction of 15 power reactors and two research reactors. Research and development efforts also were conducted by the Shah's regime on fissile material production, although these efforts were halted during the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war.

Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect any of its nuclear facilities. Prior to 2003 no IAEA inspections had revealed Tehran's violations of the NPT.

Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Tehran redoubled its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles. In addition to Iran's legitimate efforts to develop its nuclear power-generation industry, it is believed to be operating a parallel clandestine nuclear weapons program. Iran appears to be following a policy of complying with the NPT and building its nuclear power program in such a way that if the appropriate political decision is made, know-how gained in the peaceful sphere (specialists and equipment) could be used to create nuclear weapons.

It is evident that Iran's efforts are focused both on uranium enrichment and a parallel plutonium effort. Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. Iran appears to have spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack.

Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and would appear to be about two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. By some time in 2006, however, Iran could be producting fissile material for atomic bombs using both uranium enriched at Natanz and plutonium produced at Arak. The Natanz facility might produce enough uranium for about five bombs every year, and the Arak facility might produced enough plutonium for as many as three bombs every year.

If Iran did acquire atomic bombs, it would put pressure on other countries in the region do the same. Many Arab countries believe it is unfair that Israel has nuclear weapons. If Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia but also Egypt and possibly Syria, found themselves caught between a nuclear-armed Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran, it would greatly increase pressures to pursue their own nuclear option s. This could result in a regional arms race in the Middle East which is likely to be quite destabilizing, given the number and intensity of conflicts and instabilities in the region.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm
Maintained by John Pike

Neighbour, and Enigma

July 15, 2004
The Economist
Economist.com

The Iranians are blowing hot and cold in Iraq

Muhamad Khatami, Iran's president, insists that his country desires “stability and reconstruction” in neighbouring Iraq, but Iraqis are not so sure. Since Iraq's interim government took office at the end of last month, its foreign minister has berated Iran for not doing enough to stop fighters crossing their common border to join the insurgency. On July 5th, the Iraqi police said they had arrested two Iranians for trying to detonate a car bomb. Is Iran a maker or a breaker?

The answer may be a bit of both, in varying degrees. Keen on unity among their Shia brethren in Iraq, the Iranians helped broker an apparent accommodation between Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia firebrand, and Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's top cleric. Iran is friendly with several members—not all of them Shia—of the new government, provides aid to poor Iraqi Shias and (when the roads are safe) sends up to 10,000 pilgrims a day to Iraq's holiest sites.

Shia Iran stands to lose from an insurgency that finds recruits among militant Sunnis. On the other hand, as one-third of George Bush's “axis of evil”, Iran fears that signs of American success in Iraq would embolden hawks in Washington to seek new targets. So, in Tehran, hardline newspaper editors and Al-Alam, a state-run Arabic television channel, lionise the insurgents. Iranian border guards may well be as lax as the Iraqis claim.

Two recent events have sharpened Iran's opposition to the occupation. In May, the intensification of fighting in Shia shrine cities prompted state-organised mobs in Tehran to hurl petrol bombs at the British embassy. Egged on by Iran's conservative establishment, several thousand volunteers declared themselves ready to die to rid Iraq of the occupiers.

For the main cause of Iran's growing obstreperousness, however, look to Vienna. There, on June 18th, the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a resolution castigating Iran for failing, yet again, to shed enough light on its secretive nuclear programme.

Bowing to international pressure, the Iranians had earlier promised “temporarily” to stop uranium-enrichment and producing centrifuge machines, though they never entirely stopped making parts for them. They had lobbied IAEA members for a friendly resolution. They mostly blamed Britain, one of three European sponsors of a tough resolution, and the United States for dashing their hopes.

Foreign diplomats in Tehran detect a link between the resolution and Iran's seizure, less than a week later, of eight British servicemen who had allegedly strayed across Iraq's fluvial border with Iran. The detained Britons later accused Iran's Revolutionary Guard of forcing them into Iranian waters. Whether or not this is true, the Iranians were certainly conveying a message. That message was partly directed at those Arabs who berate Iran for co-operating with Iraq's occupiers; Al-Alam beamed suspiciously instantaneous accounts of the contretemps to viewers in Iraq and elsewhere. Mostly, though, it was a warning to America and Britain.

