Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iranian Alert -- August 4, 2004 [EST]-- IRAN LIVE THREAD -- "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"
The Iranian Student Movement Up To The Minute Reports ^ | 8.4.2004 | DoctorZin

Posted on 08/03/2004 9:00:41 PM PDT by DoctorZIn

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.

DoctorZin


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alsadr; armyofmahdi; ayatollah; cleric; humanrights; iaea; insurgency; iran; iranianalert; iranquake; iraq; islamicrepublic; jayshalmahdi; journalist; kazemi; khamenei; khatami; khatemi; moqtadaalsadr; mullahs; persecution; persia; persian; politicalprisoners; poop; protests; rafsanjani; revolutionaryguard; rumsfeld; satellitetelephones; shiite; southasia; southwestasia; studentmovement; studentprotest; terrorism; terrorists; wot
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

1 posted on 08/03/2004 9:00:45 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

2 posted on 08/03/2004 9:03:03 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

U.S. Vows Tough Stance On Tehran, But Will Europe Follow?

August 03, 2004
Radio Free Europe
RFE/RL

Prague -- In perhaps the strongest signal yet of Washington's emerging policy on Iran, Bush administration officials say Tehran must be "confronted" and "isolated" over its nuclear activities -- and not "engaged."

Bush and White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice made it clear on 2 August that Washington intends to intensify international pressure on Tehran for failing to cooperate fully with the IAEA -- the nuclear watchdog agency of the United Nations.

But whether European nations engaged in negotiations with Iran are prepared to go along with that hard line remains unclear, even after Tehran announced this week it would not honor a pledge it made with them to suspend some nuclear-related activities.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Bush said the United States and the European Union's "big three" members are working together to ensure there is, quote, "full disclosure, full transparency of [Iran's] nuclear weapons programs."

"We are paying very close attention to Iran, and we have [been paying attention] ever since I've been in office here," Bush said. "We are working with our friends to keep the pressure on the mullahs to listen to the demands of the free world."

Later, in an interview on Fox television network, Rice intensified the U.S. rhetoric, saying the regime in Iran "has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not 'engaged.'"

She added that Washington is working with the Europeans on what she called "a very tough set of resolutions" demanding Iranian compliance on the nuclear issue.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently warned Iran that its case is likely to be referred to the UN Security Council for failing to meet IAEA commitments. A Security Council resolution could lead to sanctions on Iran.

But asked whether France would go along with U.S. plans to increase pressure on Iran, Rice said Washington will "just have to keep working with the French and the British and the Germans to make certain" that they follow the American position.

Whether they will is far from clear.

Analyst Steven Everts of London's European Center for Reform says there is growing frustration in Europe over Iran's failure to live up to vows that it has made on its nuclear activities. But Everts says Europe is unlikely to accept purely negative sanctions against Iran, noting that decades of similar sanctions have sparked n-o change in countries like Cuba.

"The only thing the Americans are putting on the table are further pressure, isolation, and sanctions -- and possibly more down the road," Everts said. "Europeans say Iran's a complex place; different people want different things. It should be possible to construct some form of positive incentives as well, whereby you say to the Iranians: 'If you accept denuclearization and the verification of denuclearization, here's what you can get in return, also from the United States.'"

A study released in July by the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York policy institute, also urged the United States to offer more incentives and fewer punishments as it seeks to effect change in Iran.

But the tough talk from Washington on 2 August appeared to reject the recommendations of that study, which also called for more engagement with Iran.

The Bush administration's warnings came after Iran announced that it had resumed building nuclear centrifuges, which the United States says are intended to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons.

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told a news conference in Tehran on 31 July that Iran would respect a pledge -- made in October to Britain, France, and Germany -- to suspend all uranium-enrichment-related activities.

But he added that a separate deal on halting centrifuge-building would not be respected: "[Based on our agreements in October], we have accepted [suspending] uranium enrichment and we are continuing that uranium-enrichment suspension based on our definition -- meaning that we have not restarted enrichment. But we are not committed to our agreement in Brussels in February on halting building centrifuge parts, because the three big European countries have failed to meet their commitments toward us. We said we could resume making centrifuges. As previously announced, we have started building centrifuge parts at our factory after we took the decision."

Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which signatory countries vow to refrain from acquiring atomic weapons and can be punished by Security Council action for violations.

The oil-rich Persian Gulf state denies any interest in nuclear weapons, saying it needs enriched uranium for nuclear power stations to meet increasing domestic demand for electricity.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/08/e68f85f7-60f4-45eb-8457-6dbf762bb5d8.html


3 posted on 08/03/2004 9:03:58 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Dropping Low Profile, Israel Goes on Offensive Against Iranian Nukes

August 03, 2004
JTA
Leslie Susser

JERUSALEM -- After months of keeping a low profile on Iran’s nuclear program, Israel has launched an intensive diplomatic campaign to convince the international community to pressure Teheran to drop its efforts to produce a nuclear bomb.

Israeli officials say the campaign, involving the United States, the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency, is focusing on a September meeting of the IAEA board of governors in Vienna. That body has the power to refer the “Iranian nuclear dossier” to the U.N. Security Council, where international sanctions could be imposed.

The Israeli diplomatic move has been accompanied by a veiled threat of attack on Iranian nuclear facilities if the international community fails to stop Teheran’s nuclear weapons drive. But the Iranians, undeterred, are continuing to pursue an ambivalent and potentially military nuclear program.

Like Israel, the United States is seeking stiffer international action. The E.U. position has been less decisive, however, and it is not clear whether the union will back a U.S. demand for sanctions. Europe’s position could be crucial. Israel stopped its public criticism of Teheran after Iran and Libya intimated a readiness late last year to cooperate with the international community in dismantling their nuclear weapons programs.

At the time, Israeli experts said Libya was serious, but they didn’t trust Iran. Still, given the new situation and not wanting to draw attention to its own alleged nuclear capabilities, Israel decided to adopt a low profile on Iran, and let the United States and Europe take the lead in pressuring Teheran to drop its nuclear weapons drive.

Now Israel feels the international community has not been firm enough, and has allowed Iran to get away with a pretense of cooperation while clandestinely furthering its nuclear ambitions.

In late June, Israeli leaders decided to change tack. As a first step, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom initiated a July 2 meeting in Washington on the Iranian issue with the U.S. national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice.

Afterward, Shalom declared that the international community “cannot allow the Iranians to move forward in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons.”

Less than a week later, the IAEA’s director general, Mohammed El-Baradei, came to Israel, where all his interlocutors, including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, stressed the danger to world peace of nuclear weapons in Iranian hands.

On July 22, when the E.U.’s foreign policy boss, Javier Solana, visited Israel, his hosts made sure his itinerary included a meeting with Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who provided Israeli intelligence material purporting to show Iran’s nuclear duplicity.

The day before, the head of Israeli military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aharon (Farkash) Ze’evi, briefed the Cabinet, delivering an assessment — immediately made public — that unless Iran was stopped, it would go nuclear by 2007 or 2008.

Hawkish legislators Ephraim Sneh of the Labor Party and Ehud Yatom of Likud took their cue.

“If the international community continues to show ineffectiveness, Israel will have to consider its next steps — and fast,” Sneh said.

Yatom was more explicit.

“Israel,” he said, “must destroy the Iranian nuclear facility just as we did the Iraqi reactor in 1981.”

Earlier there had been what appeared to be a calculated leak to the press. On July 18, the London-based Sunday Times reported that the Israeli Air Force had completed military preparations for a pre-emptive strike at Iran’s Bushehr nuclear facility and would attack if Russia supplied Iran with fuel rods for enriching uranium.

An Israeli defense source, who confirmed that military rehearsals had taken place, was quoted as telling the paper, “Israel will on no account permit the Iranian reactors — especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help — to go critical.”

By breaking its silence on Iran, Israel was indicating that it does not take the Iranian threat lightly — and neither should the West. Beside the obvious warning to Iran, the subtext of the Israeli message seemed to be directed at the international community: Act to stop Iran going nuclear or Israel may feel it must take preemptive military action, with all the potentially destabilizing consequences.