In Tehran, a well-connected foreign-affairs analyst advises the British to “ask themselves why Basra [the biggest city in Iraq's Shia south] has hitherto been calmer than many other parts of Iraq”. The allies, he believes, would be unwise to expect the Iranians to exercise a calming influence over Iraqi Shias while they haul Iran over the coals on the nuclear issue.

Iran's politics are increasingly dominated by conservatives who seek to unnerve countries that they regard as their nuclear tormentors. Having announced their decision to restart centrifuge-manufacture, Iran's leaders may balk at the even more provocative gesture, advocated by hardliners in parliament, of resuming uranium-enrichment. Across the border, there are plenty of ways to express their displeasure less overtly.

http://www.economist.com/World/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2922927

Amnesty International appoints trial observer in the Kazemi murder case

Amnesty International - Statement
Jul 15, 2004

Amnesty International has delegated the Syrian lawyer and human rights defender, Khalil Matouk to observe the trial of Mohammad Reza Aghdam Ahmadi.

Mohammad Reza Aghdam Ahmadi, an official of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence, has reportedly been charged in connection with the death in custody on 12 July 2003 of Zahra Kazemi, a dual Canadian-Iranian national.

Amnesty International has requested assistance from the Iranian authorities in facilitating the granting of a visa to Khalil Matouk and for him to be accredited to observe the trial but is awaiting response.

Amnesty International has repeatedly called for the establishment of an open and independent investigative mechanism with judicial powers to examine all facets of the death in custody of Zahra Kazemi.

Amnesty International believes that such a mechanism must have the power to summon witnesses, including members of the Office of the Tehran Chief Prosecutor, compel the disclosure of documents, ensure the protection of witnesses from harassment or intimidation, and develop mechanisms to prevent the recurrence of similar human rights violations in the future.

While welcoming the individual enquiries established by the government, parliament and other bodies, the organization believes that these lack the operational scope and legal power required to reach credible conclusions and recommendations.

Background

On 23 June 2003 Canadian-Iranian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi, 53, was arrested for taking photographs outside Evin prison, in an area where photography is prohibited. According to a government enquiry, Zahra Kazemi died as a result of a blow to her skull, while under guard at the Baghiyetollah (or Baghiyeta'zam) Hospital in Tehran on 12 July 2003. The report recommended that the case be examined by a "special independent investigator" from the judiciary and that public information should be "swift". On 29 July 2003 judicial officials confirmed that five individuals had been arrested in connection with the case, of which three are said to be from Tehran's judiciary and two from the Ministry of Intelligence. On 30 July 2003 a government spokesperson stated that Zahra Kazemi was murdered. Four of the individuals initially detained were later released.

Mohammad Reza Aghdam Ahmadi was charged in connection with the death in custody of Zahra Kazemi and on 2 October 2003, he appeared in court to plead not guilty to the charges, while further hearings were adjourned to permitted lawyers of the Kazemi family time to prepare their case.

Khalil Matouk is a lawyer and human rights defender, familiar with politically motivated criminal charges and trials before state security and criminal courts. Khalil Matouk is a founding member of a group of Syrian lawyers that provides representation and legal assistance for prisoners of conscience in the region and he has participated and contributed to numerous seminars and worships covering various human rights topics including the promotion of human rights culture in the Arab region, and the International Criminal Court.

For more information concerning the death in custody of Zahra Kazemi, please see: An independent inquiry must be opened into the death of Zahra Kazemi, AI Index MDE 13/022/2003, 15 July 2003. It can be viewed at:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130222003?open&of=ENG-IRN

And: Only an independent investigative body can serve justice and human rights, AI Index MDE 13/026/2003, 1 August 2003, which can be viewed at:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130222003?open&of=ENG-IRN

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_7114.shtml

RSF denounces "disgraceful" banning of foreigners from trial of photojournalist's alleged killers

Reporters sans frontières - Statement
Jul 15, 2004

Reporters Without Borders called on Iran today to reverse its "disgraceful" decision to bar Canadian diplomats from the 17 July resumption in Teheran of the trial of those responsible for causing the death of Canadian-Iranian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi in July last year by beating her during interrogation at Teheran's Evin prison.

"We urge the authorities to keep their promise and ensure that foreign observers can attend the whole trial, especially Canadian diplomats and representatives of the Canadian branch of Reporters Without Borders, whose requests for visas to go to Iran have not been answered," the worldwide press freedom organisation said.

"The Iranian government's stubborn refusal to behave in an open manner about someone who died while in official hands is absolutely disgraceful. If this decision is confirmed, it is a very poor commentary on the fairness and seriousness of the Iranian legal system," it said.

Reporters Without Borders welcomed the pledge by Canadian foreign minister Bill Graham to keep up pressure in the case, which he said was very important for Canada and Canadians and for journalists everywhere.

It called on the Canadian government, which has recalled its ambassador in Teheran in protest against the 14 July refusal, despite earlier promises, of Canada's request to have its observers in court, to consider imposing sanctions on Iran.

In response to Graham's charge that Iran had broken its promise, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said the case was a "domestic issue."

Graham said Canada expected justice to be done in a credible and open manner. It would "regard the handling of the trial as a signal of the depth of the government of Iran's commitment to human rights," he said in a letter to Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharazi.

The death of Kazemi, 54, who lived in Montreal, has poisoned relations between Iran and Canada, which had first recalled its ambassador in Teheran in July last year when the authorities refused to allow the body to be returned to Canada.

Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi and three fellow lawyers will attend the trial for the first time when it resumes, representing Kazemi's mother. One of the lawyers, Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, who is spokesman for the human rights group led by Ebadi, said the court was "not competent" to try the resumed case.

Two defendants are expected to appear - Mohammad Reza Aghdam Ahmadi, who was accused last year, and according to Dadkhah, prison official Mohammad Bakhshi, who was only recently charged and who has already been accused of involvement on the website (www.rouydad.info) of President Mohammad Khatami's political party, the Islamic Iran Participation Front, in the role of assistant to Teheran prosecutor Said Mortazavi.

The hardline judiciary is locked in a power struggle with reformists around President Khatami and each side accuses the other of responsibility for the murder. The judiciary said on 22 September last year that intelligence ministry agent Ahmadi was the killer. The ministry is controlled by Khatami supporters.

Kazemi was arrested on 23 June 2003 as she was taking pictures of prisoners' families outside Evin prison, north of Teheran. She was beaten in detention and died of her injuries on 10 July. After trying to cover up the cause of death, the authorities admitted on 16 July that she had been "beaten."

Her body was hastily buried on 22 July in the southern town of Shiraz, against the wishes of her Canadian son Stephan. Her mother, who lives in Iran, admitted being pressured to allow burial in Iran. Requests for the body to be exhumed and returned to Canada have been refused.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_7113.shtml

Denounce "Council on Foreign Relations" meeting in WDC

SMCCDI (Urgent Action)
Jul 16, 2004

Dear Freedom Lovers,

Once again, the pro-Islamic republic's lobby group in the US and few immoral former US officials, are organizing events in order to buy time for the bankrupt and collapsing theocratic regime with the desire to influence the US policy in reference to Iran. This money oriented group which is totally disregarding the Iranians' aspiration for a "Democratic Regime Change in Iran" and Americans' sacrifices in the "War Against Terror & Tyranny", is hoping to legitimize the barbaric Mullahcracy and is targeting resumption of US-Islamic republic ties in case of the election of Senator J. Kerry as a next US President.

Indeed, Dark forces that have been dreaming of George Bush’s defeat are now poised to decide Iran's fate and negotiate Iranians destiny without their presence and consent. They are about to make the kinds of deals that have in the past resulted in tortures and deaths of thousands of Iranians who rose in the name of Freedom, Self Determination, and Independence of Iran.