Then, on July 29, Israel conducted a successful test off the California coast of its Arrow 2 anti-missile system. Some observers saw the test as yet another message to Iran: In a conflict situation Israel would have the overwhelming strategic advantage of being able to intercept and destroy incoming missiles, another reason for Iran to reconsider its nuclear program.

The Iranians, however, are showing no signs of backing down. On July 25, Seyed Masood Jazayeri, commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, warned that if Israel attacks, “it will be wiped off the face of the earth.”

A week later, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi confirmed that Iran had resumed building centrifuges that can produce weapons-grade uranium. His statement followed a meeting in Paris in which Britain, France and Germany failed to persuade Iran to stop making the centrifuges and allow spot inspections of its nuclear facilities as promised.

The Europeans had offered to close the “Iranian nuclear dossier” if Iran cooperated with spot inspections and stopped all production of weapons-grade uranium. But Iran has been delaying the inspections, and — though it repeatedly has insisted that it was not making weapons-grade uranium — it acknowledged that it was continuing to make centrifuges that could be used for uranium enrichment. It also has said nothing will stop it from joining the world’s nuclear club.

Like Israel, the United States maintains that Iran is dissembling, pretending to run a civilian-use nuclear program while clandestinely conducting a full-scale nuclear weapons drive. With huge oil reserves, U.S. officials note, Iran hardly needs nuclear energy for civilian purposes.

Israeli officials say much will depend now on how the Europeans respond to the latest Iranian rebuff in Paris, and what line they take at the September IAEA board meeting. If they back the American position, the result could well be a U.N. Security Council debate on a joint resolution threatening Iran with sanctions.

That would be a new phase in the international community’s efforts to stop Iran from getting the bomb. And if that happens, Israel may feel that its new more aggressive campaign had something to do with it.

Leslie Susser is the diplomatic correspondent for the Jerusalem Report.

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=Israel+warns+about+Iranian+nukes&intcategoryid=1&SearchOptimize=Jewish+News


4 posted on 08/03/2004 9:04:47 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

5 posted on 08/03/2004 9:05:32 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=6882

Iran's only female mayor sweeps up small town

By Agence France Presse (AFP)

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

SAVEH, Iran: Mehri Roustaie Gherailou is unlike any other mayor in Iran - she's a woman.

The 41-year-old manager of the small city of Saveh, situated around 100 kilometers southwest of Tehran, is only the second woman to run a town in the 25-year-old history of the Islamic Republic, and at present the only female in such a job.

And she has no hesitation in pointing out her difficulties swimming against the tide in a male-dominated society.

"Men cannot give up power to women that easily," she says in her office in Saveh, once famed for its pomegranates but now a busy industrial center and trading crossroads between six provinces.

Women, she said, are generally seen as less tolerant of laziness and corruption, something that makes them "very hard to accept."

When the city council appointed her mayor in May - a political upset in the town - Gherailou said she started her job of cleaning up the drab town of 140,000 people by sweeping a broom through her new office.

"On my first day in the office, I made the necessary changes in the municipality that none of the previous mayors had done," said Gherailou, a calm but resolute woman who gives the impression of being well on top of her job.

"I immediately replaced two deputies and some directors who were no longer trusted by people. I also started to deal with cases that have been stuck in the bureaucracy for up to five years," she said.

She said the council backed her simply because she dared to apply for the job, which she admitted was a "teenage dream" of hers. In winning the post, she beat a male opponent backed by the town's deputy to the national parliament.

But the mayor has her work cut out, even if she has been earning points for heading with her team out onto Saveh's streets to meet and talk more with constituents.

The town has in recent years been flooded with some 40,000 migrant workers looking for work at its industrial, mining and agricultural facilities. There is an unmanaged labor structure, sloppy construction and overstretched public services.

The mayor also has a few ambitious projects up her sleeve: the "Ladies' Garden," a women-only cultural and sports complex which is the fourth of its kind nationwide; low-cost housing; a town computer center and new cultural offices.

For whatever reasons, she admits some people in the small city of Saveh are upset.

"Some people have tried to set fire to one of the projects under construction. I get discouraging messages from people hoping that, in the end, I will give up," she explains.

A family woman who was the eldest of eight children, she says her father always asked her opinion. She ended up completing her education with a masters degree in management - one of the thousands of women who currently outnumber and outperform their male counterparts at universities in the Islamic Republic.

And now her husband, an agricultural engineer, gives his support to her political career, having told her "you can!" when she first showed an interest in becoming mayor.

Gherailou, who is clad in the black chador, shies away from defining herself as a feminist. Instead, she prefers to point out what she does not like: male-chauvinism.

And women, she says, could also do much more to advance their position in society.

"I do not mind about what gender my staff are. I used to be a teacher, a member of the town's Women's Committee, an adviser to the governor, a member of the city council since its establishment in 1999. So I believe women are as guilty as men for not getting decent positions in society."


6 posted on 08/03/2004 9:12:06 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iranian strategist: US elections' results not to effect Iran-US relations
Head of Middle East Strategic Studies Center (MESSC) Dr. Mahmoud Sari'olqalam said in Tehran on Monday, "The victory of the current Republican White House team, or the democrats, led by John H. Kerry, will leave no effect in the quality of Iran-US relations," IRNA reported.

Speaking to the MESSC scientific staff, Dr. Sari'olqalam added, "The contents, and involved parameters in Iran-US relations would remain unchanged following the probable victory of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, compared to George Bush Jr.'s era."

Professor of Martyr Beheshti University's Faculty of Laws and Political Studies, referring to the macro-policies of both major US political parties, added, "The Republicans' main economic objective is promoting open market economy at global level, while the Democrats major economic ideal is boosting social justice, and that is the axis of their presidential campaign currently, but they are both quite concerned about Iran case, and our nuclear plans."

He made the conclusion, "Therefore, the reaction of either the Republicans, or the Democrats towards Iran and its nuclear plans depend directly on the outcome of the two upcoming IAEA Board of Governors' meetings on Iran."

Referring to the former US National Security Advisor during former US president Jimmy Carter's tenure, Zibignew Brezebsky`s recent remarks, who has said, "Iran is the most stable country in the Middle East region currently," he said, "New baseless US accusations against Iran, on passage of some of the September 11th terrorist attacks' agents through Iran's soil, as well as other baseless US propagation against Iran, are all a part of Republicans' presidential campaign."

Sari'olqalam emphasized, "Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon`s meeting with the Democrats' candidate, too, can be evaluated as lost hopes of the Republicans for gaining the American Jews' votes for President George Walker Bush's reelection."

He concluded, "Traditionally, the US presidents who are reelected, show less support for Israel and its demands in the Middle East region."

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup gave Kerry a 50 to 47 percent lead over Bush among registered voters.

Kerry led 49 to 45 percent among registered voters last month.

"First of all, it doesn't mean anything, because you don`t know who the likely voters are," Kerry told CNN. "We're registering people. There are countless numbers of new people coming into the system."

In an effort to snatch new supporters, Kerry and his vice presidential running mate, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, are on a two-week tour of about 20 key states that could tilt Republican or Democrat in the election.

The pair is making three to four campaign stops a day in its boat, bus and train ride across the country.

http://www.payvand.com/news/04/aug/1028.html


7 posted on 08/03/2004 9:13:16 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran unbending on nuclear hard line
By Safa Haeri

PARIS - Continuing its policy of confrontation, the Islamic Republic of Iran confirmed on the weekend that it had resumed building nuclear centrifuges, but at the same time said it was still holding back on enriching uranium, although this assurance is open to serious doubt.

"We still continue suspension on uranium enrichment, meaning that we have not resumed enrichment," Foreign Affairs Minister Kamal Kharrazzi said at the end of talks with his counterpart from neighboring Azerbaijan, adding, however, that Tehran was not committed to any agreement with three European powers - the United Kingdom, France and Germany - on not building centrifuges.