In this line, a so-called "Iran Task Force" has been created and a launch meeting has been scheduled, in Washington DC, on Monday July 19, 2004, from 08:30 AM till 11:30 AM.

The official responsibles of this illegitimate entity and guest speakers at the meeting are "Zbignew Brzezinski", the National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, and "Robert M. Gates, the former CIA Director (1991-93) and current President of Texas A&M University. Maybe It's necessary to remind the lack of intelligence, lucidity and competence of these two individuals who were involved in the two last Democratic administrations of the US and the disastrous consequences of their ill-policies which lead to the rise of Islamism and increase of Terrorism.

IT'S A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC REGIME IN IRAN IS JUST AS EVIL, REPRESSIVE, AND MURDEROUS AS THE TALEBAN AND THE BAATH REGIMES WERE…

The plight of enslaved Iranians and oppressed Middle Easterners in general notwithstanding, how many more 9/11 types of tragedies would it take to fully realize and accept that far from deserving to be romanced, the terror masters' rule must end?

Would an "Allah u Akbar" chanting suicide bomber’s nuclear blast in middle of Manhattan be convincing enough?

HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE NEED TO DIE BEFORE THEIR CRIES FOR FREEDOM ARE HEARD BY THOSE WHO JUST WANT HEAR CLINKING OF GOLD COINS IN THEIR GROWING STASH AND JUBILANT NOISES OF OFFICIAL FANFARES??? HOW LONG SHOULD WE ALLOW SUCH MASQUERADES TO GO ON IN THE NAME AND DETRIMENT OF IRANIAN AND AMERICAN PEOPLES???

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE????

Under these Circumstances,

More than ever, you are OBLIGATED to intervene and to denounce such actions at a time that Iranians are subject to the Islamic regime's persistent repressive measures; And that America's sons and daughters have become the daily targets of its militiamen sent to Iraq as "pilgrims".

There are several ways you can help in making the world hear the cry of freedom of millions of Iranians, who're calling for liberty and their legitimate and violated rights:

1) By demonstrating in order to protest against such meeting in front of the "Washington Club" located at 15 Dupont Circle, N.W. Washington DC 20036, On July 19th from 08:30 till 11:30 AM.

2) By contacting the "Council on Foreign Relations" which is organizing the meeting and protesting against such planning: mbeeuwkes@cfr.org or (212) 434-9716

3) By contacting the US policymakers and officials in order to protest against any support of the Islamic regime and resumption of ties with the Mullahs regime.

They MUST UNDERSTAND the Islamic republic regime is not representative of the Iranian Nation and that it's an Evil regime.

They MUST UNDERSTAND that the only way of establishing a relation between the US and Iran is to back its repressed people and to support them in their quest for SECULARITY and DEMOCRACY....

They MUST UNDERSTAND that supporting the Islamic regime's lobby groups is equal to supporting the "Mother of All Terrorists" and trying to make forget the memories of all those killed in terrorist attacks...

It is YOUR conscientious DUTY to ACT.

Acting TODAY is to help the creation of the Free Iran of Tomorrow and a safer World for all.

July 16, 2004

The "Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI)

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_7116.shtml

Campaign Reports Show Goli Ameri Set to Upset

July 15, 2004
The Associated Press
Andrew Kramer

PORTLAND, Ore. -- In a race closely watched nationally as holding the potential for an upset, Republican challenger and Iranian immigrant Goli Ameri reported having nearly half a million dollars in cash on hand in her bid to unseat three-term Democratic Rep. David Wu this fall.

Ameri reported raising $366,770 between April 19 and June 30, according to the latest Federal Election Commission filings due Thursday. Her total cash on hand was $441,755.

Ameri said the strong fund-raising showed the seriousness of her challenge to Wu.

"I don't mean to brag, but this is quite an impressive number," Ameri said in a telephone interview. "If this number does not prove that, I don't know what will."

"If you're raising money from individuals, your message has to resonate with people. My message has really resonated with a lot of Oregonians," she said.

Ameri's campaign got a boost when Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York, who heads the Republican campaign committee, identified her as one of nine Republican challengers deserving the backing of national Republican groups, and the only candidate on the list west of the Rocky Mountains.

Wu's campaign manager Cameron Johnson said the congressman is expecting a competitive race, but remained confident his message resonated better than Ameri's with residents in the 1st District, which spans parts of liberal-leaning Portland.

Wu's campaign raised $362,116 for the period ending June 30 and had $1.6 million in cash on hand, according to Cameron.

In the only other federal race in Oregon seen as competitive, Republican challenger Jim Zupancic reported $173,262 in cash on hand for the period ending June 30 in his bid for the 5th district seat now held by Darlene Hooley.

Hooley raised roughly $312,000 for the period and had $1.3 million in cash on hand, according to a release from her campaign office. She had not filed with the federal commission by early Thursday evening.

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=69270

Iran Atomic Shopping Deepens Bomb Fears

July 16, 2004
Reuters
Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA -- Western diplomats say recent intelligence reports show Iran has been attempting to buy items that could be used to build nuclear weapons -- a charge Tehran dismisses as baseless.

The diplomats cited European customs information and intelligence gathered in the Middle East showing Tehran had tried to buy, among other things, high-speed switches that could potentially be used in a nuclear weapon and high-speed cameras the Iranians might use to test a nuclear explosion.

"They appear to be working on the planning for a high-speed nuclear implosion device," the diplomat said, adding that Iran had also been experimenting with "high explosive that would be appropriate for the core of a nuclear weapon."

A senior U.S. official told Reuters in Washington that these procurement efforts were part of an effort that has been going on for a long time. He declined to confirm the specific items mentioned, but said they were not "all new" to Washington.

"This is an ongoing procurement process. I fully believe that they're still at it, but I can't say that there is some new list that they're out buying right now," the official said.

The diplomats said their motivation for briefing Reuters was concern that France, Britain and Germany were enabling Iran to play for time while the trio struggle to find a way of enticing Tehran into fully suspending its uranium enrichment program.

Iran agreed with the Europeans last October to suspend its enrichment program, which the United States believes is aimed at making fissile material for atomic weapons. But Tehran never fully suspended the program and recently said it would resume production, assembly and testing of enrichment centrifuges.

TIME CRITICAL

"There is a recognition here that time is a very critical factor," said a non-Western diplomatic source. "The red line is not when they (the Iranians) get the bomb, but when they don't need any more external assistance."

A senior European diplomat said there was a lot of evidence that what Iran sought was "break-out capability" that would stop short of building a nuclear weapon but give it the ability to do so rapidly if it chose to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The United States is bound to seize on the new intelligence as further proof of its belief that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear power program.

But analysts and diplomats say Washington will have trouble persuading skeptics that Iran wants the bomb given that U.S. and British intelligence about pre-war Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- a key justification for the decision to invade Iraq -- turned out to be grossly inaccurate.

Tehran insists its nuclear ambitions are limited to the peaceful generation of electricity. President Mohammad Khatami said Wednesday that the diplomats' intelligence was false.

"It is not true at all," he told reporters in Tehran. "If they're aiming to force Iran to abandon its right to use peaceful nuclear technology, then I should say that we will never abandon our right."

The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has been probing Iran's nuclear program for nearly two years, declined comment. While the IAEA has reported numerous instances where Tehran concealed potentially arms-related activities, it has found no clear proof of a weapons program.

"We all think the American assessment is probably right because there is no other good explanation for the Iranian activities," a senior international diplomat involved in the investigation of Iran told the New York Times this week.

"But we still don't have the smoking gun," he said, adding that after Iraq "we need smoking guns more than ever."

Diplomats and analysts say that while Washington was clearly wrong that Saddam Hussein had caches of WMD, U.S. and Israeli claims that Iran is covering up suspicious nuclear activities have been repeatedly confirmed by the IAEA inspectors' findings.