An Iranian government spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, said that since the Europeans did not fulfill promises to close Iran's nuclear dossier at the energy agency's June meeting, Iran felt no obligation to abide by an agreement that demanded Iran suspend manufacturing and assembling parts used in nuclear activities.

Officials from the European Union's "big three" met with an Iranian delegation in Paris last Thursday and Friday, and emphasized their wish to see a halt to Iran's work on the nuclear fuel cycle.

Washington strongly suspects Iran is using a civilian nuclear program as a cover for a secret nuclear weapons project. It has been lobbying for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, to refer Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

According to contacts who spoke to Asia Times Online, the Iranians resumed enriching uranium on June 19, contrary to the official line that they had suspended this activity.

The weekend talks in Paris were to prepare the ground for a September meeting of the board of governors of the IAEA, which is expected to discuss Iran's program.

Neither the Iranians nor the Europeans would comment in detail on the latest talks, although some sources described them as "tense, but frank". A spokesman for the British and German foreign affairs ministries expressed "displeasure" at Iran's attitude, saying that they "do not understand the Iranian moves".

However, the hardline evening daily Keyhan, one of the mouthpieces of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, said on Saturday in Paris that the European trio demanded that Iran should agree to "never get out of the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty]" and inform the UK, France and Germany "systematically and in an orderly manner" about its nuclear activities.

"According to a four-page document, Iran would reiterate Britain, France and Germany's right of concern over any deviation by Iran from its peaceful atomic activities to military purposes," the paper said under the title, "Does majlis [parliament] know?"

Observers told The Asia Times Online that considering the position of Hoseyn Shariatmadari, the editor of the newspaper, a high-ranking intelligence officer specializing in interrogating political and intellectual dissidents and an advisor to Khamenei, who has the final word on all major issues, "he has easy access to confidential and classified documents".

Iran was also required to cooperate with the UK, France and Germany for detente in the Middle East on the one hand and fighting terrorism in the region on the other, and also coordinate the control of all its imports and exports with the three above-mentioned powers, Keyhan reported.

"What the Europeans are asking Iran is tantamount to an unconditional surrender, worse than any of the agreements the Western colonial powers imposed on Iran under the dark eras of the Qajar and Pahlavi dynasties," Keyhan added, deliberately twisting history by not mentioning that the agreements it mentioned were imposed by czarist Russia on the Qajar kings.

The United States, Israel and some European governments claim that the final aim of the ruling Iranian ayatollahs is to use civilian nuclear projects for producing the atomic bomb, an allegation that Tehran rejects forcefully, insisting that the projects are mainly for producing much-needed electricity.

But they do not explain that if this is the case, why then not use natural gas to build electrical power stations, as Iran has the largest reserves after Russia and it is much cheaper, cleaner and safer than atomic processes, particularly one based on the aging and less reliable Russian technology that Iran uses?

"We were holding these [Paris] talks to reach further understanding and create more confidence in the direction that we are not seeking nuclear weapons," Kharrazzi said. "At the same time, we will insist on our legitimate rights," he added, referring to building nuclear-powered electrical plants.

"Each side was holding firm on its earlier and stated positions. It was deceiving, but no one was expecting any real breakthrough," the source told Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity.

Diplomats in Vienna revealed last week that Iran had broken seals inspectors the IAEA had placed on installations at the huge Natanz site, 350 kilometers south of Tehran, designed to enrich uranium hexafluoride, which, when processed in centrifuges, can be enriched to low levels for power generation or high levels for nuclear weapons.

Experts say that while one needed 2,500 centrifuges to produce military-grade uranium, Natanz could accommodate 5,000 units.

"The Iranians might be telling the truth that they are not making the atomic bomb, but the fact is that their civilian programs are so sophisticated that very quickly, maybe in less than six months, they could also be used for military purposes," another source told Asia Times Online on condition not to be named for security reasons.

Talking to reporters during his recent tour of the Middle East, US Secretary of State Collin Powell made it clear that US patience on the issue was running out, saying "it is more and more likely" that the matter will have to be referred to the Security Council.

"Now Iran has made it clear that they do not intend to abide by all of those commitments, my three foreign-minister colleagues [in Europe] are concerned about this and they are working on the problem, and I stay in close touch with them. But I have made it clear to them that we believe they must insist on their commitments being met. And they have to factor it into any other actions the European Union might be thinking of taking, either in the economic sphere, the political sphere or elsewhere. It is a very troubling development," Powell said.

Coupled with a flurry of recent statements by lawmakers from the conservatives-controlled majlis, as well as articles in hardline newspapers, Kharrazzi's ambiguous announcement reflects Iran's growing displeasure with Europe's "Big Three".

"The Americans and their European allies are preparing the ground for the silent overthrow of the Islamic Republic on the pretext of the Iranian nuclear file, using it as a pressure instrument," warned Keyhan.

While threatening that they would not ratify the Additional Protocol to the NPT, hardline members of the majlis also press the government constantly to defy both the IAEA and the Europeans, expel UN inspectors and resume uranium enrichment.

"The protocol - that allows nuclear inspectors to visit all Iranian nuclear sites, installations and projects at any time and without restrictions - had been imposed on Iran by the evil chain made of the IAEA, the Americans, Europeans and Zionist lobbies, despite all international laws and regulations, including the IAEA's rules," Keyhan wrote, adding that the final objective of Europe's "Big Three" was "nothing less than destabilizing the Islamic Republic".

Last week, Mohamoud Mohammadi, deputy chairman of the majlis' Foreign Policy and National Security Commission, warned that the ratification of the Additional Protocol was "conditional to the IAEA approving our use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes".

"The fear is that the Additional Protocol could be used as a tool for political pressure. If they treat our dossier in a purely technical fashion, then we will cooperate," he said, adding, "The majority of my colleagues in the parliament think this way."

And on Monday, the official IRNA news agency published an interview with Mohammad Mousavian, head of foreign policy of Iran's Supreme Council on National Security, warning that "either Europe agrees to close Iran's file at the IAEA and transfer nuclear technology to Iran - in response Iran will ratify the Additional Protocol - or we cancel all previous agreements." He added that in the present circumstances, if the matter of signing the protocols were raised in majlis (controlled by the conservatives), it would be thrown out.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FH03Ak03.html


8 posted on 08/03/2004 9:14:16 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

US reportedly sends letter to Khatami; spokesman denies it
(DPA)

4 August 2004

TEHERAN - The United States has sent a letter to Iranian President Mohammed Khatami calling for better cooperation, according to media reports in Iran, but a foreign ministry spokesman said the reports were wrong.


Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reportedly gave the letter to Khatami in a secret meeting on July 29 in Teheran, the press reports said.

According to reports published in several Iranian dailies, the US called on Khatami in the “very important” letter to end the differences and start a new phase of cooperation. The reports did not mention the letter’s signatory.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Assefi said the reports were incorrect, according to news service Kar.

The Iranian press further quoted the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Hassan Rowhani, as saying that one day relations with the US would be resumed.

“We should be realistic in this regard as with the involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has de facto turned into one of our neighbours,” said the conservative cleric, referring to Iran’s long borders with the two states.

Rowhani further said the US has realised that settling the crisis in the region without Iranian assistance would be “quite impossible”.

“The end of the current presidential term (of George W. Bush) would be a suitable opportunity for new policies,” said Rowhani, who is widely regarded as one of the favourites to succeed Khatami in next year’s presidential elections,

Government spokesman Abdullah Ramezanzadeh however said last Monday that it would make no difference to Iran whether Bush or his Democratic challenger John Kerry wins the election in November.

Iran and the US have no diplomatic ties for almost a quarter of a century and all efforts to put an end to the hostilities have so far failed.