(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Tehran, Arshad Mohammed in Washington and Paul Taylor in Brussels)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5690159

Israel's Plans For Iran Strikes

July 16, 2004
Jane's
Intelligence Digest

Amid growing concern over Iran's alleged duplicity in declaring all its nuclear activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Israel - the country that regards itself as most at risk from a nuclear-capable Iran - may be poised to revive contingency plans to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.

It is hardly surprising that Israel's national security establishment has concluded that Israel would be at risk from a nuclear-capable Iran. However, if a pre-emptive attack is to be launched Israel may have to go it alone. Any joint US-Israeli precision-guided missile strike against Iran's nuclear facilities - Bushehr, Natanz or Arak - is unlikely to prove an attractive option for the US administration while it remains mired in Iraq - which shares a 1,458km-long border with Iran.

If the USA was to participate in such an operation, Washington's allies would undoubtedly denounce what would be seen as yet another example of dangerous US unilateralism. However, the real concern is that a chain reaction of unintended consequences would further destabilise the world's most volatile region. The USA's involvement in a pre-emptive strike against Iran would also undermine the Bush administration's last vestiges of credibility as an 'honest broker' in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. An Israeli strike could effectively end hopes of reaching any kind of peace deal. The US administration also faces the dilemma of insisting that Iran has no right to develop nuclear weapons while Israel is believed to have several hundred in its arsenal.

The controversial role of intelligence is likely to prove significant. The US Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) would have to produce incontrovertible evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons which, given the recent damning report by the US Senate on the CIA's collection and analysis of intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), is unlikely. This crisis of credibility would make a US decision to launch a pre-emptive strike difficult, if not impossible, to sell to US legislators or to the wider world.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid040716_1_n.shtml

Free Iranian Student Protesters

July 16, 2004
VOA News
Editorial

The following is an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government:

Two human rights groups, Freedom House and Human Rights Watch, have called for the immediate release of students and others still imprisoned by the Iranian government five years after a series of pro-democracy protests.

On July 8th, 1999, the Iranian government closed a reformist newspaper, triggering a peaceful student demonstration at Tehran University. Police and plainclothes security forces raided a dormitory, beat students, and trapped many in their rooms. The protest then spread beyond the university, lasting a week. More than twenty-five thousand people throughout Iran participated in what became the largest political demonstration since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Exiled Iranian human rights activist Ladan Boroumand says the protests called the world’s attention to the Iranian people’s desire to be free from the rule of autocratic fundamentalist clerics:

“With the breakout of the demonstrations, the world could witness that there is a massive civil society that is totally discontent[ed] with this regime and is aspiring to a more democratic and secular regime. It started an important political debate about the ability of this regime to reform [and] about the importance of constitutional law in the making of a democratic regime that was totally absent before.”

In the weeks following the protests, thousands of Iranian students were arrested, taken away by the busload, and held in detention centers and prisons. Several students were sentenced to death, but the sentences were later commuted to long prison terms. While the Iranian government has released many of those initially detained, an unknown number remain imprisoned. Reportedly, many have been brutally tortured, barred from seeing their attorneys, and forced to provide confessions to Iran’s state-controlled media. Many have suffered permanent physical and psychological injuries while in detention.

Sarah Leah Whitson is executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. She says, “Five years after the Tehran University protests, it’s time for the Iranian government to release the peaceful protestors. The government also needs to hold plainclothes militia accountable for the attacks on students that year.”

The U.S. agrees. The students whose only crime was to protest peacefully for freedom should be released from Iran’s prisons.

http://www.voanews.com/Editorials/article.cfm?objectID=1A83FE98-06C8-4B7D-A193DCE8F99F1265&title=7%2F16%2F04%20%2D%20FREE%20IRANIAN%20STUDENT%20PROTESTERS

Al Qaeda and the Iranian Connection

July 16, 2004
The Rediff Special
Hamid Mir

A young man with a short beard stopped me from entering the shrine of Hazrat Imam Hussein. "You have a video camera," he said. "You need permission to shoot inside."