Bush has branded Teheran as part of the “axis of evil” and Washington accuses the Islamic state of not only supporting the terrorist network Al Qaeda but also trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

While denying the charges, Iran calls the US the “Great Satan” and main cause for all tensions in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf due to its unlimited support for Israel.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2004/August/middleeast_August89.xml&section=middleeast&col=


9 posted on 08/03/2004 9:19:16 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran: U.S. Vows Tough Stance On Tehran, But Will Europe Follow?

By Jeffrey Donovan

The Bush administration is warning that Iran will come under increasing pressure and be internationally isolated if it refuses to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on its nuclear program. U.S. President George W. Bush says he hopes to get the support of France, Britain, and Germany for a tough stance on Iran. But analysts say the European trio, wary of confrontation, might not be prepared to end their bid to engage Iran on programs Washington says are meant to build nuclear weapons.

Prague, 3 August 2004 (RFE/RL) -- In perhaps the strongest signal yet of Washington's emerging policy on Iran, Bush administration officials say Tehran must be "confronted" and "isolated" over its nuclear activities -- and not "engaged."

Bush and White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice made it clear on 2 August that Washington intends to intensify international pressure on Tehran for failing to cooperate fully with the IAEA -- the nuclear watchdog agency of the United Nations.

But whether European nations engaged in negotiations with Iran are prepared to go along with that hard line remains unclear, even after Tehran announced this week it would not honor a pledge it made with them to suspend some nuclear-related activities."The only thing the Americans are putting on the table are further pressure, isolation, and sanctions." -- Steven Everts, London's European Center for Reform

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Bush said the United States and the European Union's "big three" members are working together to ensure there is, quote, "full disclosure, full transparency of [Iran's] nuclear weapons programs."

"We are paying very close attention to Iran, and we have [been paying attention] ever since I've been in office here," Bush said. "We are working with our friends to keep the pressure on the mullahs to listen to the demands of the free world."

Later, in an interview on Fox television network, Rice intensified the U.S. rhetoric, saying the regime in Iran "has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not 'engaged.'"

She added that Washington is working with the Europeans on what she called "a very tough set of resolutions" demanding Iranian compliance on the nuclear issue.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently warned Iran that its case is likely to be referred to the UN Security Council for failing to meet IAEA commitments. A Security Council resolution could lead to sanctions on Iran.

But asked whether France would go along with U.S. plans to increase pressure on Iran, Rice said Washington will "just have to keep working with the French and the British and the Germans to make certain" that they follow the American position.

Whether they will is far from clear.

Analyst Steven Everts of London's European Center for Reform says there is growing frustration in Europe over Iran's failure to live up to vows that it has made on its nuclear activities. But Everts says Europe is unlikely to accept purely negative sanctions against Iran, noting that decades of similar sanctions have sparked n-o change in countries like Cuba.

"The only thing the Americans are putting on the table are further pressure, isolation, and sanctions -- and possibly more down the road," Everts said. "Europeans say Iran's a complex place; different people want different things. It should be possible to construct some form of positive incentives as well, whereby you say to the Iranians: 'If you accept denuclearization and the verification of denuclearization, here's what you can get in return, also from the United States.'"

A study released in July by the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York policy institute, also urged the United States to offer more incentives and fewer punishments as it seeks to effect change in Iran.

But the tough talk from Washington on 2 August appeared to reject the recommendations of that study, which also called for more engagement with Iran.

The Bush administration's warnings came after Iran announced that it had resumed building nuclear centrifuges, which the United States says are intended to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons.

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told a news conference in Tehran on 31 July that Iran would respect a pledge -- made in October to Britain, France, and Germany -- to suspend all uranium-enrichment-related activities.

But he added that a separate deal on halting centrifuge-building would not be respected: "[Based on our agreements in October], we have accepted [suspending] uranium enrichment and we are continuing that uranium-enrichment suspension based on our definition -- meaning that we have not restarted enrichment. But we are not committed to our agreement in Brussels in February on halting building centrifuge parts, because the three big European countries have failed to meet their commitments toward us. We said we could resume making centrifuges. As previously announced, we have started building centrifuge parts at our factory after we took the decision."

Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which signatory countries vow to refrain from acquiring atomic weapons and can be punished by Security Council action for violations.

The oil-rich Persian Gulf state denies any interest in nuclear weapons, saying it needs enriched uranium for nuclear power stations to meet increasing domestic demand for electricity.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/08/e68f85f7-60f4-45eb-8457-6dbf762bb5d8.html


10 posted on 08/03/2004 9:23:39 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

NUCLEAR: Iran May Back Out of Nuclear Commitments, National Security Official Says

An official of the supreme national security council said Iran may consider backing out of its nuclear commitments if the IAEA board next September issues another resolution condemning the Islamic Republic for lack of cooperation . He said the conservative Majles may bulk at ratifying the additional NPT protocol, which the Islamic government signed last year.

Radio Farda Newsroom

August 2, 2004 - The resumption of uranium enrichment activity is not just America’s concern, but the European powers expressed the same worry in the closed-door talks with Iranian envoys last week in Paris, secretary of the supreme national security council’s foreign relations committee Hossein Mousavian said on Sunday, warning the regime's hard-liners that if Iran does not address the Europeans’ concern, it cannot count on Europe’s support in the upcoming meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors.
He warned Iran’s European negotiation partners that the conservative Majles may not ratify the additional protocol to the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows more stringent inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites. In addition, the Majles may force the government to end the voluntary and temporary suspension of uranium enrichment, he added.

“The IAEA board of governors and Europe must recognize Iran’s legitimate rights within the NPT framework without any precondition, discrimination and shortcoming or not expect cooperation from Iran,” Mousavian said, according to IRNA.

He said Iran was not concerned about its case being referred to the UN Security Council, since the country has endured 25 years of US economic sanctions. “The economic pressures (against Iran) over the past 25 years have turned out to be ineffective. "This measure will be the new trial of a failed experience which we are not worried about," he added, according to official news agency IRNA.

“Our problem is not the Security Council since it has no prerogative beyond the NPT, according to which the council has to ask Iran to cooperate and the Islamic Republic’s policy has been such from the beginning,” he said.

“I do not think the Americans and Israelis will ever dare to carry out an attack even of the smallest scale against Iran’s nuclear facilities,” he added.

“America’s position in the region requires it not to take such a risk, while Israel faces an internal crisis,” he said.


http://www.radiofarda.com/en_article/2004/8/b0d931b4-bc50-4d44-bc2a-04d7efea7899.html


11 posted on 08/03/2004 9:36:45 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

LABOR: Nurses Postpone Their Protest Rally

The nurses’ association postponed a protest rally planned for Wednesday after receiving assurances from the authorities that their demands for better pay and unified work rules would be met, an activist nurse tells Radio Farda.

Radio Farda Newsroom

August 2, 2004 - Head of the nurses’ association said a protest rally had been planned for Wednesday has been postponed, considering the promises nurses have received from the Islamic government authorities about raises and work rules improvements. Nurses had planned to demand for unification of work rules in hospitals operated by various government entities and different provinces.

“We had received permission for the rally, but considering the promises we received and after an internal opinion poll, it was decided to postpone the rally,” activist nurse Mojtaba Mousavi tells Radio Farda’s broadcaster Farin Asemi.

http://www.radiofarda.com/en_article/2004/8/93305d16-79f1-411f-95af-2bd77eab3698.html


12 posted on 08/03/2004 9:38:13 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Bump!


13 posted on 08/03/2004 9:40:10 PM PDT by windchime (Podesta about Bush: "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done." (TIME-1/22/01))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; nuconvert; F14 Pilot; Cyrus the Great; Persia; RunOnDiesel; McGavin999; ...


President Bush flexes his bicep with 1996 Olympic wrestling silver medalist Iranian-American Matt Ghaffari, before speaking to the Athletes of the International Children's Games and Cultural Festival at the Cleveland Browns Stadium in Cleveland, Ohio, Friday. President Bush, who campaigned in Missouri and Michigan on Friday, continues through Ohio and Pennsylvania on Saturday. AP Photo
14 posted on 08/03/2004 9:41:24 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

How funny, I saw that picture but never saw the caption that said the big guy was Iranian-American.