Who is authorised to grant permission, I asked. The young man ignored the question and said that if I wanted to go in, I would have to leave my camera at the reception.

I explained that as a journalist I could not operate without a camera. But that only infuriated him and he began shouting, "Go away! Go away!"

I was secretly terrified, but informed him politely that I was from Pakistan, that I had visited Iran and Afghanistan recently for my work, and that I could not go inside without my camera.

He calmed down a little and asked for identification. I presented all my documents. He went through them for more than five minutes, then looked up and asked, "Are you the same Hamid Mir who appears on Al Jazeera to tell the world what's going on in Afghanistan?" I said yes, I was indeed the same Hamid Mir. He then instructed another young man to guide me to a hotel behind the revered shrine in Karbala.

When I entered the hotel, two men searched me. It took me only a few moments to realise that this was no hotel, but a secret office of Hizbullah, a Shi'ite organisation that is resisting the coalition troops in Iraq.

I was produced before Abu Musa, local commander of the Hizbullah fighters. He was sitting on a revolving chair behind a big office table. A nicely framed picture of the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was hanging behind him.

Abu Musa questioned me about the objectives of my visit. He was particularly concerned about a special card issued to me by the Jordanian ministry of information. "They issue this card to those who are very close to them," he told me. I told him that I got the card simply because I was coming from Pakistan through Jordan, and that I was in Iraq to just report on the current situation and that I was not 'embedded' with the coalition troops.

Finally, Abu Musa was satisfied and gave me permission to enter the shrine with a camera. He also delivered a ten-minute lecture on the need for a Shia-Sunni alliance against the Americans. "Hizbullah-Al Qaeda brother brother," he proclaimed. He placed a green and white band on my head with the famous Hizbullah slogan 'Ya Allah, Ya Hussein.'

So I was entering the shrine of Hazrat Imam Hussein, grandson of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, with an impression that Shia guerrillas trained and financed by Iran control this place. Hizbullah boys escorted me inside the shrine, and when I connected my videophone with my office in Dubai to report live from Karbala, they forced me to speak on camera with their white and green band on my head.

I visited Iraq twice after the fall of Saddam Hussein and in April this year I was sure that pro-Iran Shia militants and Al Qaeda fighters were collaborating against the US in Iraq.

Al Qaeda is using Iraq as a new base for organising attacks against the US and its allies after September 11. US Secretary of State Colin Powell had repeatedly claimed in the UN Security Council that Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction, but one year after the invasion of Iraq it was disclosed that actually it was the Iranians who were making WMDs, including nuclear bombs and missiles, since the last 18 years, not Saddam Hussein.

The Americans have now started Saddam Hussein's trial, but, surprisingly, allegations about the possession of WMDs are missing from the charge sheet. Bush and Powell were embarrassed internationally because the Central Intelligence Agency was concentrating on Iraq instead of Iran.

Interestingly, the CIA was getting disinformation about Hussein's WMDs from Iranian intelligence through a double agent, Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. Chalabi was an indirect contact of Iran with the US. The Iranians used the US indirectly against their old enemy Saddam Hussein and now they are using Al Qaeda against the US in Iraq. They are playing a classical double game, not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan.

THREE years ago Ahmed Shah Masood, chief of the Northern Alliance, was working both for Iran and the US in Afghanistan. He was killed by Al Qaeda two days before September 11.

After Masood's death, Mohammad Qasim Fahim and Dr Abdullah Abdullah were the two main contacts of the US in the Northern Alliance. They were receiving open support from the US and covert support from Iran.

When the Taliban and Al Qaeda vacated Kabul in November 2001 and the Northern Alliance took control of the big cites like Kabul and Kandahar, the Iranians tried their best to instal the Persian-speaking Tajik leader Burhanuddin Rabbani as the new interim president of Afghanistan.

But the US preferred Pashtun loyalist Hamid Karzai. After the fall of the Taliban, the Iranians were supporting Fahim and Dr Abdullah in Kabul, Karim Khalili in Bamiyan, and Ismail Khan in Herat. They also gave refuge to hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters who fled Afghanistan.

Very few people know that Al Qaeda was actually in contact with the Iranians even before September 11. It was March 1997 that I first interviewed Osama bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan for Daily Pakistan. In that interview bin Laden proposed an alliance between the Taliban and Iran because of their anti-US stance.

That proposal was a surprise to me because the Taliban were against Iran at the time and that was the main reason for the US State Department's overt and Pakistan's covert support to them.

After the interview I talked to some other Al Qaeda operatives present in the hideout. One of them told me, "We want a broad-based alliance against the US and that's why we are in touch with the Iranians since many years."

Further investigation revealed that the main contact of Al Qaeda with Iran was Dr Ayman Al-Zawahiri. He and his comrades in the Jamaat Islamia had organised the assassination of Egypt's President Anwar Sadat in 1981 with the help of Iranian intelligence.

When Osama bin Laden moved to Sudan in 1994, al-Zawahiri re-established his old contacts with Iranian intelligence. Many Iranian officials and leaders of Hizbullah met the Al Qaeda leadership in Khartoum. Although the Hizbullah is a Shia outfit and Al Qaeda is a Sunni group, they decided to unite against the United States.

In coming years, Al Qaeda adopted Hizbullah's methods against US targets. Hizbullah organised the suicide bombing at the US embassy in Beirut with trucks (April 18, 1983), which killed 61 people. Al Qaeda repeated the same kind of suicide bombing at the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, which killed more than 200 people.

It is also worth mentioning that Osama bin Laden came back to Afghanistan in May 1996. He landed in a special plane with some of his close comrades at Jalalabad airport and was received by Maulvi Younus Khalis, Haji Deen Muhammad, and some others. Another plane of the Ariana Air Lines also landed at Jalalabad airport the next day with his family and big cargo. Afghanistan's official airline was helping bin Laden on Burhanuddin Rabbani's orders. He was the prime minister in Kabul when bin Laden was allowed to enter Afghanistan as a special guest.

THE TALIBAN only controlled some provinces in southern Afghanistan in those days. Pakistan was supporting the Taliban because Rabbani was close to Iran and India; the Pakistani embassy in Kabul was attacked by a mob that was guided by Northern Alliance commanders.

When the Taliban invaded Jalalabad and Kabul in September 1996, bin Laden switched sides and assured the Taliban of his cooperation. American and Pakistani intelligence agencies were aware of bin Laden's presence in Jalalabad, but they never objected because they were hoping that the experienced Arab fighters of Al Qaeda would help the Taliban push the Northern Alliance into Iran.

Those were the days when bin Laden tried his best to bridge the gap between the Taliban and Iran, but the Taliban refused to heed his proposal. The Taliban depended on Pakistani help and the Pakistani establishment was helping them because their opponent, the Northern Alliance, was close to Iran. Then Pakistani interior minister Major General Naseerullah Khan Babar was responsible for providing logistics and monetary support to the Taliban. He admits that 'we were supporting the Taliban to save Afghanistan from Iranian interference because the Iranians were playing a double game with us. They were claiming that we are your Muslim brothers, but actually they were encouraging people who were involved in anti-Pakistan activities inside Afghanistan.'

When the Taliban refused to cooperate with Iran, Osama bin Laden decided to help them quietly because Dr al-Zawahiri was not with him. He had been detained in Dagestan by the Russian authorities. The Russians were unaware of his real identity because he had travelled to the area on a fake Sudanese passport. Zawahiri was Al Qaeda's main link with Iran, and the link was missing.

Monday: Iran's hand in the Afghan mess

Hamid Mir, the well-known Pakistani journalist and contributor to rediff.com, has interviewed Osama bin Laden, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, and General Richard B Myers, former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. He travelled through Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran recently. He currently works for Geo TV and is writing a biography of bin Laden.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/16spec1.htm

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.