15 posted on 08/03/2004 10:26:24 PM PDT by McGavin999 (If Kerry can't deal with the "Republican Attack Machine" how is he going to deal with Al Qaeda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

BTTT

Thank you for the info


16 posted on 08/03/2004 10:45:16 PM PDT by Mo1 (Kerry & Edwards .... they will leave no Special Interest Group behind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Thanks for the pic!


17 posted on 08/03/2004 11:08:09 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: freedom44; a_Turk; GeraldP
I remember watching Ghaffari demolish the competition back in Atlanta. He was probably the high point of the Olympic Games that Summer.

I'm not sure, but I also think he won a few medals in Barcelona.

Along with the Greeks, Armenians and perhaps, the Turks and the Russians, some of the most accomplished wrestlers in the world are Persian.

I usually despise those stupid "human interest stories" the networks use as fillers for the down-time between Olympic events, but the story of how Ghaffari's family made it to U.S. shores was incredibly moving.

18 posted on 08/03/2004 11:31:23 PM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("You can abort 'em but don't deport 'em!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Scourge of Yazid
Along with the Greeks, Armenians and perhaps, the Turks and the Russians, some of the most accomplished wrestlers in the world are Persian.

The best Wrestlers and Weight lifters are also from Iran. I think we will win some GOLD medal in weight lifting and Wrestling.

19 posted on 08/03/2004 11:53:51 PM PDT by Khashayar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: The Scourge of Yazid; DoctorZIn; McGavin999; freedom44; nuconvert; sionnsar; AdmSmith; ...

Iran's Alireza Dabir stands on the podium wearing his gold medal after beating Ukraine's Yevgen Buslovych in the 58 kg freestlye wrestling final at the Sydney Olympics Sunday

Steven Lopez of the United States, center, celebrates his gold medal with runners up Joon-Sik Sin of Korea with silver, left, and Hadi Saeibonehkohal of Iran with bronze from the men's 68 kilogram taekwondo competition at the Sydney Olympic Games Thursday, September 28, 2000. (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)

USA's Cary Kolat is thrown on his head by defending world champion from Iran Mohammad Talaei in a qualifying freestyle wrestling match at the Sydney Olympic Games, Thursday, Sept. 28, 2000. Kolat may be the most star-crossed American wrestler ever. Even when he wins, he loses. Kolat, one of the best U.S. amateur wrestlers ever, won his first Olympic freestyle match Thursday, saw it protested, then lost the rematch to world champion Mohammad Talaei of Iran 5-4. (AP Photo/Laurent Rebours)

20 posted on 08/04/2004 12:03:53 AM PDT by Khashayar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Khashayar
Thanks for the pics.

I have no idea why, but most of the champion wrestlers/body builders seem to originate in countries that form an arc that can be traced from the Balkans/Mediterranean, sweeps over the Anatolian peninsula/Caucasus and eventually winds up in central Asia/Iran.

21 posted on 08/04/2004 12:28:30 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("You can abort 'em but don't deport 'em!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The Scourge of Yazid

I agree with you to some extent but WE have our own champions born here and we do not import any one from other countries to win a medal.

Qatar ( arabic country in the Persian Gulf ) imported many foreign players for their soccer, weight lifting and tennis teams to attend the Olympics.


22 posted on 08/04/2004 1:37:21 AM PDT by Khashayar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Khashayar; freedom44; DoctorZIn; Lijahsbubbe; Slings and Arrows; a_Turk; SJackson
Spokesman for Qatari Ministry of Sport:

That is a malicious lie! We do not import anything. Nothing. Never.

(Comment posted by guest worker brought over from Bangladesh.)

23 posted on 08/04/2004 1:42:07 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("You can abort 'em but don't deport 'em!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

Allawi still plans to visit Iran soon: spokesman

Xinhua, China
August 4th, 04

BAGHDAD, Aug. 3 (Xinhuanet) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi didnot cancel his visit to Iran, the Baghdad newspaper quoted hisspokesman as saying on Tuesday.

The Prime Minister intends to determine a date for his visit toIran in his coming tour, which includes a number of Islamic andArab countries, said Hirmis Sada, adding Allawi is keen ondeveloping positive relations between Iraq and Iran. Sada denied reports that Allawi had cancelled his Tehran tour,saying that such wrong news could harm the interests of Iraq andthe good relations between the two neighboring countries.

Media reports said earlier that the Iraqi Prime Ministercancelled his visit to Iran because of sharp differences betweenthe two countries, especially concerning the Iranian interferencein the Iraqi interior affairs.

Allawi did not deny some differences between the two sides, butthey would be settled diplomatically according to the interests ofboth and security of the region, Sada stressed.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-08/04/content_1706391.htm


24 posted on 08/04/2004 3:14:36 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Scourge of Yazid

LoL!

In Arabic countries like Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi, People from Philippines, Pakistan, India (NON ARABS) work hardly! Iranians invest in lots of businesses (cuz Iran is not safe for their own investments), Westerners are in charge of managements and handling. What ARABS do is to receive the benefits of this hardwork, investment and management. And in return these arabs are busy to export Radicalism, Terrorism and Hate.

What useful people these arabs are.


25 posted on 08/04/2004 3:30:26 AM PDT by Khashayar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: risk; freedom44; nuconvert; RaceBannon; sionnsar
Some Pictures of Alborz High School in Iran founded by an American (Dr. Jordan) in early 20th century...


26 posted on 08/04/2004 3:42:27 AM PDT by Khashayar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Khashayar; SJackson; freedom44; F14 Pilot; sheik yerbouty; Slings and Arrows; KangarooJacqui; ...
Yeh, pretty much.

Man, I wish I had an army of personal servants.

It would make the job of posting these comments that much easier.

Dictating words to someone who actually does the manual labor.

Sweeeet!

Wealthy Arab sheik:

I tell you bruda, it is da life! I have not move my ass a millimeter since the oil boycott when (How you say?) "Mr. Peanut" was your country's president.

27 posted on 08/04/2004 3:43:05 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid ("You can abort 'em but don't deport 'em!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; McGavin999; freedom44; nuconvert; sionnsar; AdmSmith; dixiechick2000; onyx; Pro-Bush; ...

Today in history, is the 100th anniversary of the Iranian Consitutitional Revolution in 1904.
Iranians were the first Asian nation that uprised against the dictatorship of the rulers. They protested againt the Qajari Kings and the rule of Radical Islam. And they successfully made the first Asian Parliament and make the king respect the Parliamentary system.

Interesting to know that an American Teacher died in clashes with Kings forces while helping Iranian constitutionalist forces in city of Tabriz. Iranians still pay tribute to his grave in that city and are thankful for his help.


28 posted on 08/04/2004 5:19:39 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

HISTORY OF IRAN

Iran's revolution in 1905

During the early 1900s the only way to save country from government corruption and foreign manipulation was to make a written code of laws. This sentiment caused the Constitutional Revolution. There had been a series of ongoing covert and overt activities against Naser o-Din Shah's despotic rule, for which many had lost their lives. The efforts of freedom fighers finally bore fruit during the reign of Moazaferedin Shah. Mozafaredin shah ascended to throne on June 1896. In the wake of the relentless efforts of freedom fighters, Mozafar o-Din Shah of Qajar dynasty was forced to issued the decree for the constitution and the creation of an elected parliament (the Majlis) in August 5, 1906. The royal power limited and a parliamentary system established.

On August 18, 1906, the first Legislative assembly (called as Supreme National Assembly), was formed in the Military Academy to make the preparations for the openning of the first Term of the National Consultative Assembly and drafting the election law thereof. During this meeting, Prime Minister Moshirul Doleh, delivered a speech as the head of the cabinet. The session concluded with the address made by Malek Al Motokalemin. ...........

MORE HERE AT

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/constitutional_revolution/constitutional_revolution.php


29 posted on 08/04/2004 5:41:01 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

Thanks for the ping!


30 posted on 08/04/2004 7:14:36 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LibreOuMort

Ping to #28...


31 posted on 08/04/2004 7:19:31 AM PDT by sionnsar (Iran Azadi ||| Resource for Traditional Anglicans: trad-anglican.faithweb.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LibreOuMort; F14 Pilot
"History lesson in #29" ping.

Thanks, F14 Pilot!

32 posted on 08/04/2004 7:26:36 AM PDT by sionnsar (Iran Azadi ||| Resource for Traditional Anglicans: trad-anglican.faithweb.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Kerry, the EU and Iran

August 04, 2004
The Washington Times
Editorial/Op-Ed

In his quest for the presidency, John Kerry has sought to portray President Bush as someone with a mindless contempt for our European allies and the United Nations. The way to achieve success in Iraq, Mr. Kerry says, is to elect a president "who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side." In a Dec. 3 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Kerry said that, if he were elected president, he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations." This, Mr. Kerry would have us believe, is far superior to Mr. Bush's approach to dealing with Saddam Hussein — one which did not win the approval of Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder.

One would never know it from listening to Mr. Kerry, but his approach has been tried by the Europeans for more than a year in an attempt to halt Iran's nuclear program. It has been an abject failure, while Mr. Bush's more assertive foreign-policy approach has achieved some important successes.

Mr. Bush, for example, ended any possibility that Saddam Hussein could build more weapons of mass destruction and intimidated Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi into ending his WMD programs. By contrast, diplomats representing the EU 3 (Britain, France and Germany) said Sunday that talks in Paris produced "no substantial progress" in restricting Iran's nuclear activities. On Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi announced that Iran has resumed building centrifuges to enrich uranium for atomic weapons.

Over the past year, the International Atomic Energy Agency has issued a series of reports documenting Iran's illicit nuclear weapons programs. During this period, the Bush administration has reluctantly deferred to the Europeans' desire for a softer approach to Iran.

While this has been taking place, Mr. Kerry has actually attacked the Bush administration for being too tough on the dictatorship in Iran. In his Dec. 3 speech, for example, he said: "It is incomprehensible and unacceptable that this administration refuses to broker an arrangement with Iran." Mr. Kerry touted the EU's effort as a superior alternative to the Bush approach. In February, Mr. Kerry's national security issues coordinator, Rand Beers, accused the Bush administration of blocking U.S.-Iranian talks. That same month, the Kerry campaign sent a letter to the Tehran Times (a mouthpiece for Iran's Islamist government) suggesting that the Bush administration is to blame for many of the world's problems.

Mr. Kerry's formulation is quite simply false. When it comes to Iran policy, the fundamental problem thus far is that Washington has deferred to Mr. Kerry's ideological soulmates in Europe, whose diplomatic approach to Iran has yielded absolutely nothing and given the regime more time to develop nuclear weapons. There are few better recent illustrations of the bankruptcy of Mr. Kerry's foreign-policy approach.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040803-082039-9832r.htm


33 posted on 08/04/2004 8:20:51 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran's Nuclear Challenge

August 04, 2004
The New York Times
Editorials / Op-Ed

The invasion of Iraq, which President Bush has often said would help stabilize the Middle East, is now hindering efforts to deal with a real nuclear threat: Iran. Despite its ritualistic denials, Iran gives every indication of building all the essential elements of a nuclear weapons program. And while the United States has hoped to pressure Iran into halting that program, the government in Tehran has clearly concluded that it has little to fear for now from an American government whose diplomatic credibility has been damaged and whose military capacities have been stretched by the war in Iraq.

Given Washington's unsatisfactory options right now, the best choice is to support Britain, France and Germany as they search for a diplomatic settlement. The chances of success do not look good; the European initiative has had minimal results and seems to be losing ground.

Iran announced on Saturday that it had resumed the construction of centrifuges that are capable of producing material for a nuclear bomb. Tehran says it is still honoring a pledge not to operate any of these centrifuges, but it proclaims its right to resume enrichment at any time.

There would be little reason for Iran to take the provocative step of restarting centrifuge construction now unless it also intended to resume operations at some later date. And since there are other, safer ways for Iran to get the less-enriched uranium used in power-producing reactors, it is fair to presume that Iran means to use the centrifuges to produce bomb fuel.

Constructing uranium centrifuges is, regrettably, legal under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Using them to produce fuel for bombs is not. Diplomacy can resolve this issue only if both sides ultimately want a deal, and it is not at all clear that Iran's ruling clerics do. They may just be playing for time to develop their enrichment capacity before quitting the nuclear treaty and building bombs.

The tone of Iran's dealings with the outside world has changed for the worse since early this year, when hard-line clerics seized control of Parliament by excluding many of their once-formidable reformist rivals. That shut down an experiment in partial democracy that many hoped would eventually lead to less confrontational foreign policies, like decisions to close the nuclear program and end support for terrorist groups. Since then, Iran has stepped up its meddling in Iraq, stopped trying to improve its abysmal human rights reputation and turned more belligerent in the nuclear negotiations with Europe.

Britain, France and Germany want Iran to renounce, permanently and verifiably, all technology capable of making nuclear bomb fuel. In exchange, they offer an equally firm commitment to use outside suppliers to guarantee an adequate supply of uranium for civilian power reactors. Such a deal could work only if Iran returned the spent fuel to the outside suppliers. Otherwise, plutonium could be extracted from it and reprocessed to make nuclear weapons. Unless Iran changes its position and forswears all rights to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium, there can be no deal.

For want of a better alternative, Europe is right to give Iran a little more time to change its mind. But the world cannot afford to wait long. Once the new centrifuges are completed, Iran's ambitions will become much harder to contain. If no agreement is reached soon, this apparent drive to build nuclear weapons should be recognized as a threat to international peace and security and taken up by the United Nations Security Council later this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/04wed1.html


34 posted on 08/04/2004 8:21:44 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Martyrs, Virgins and Grapes

August 04, 2004
The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof

The virgins are calling you," Mohamed Atta wrote reassuringly to his fellow hijackers just before 9/11.

It has long been a staple of Islam that Muslim martyrs will go to paradise and marry 72 black-eyed virgins. But a growing body of rigorous scholarship on the Koran points to a less sensual paradise - and, more important, may offer a step away from fundamentalism and toward a reawakening of the Islamic world.

Some Islamic theologians protest that the point was companionship, never heavenly sex. Others have interpreted the pleasures quite explicitly; one, al-Suyuti, wrote that sex in paradise is pretty much continual and so glorious that "were you to experience it in this world you would faint."

But now the same tools that historians, linguists and archaeologists have applied to the Bible for about 150 years are beginning to be applied to the Koran. The results are explosive.

The Koran is beautifully written, but often obscure. One reason is that the Arabic language was born as a written language with the Koran, and there's growing evidence that many of the words were Syriac or Aramaic.

For example, the Koran says martyrs going to heaven will get "hur," and the word was taken by early commentators to mean "virgins," hence those 72 consorts. But in Aramaic, hur meant "white" and was commonly used to mean "white grapes."

Some martyrs arriving in paradise may regard a bunch of grapes as a letdown. But the scholar who pioneered this pathbreaking research, using the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg for security reasons, noted in an e-mail interview that grapes made more sense in context because the Koran compares them to crystal and pearls, and because contemporary accounts have paradise abounding with fruit, especially white grapes.

Dr. Luxenberg's analysis, which has drawn raves from many scholars, also transforms the meaning of the verse that is sometimes cited to require women to wear veils. Instead of instructing pious women "to draw their veils over their bosoms," he says, it advises them to "buckle their belts around their hips."

Likewise, a reference to Muhammad as "ummi" has been interpreted to mean he was illiterate, making his Koranic revelations all the more astonishing. But some scholars argue that this simply means he was not "of the book," in the sense that he was neither Christian nor Jewish.

Islam has a tradition of vigorous interpretation and adjustment, called ijtihad, but Koranic interpretation remains frozen in the model of classical commentaries written nearly two centuries after the prophet's death. The history of the rise and fall of great powers over the last 3,000 years underscores that only when people are able to debate issues freely - when religious taboos fade - can intellectual inquiry lead to scientific discovery, economic revolution and powerful new civilizations. "The taboos are still great" on such Koranic scholarship, notes Gabriel Said Reynolds, an Islam expert at the University of Notre Dame. He called the new scholarship on early Islam "a first step" to an intellectual awakening.

But Muslim fundamentalists regard the Koran - every word of it - as God's own language, and they have violently attacked freethinking scholars as heretics. So Muslim intellectuals have been intimidated, and Islam has often been transmitted by narrow-minded extremists.

(This problem is not confined to Islam. On my blog, www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds, I've been battling with fans of the Christian fundamentalist "Left Behind" series. Some are eager to see me left behind.)

Still, there are encouraging signs. Islamic feminists are emerging to argue for religious interpretations leading to greater gender equality. An Iranian theologian has called for more study of the Koran's Syriac roots. Tunisian and German scholars are collaborating on a new critical edition of the Koran based on the earliest manuscripts. And just last week, Iran freed Hashem Aghajari, who had been sentenced to death for questioning harsh interpretations of Islam.

"The breaking of the sometimes erroneous bonds in the religious tradition will be the condition for a positive evolution in other scientific and intellectual domains," Dr. Luxenberg says.

The world has a huge stake in seeing the Islamic world get on its feet again. The obstacle is not the Koran or Islam, but fundamentalism, and I hope that this scholarship is a sign of an incipient Islamic Reformation - and that future terrorist recruits will be promised not 72 black-eyed virgins, but just a plateful of grapes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/04krist.html


35 posted on 08/04/2004 8:22:22 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Tehran's Tyrants

August 04, 2004
FrontPageMagazine.com
Nir Boms and Reza Bulorchi

Legal rulings in other countries do not often make headlines in the United States. But two recent verdicts in Iran have made democracy activists, both in America as well as around the world, sit up and take notice.

Last week, Hashem Aghajari, whom the Iranian Supreme Court had sentenced to death, had his sentence changed to a five-year prison term following appeals and a rare, direct intervention from Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Aghajari had made comments during a June, 2002, speech that were used by Iran's hard-line judiciary to launch a new front against Iran's embattled "reformist" faction. In his speech, Aghajari took a jab at the very foundation of Iran's theocratic regime, stating that Muslims were not "monkeys" who should blindly follow the teachings of senior clerics.

Aghajari was charged with "insulting the prophets" and with questioning Khamenei's rule. While it is astonishing that one of their "own" (Aghajari was a close confidante of Iranian President Mohammed Khatami) earned for himself a death sentence simply with a verbal assault against Iran's theocratic establishment, one can only imagine what happens in closed trials to those outside the establishment, like students and political activists, who are struggling to bring about real change.

Aghajari's case struck a chord with the Iranian student movement and triggered a grassroots campaign to reverse the court's decision. At Tehran University, some 1,200 students denounced "the medieval verdict" and signed a petition for Aghajari's release. Their action woke up the Iranian parliament, prompting 178 deputies to issue an open letter that called on Iran's judiciary chief, Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi-Shahrudi, to overturn the verdict and allow Aghajari to go free. Following these events, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a rare order for a re-trial, resulting in Aghajari's sentence reduction from death to five years imprisonment.

Aghajari's was not the only Iranian trial to make world headlines this month. Following the Kafkaesque trial of Iranian-Canadian photojournalist and murder victim Zahra Kazemi's, the judge acquitted last weekend the only man charged in the case. The 54-year-old Kazemi was arrested in June of last year for taking pictures outside Tehran's notorious Evin prison. She died from a brain hemorrhage after being struck with a blunt object during interrogation.

Under intense pressure from the West and after warnings from the Canadian government, which later recalled its ambassador from Tehran, Khatami released a statement before the trial, asking the judiciary to identify "the real guilty person." But as a second round of hearings opened, Canadian, Dutch, and British diplomats were bluntly told to stay away. The trial judge then concluded that the suspect, Mohammad Reza Ahmadi, a junior agent, was innocent of any wrongdoing and that Kazemi's death was the result of "an accident" that occurred when she fell in her prison cell.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi, a member of Kazemi's defense team, has accused Iran's judiciary of a cover-up. The Kazemi case, however, did focus much attention, long overdue, on the plight of Iranian political prisoners in interrogation rooms.

These two cases provide a glimpse into the inner workings of the Iranian "justice" system, and into the struggle between the ruling clerics and those forces calling for change and reform. On Monday, dozens of political prisoners in Tehran's Evin Prison ended a three-week hunger strike commemorating the July, 1999, Iranian student uprising, demanding the release of all political prisoners. Meanwhile, the mullahs' "justice" system was on full display; in the past few weeks, several people were hanged in public.

But as the struggle for justice continues to unfold in Iran, it is important to note the growing cracks in the mullarchy's wall of injustice. The world's increasing focus on Iran, particularly in light of its role in destabilizing Iraq and developing nuclear weapons - not to mention its ties to Al-Qaeda - provides a constant reminder of Iran's core problem: a fundamentalist regime that will do anything to maintain its grip on power.

Tens of thousands of reform-minded young Iranians-and not the mullahs- are the ones willing to offer a different vision of Iran to the world. The United States, Europe and those concerned about democracy must therefore continue to pressure Iran and increase their engagement not with the regime of today, but with those who are willing to lead the regime of tomorrow.



Nir Boms is a co-founder of the Pulse of Freedom Initiative and a fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Reza Bulorchi is the executive director of the U.S. Alliance for Democratic Iran.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14492


36 posted on 08/04/2004 8:23:11 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Christoph Luxenberg for security reasons,noted in an e-mail interview that grapes made more sense

He has written a book about it and here is a review http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html
37 posted on 08/04/2004 11:57:02 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

Freedom for Iran ~ NOW!


38 posted on 08/04/2004 2:02:20 PM PDT by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot; All
Howard Baskerville

Grave of Howard Baskerville in Tabriz, Iran

Baskerville served with the Presbyterian mission in Tabriz. "At the height of the anti-American sentiment in Iran during the 1980's, the tomb was always covered with yellow roses, ..... no one claimed any knowledge of who had placed the flowers on any particular day, but... the tomb always had fresh flowers on it." And still does.

39 posted on 08/04/2004 2:07:37 PM PDT by nuconvert (Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

IRAQ: BUILDING DEMOCRACY [Excerpt]

By AMIR TAHERI
NY Post

August 4, 2004 -- YOU don't see much about it in the media, but what is happening on the Iraqi po litical scene these days may well be more important than images of car bombs and kidnappings that have dominated the headlines for the past few months.

The first noteworthy event is the formation of an Iraqi electoral college, to be known as the national congress. Under the plan, around 1,000 prominent citizens from all walks of life, all ethnic communities and all regions will come together to elect a 100-member body that will act as an interim parliament for the newly liberated country.

Contrary to the wishes of many Iraqis, the 1,000 members of the electoral college will not be directly elected by the citizens. But since there is no central authority to impose its choices on the people, it is certain that those who will end up as members will enjoy some genuine popular support.

In other words, the members will "emerge" from their respective constituencies. All this is modeled on the Afghan tradition of Loya Jirga (High Assembly), the gathering of senior tribal, religious, business, cultural and political leaders, convened at crucial moments of the nation's history to decide the way ahead.

The 100-member interim parliament to emerge from the congress will tackle several important issues. It will prepare the final draft of a new constitution that would have been approved by the congress, and will establish the modalities of submitting it to a referendum. It will also finalize the rules under which elections for a full parliament are to be held.

Those who follow the political, as opposed to the media, side of the Iraq story these days are impressed by the moderation and maturity shown by almost all segments of Iraqi society. Intellectuals, merchants, tribal chiefs, clerics, politicians, trade unionists and leaders of numerous non-governmental groups are coming together to develop a culture of debate, compromise and consensus in an atmosphere of openness never known in Iraq before.

The interim government has helped foster that atmosphere by lifting the ban imposed by the now defunct coalition authority on a few publications, including Muqtada al-Sadr's weekly mouthpiece. It has also made it known that ordinary members of the banned Ba'ath Party will be allowed to play a role in building a new pluralist system.

The interim government decided to start the process of creating the congress after it became clear that the United Nations, which was supposed to organize and lead the entire exercise, is unwilling or unable to do so.

The U.N.'s excuse is that its staff needs protection against terrorism. But it does not want that protection to come either from the U.S.-led Coalition forces or from forces controlled by the interim Iraqi government. And since no other country has offered troops for the proposed 4,000-man U.N. protection unit, the whole exercise is in abeyance.

It is clear that many key members of the United Nations — notably Russia, Germany, China and France — are playing for time until after the U.S. presidential election. Having opposed President Bush's policy toward Iraq from the start, they are reluctant to come in and help make it a success.

All that should change after the American elections. If Bush is re-elected, his opponents would know that they can't afford to moan and sulk for four more years. If John Kerry wins, the powers that had opposed Bush could claim a role in Iraq without having to eat humble pie.

The Iraqis, however, have wisely decided not to wait for the United Nations (which they neither like nor trust). They have decided to go ahead with the elections plans, effectively rendering the U.N. role academic, at least at this juncture.

It is important that the interim government stick to the timetable for ending the transition. Iraq urgently needs elections to bestow legitimacy not only on its developing government structures but also (especially) on the pluralist system it needs for its survival as a nation-state.

The Iraqi political leaders are aware of the unique opportunity that a combination of factors has provided for them to build a modern nation-state based on unity in diversity. Despite the ongoing terrorist campaign, the interim government must not be tempted into reviving the institutions that turned Iraq into a republic of fear. Prime Minister Iyad al-Allawi's attempts at portraying himself as a law-and-order man with an iron fist may be profitable in tactical terms, but would be counter productive from a longer-term point of view.

The terrorists in Iraq, like anywhere else in the world, use violence precisely because they lack popular support. If they had such support, nothing would prevent them from organizing mass demonstrations, creating political parties and associations and contesting the forthcoming elections. But because they know they can never win in any free election, these practitioners of terror and violence are doing all they can to prevent elections. They are also trying to provoke the interim government into becoming like them, that is to say killing people at random solely to instill fear.

The aim of the terrorists is to establish moral equivalence between themselves and the new Iraqi political leadership. They want to create a situation in which they can say: Look, we are both the same, we both kill! And then they could claim further that they are killing on behalf of an abstract ideal, say pan-Arabism or pan-Islamism, while the new Iraqi leadership is killing "for the Americans."

The new Iraqi leadership, which includes all shades of the political spectrum except the terrorists, should not fall into that trap.

To be sure, Iraq (like any nation) needs an intelligence service and a counterterrorism force, an army and a police force. But, if perceived solely as means of using violence against adversaries, all that would be ineffective in terms of proper political power.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/26182.htm


40 posted on 08/04/2004 3:23:10 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

34 Months vs. 444 Days: There Jimmy Carter Goes Again, Blaming America for His Failures

by Robert W. Tracinski (July 27, 2004)

Summary: Those looking for "a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations" might be tempted to remember, not the past 32 months, but the 444 days of the Iran hostage crisis, when Carter stood passive and paralyzed, his only attempt at action ending in a pathetically under-supported, doomed rescue mission. If one were to look for a moment at which America lost credibility and respect in the world, this would be it.

[www.CapitalismMagazine.com]

If one were forced to choose low point of Jimmy Carter's presidency, it might be his July 15, 1979, "national malaise" speech. The country was suffering under inflation, recession, and an "energy crisis"--and we were about to undergo the national humiliation of the Iran hostage crisis. But what was Carter's diagnosis of America's problem?

It was not his policies that were to blame. The problem was the American people, who had suffered an inexplicable "crisis of confidence":

"We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our Nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America."

The problem, in his mind, was neither the discredited socialist programs of the left or his weak and vacillating leadership. The problem was that we weren't strong enough to make his policies work, so we had to be scolded for allowing ourselves to succumb to a "national malaise." (Carter didn't actually use that phrase, which was coined by one of his advisors, but the speech came to be known by that title.)

Last night, before the Democratic National Convention, Jimmy Carter repeated that historic feat of evasion.

He began the body of the speech by declaring the need for "honesty" in our leaders. Ironically, the rest of the speech is a study in dishonesty, as Carter expects us to ignore the pressing and urgent threats of today, the evidence of history, and the record of his own career.

Repeating his theme of 1979, Carter thinks that the main threat to America's security is ourselves: "Unilateral acts and demands have isolated the United States from the very nations we need to join us in combating terrorism." But what about the terrorists-and what actions do we need to take to combat them? The terrorists appear in this speech only in two indirect references; their attacks are treated like an accident or natural disaster, not as the actions of an enemy who must be fought.

Instead of clear and concrete action against the enemy, the only foreign policy goal Carter advocates is friendly relations with other nations. "A cowardly attack on innocent civilians brought us an unprecedented level of cooperation and understanding around the world. But in just 34 months we have watched with deep concern as all this good will has been squandered by a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations."

Those looking for "a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations" might be tempted to remember, not the past 32 months, but the 444 days of the Iran hostage crisis, when Carter stood passive and paralyzed, his only attempt at action ending in a pathetically under-supported, doomed rescue mission. If one were to look for a moment at which America lost credibility and respect in the world, this would be it.

It was also the moment that created the terrorist threat we face today. It allowed an Islamic theocracy to establish itself in Iran, becoming the leading sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East for the last 25 years. And it showed a generation of Muslim fanatics that terror attacks and hostage taking-the very strategies now employed by our enemies in Iraq-could defeat America.

In short, Carter presided over the most important foreign-policy failure in the last quarter of a century. Yet he has the temerity to project its results onto the policies of the current administration.

Even worse, he asserts: "Recent policies have cost our nation its reputation as the world's most admired champion of freedom and justice." Which policies? Overthrowing a brutal dictatorship in Iraq? Destroying a bloodthirsty theocracy in Afghanistan? No, the liberated millions in those two countries are ignored. The only "recent policy" Carter regards as worth thinking about is the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib-which was not, despite Carter's smear, a "policy."

Carter then gets more brazen, blaming Bush for Clinton's failure to achieve peace by rewarding Palestinian terrorists. "The achievements of Camp David a quarter century ago and the more recent progress made by President Bill Clinton are now in peril." But the "progress" made by Clinton was only an escalating series of terrorist attacks against Israel-and the craven deal he brokered was smashed to pieces by Arafat four years ago, before Bush even took office.

He ends on the biggest whopper of the evening: "Elsewhere, North Korea's nuclear menace, a threat far more real and immediate than any posed by Saddam Hussein, has been allowed to advance unheeded." Does anyone remember who brokered the 1994 deal in which the Clinton administration agreed to provided food and oil to North Korea, in exchange for its promise not to develop nuclear weapons-a promise the North Koreans promptly broke, allowing them to threaten us with a nuclear bomb today? That's right: it was Jimmy Carter.

This is the same psychological projection Carter employed in 1979. Back then, he suffered a crisis of confidence that left him paralyzed before the fateful challenges of the day-yet he projected his malaise onto the America people. Over the years, he championed a policy of appeasement that squandered America's power and respect in the world-yet he projects that result onto those who advocate any element of American assertiveness. And he is the one willing to obfuscate the facts to justify his feckless policies.

Well, there he goes again. Let's hope the American people don't find his evasions any more convincing than they did 25 years ago.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3820


41 posted on 08/04/2004 3:31:14 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

The mention of his name is infuriating enough.


42 posted on 08/04/2004 7:42:18 PM PDT by nuconvert (Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
This thread is now closed.

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”

43 posted on 08/04/2004 9:01:57 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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