Iranian Alert -- September 4, 2004 [EST]-- IRAN LIVE THREAD -- "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"

The US media still largely 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.” As a result, 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. In fact they were one of the first countries to have spontaneous candlelight vigils after the 911 tragedy (see photo).

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.

A democratic Middle East is central to beating terrorism

THIS was another low, dark week in the history of terrorism. The pandemonium and bloodshed that climaxed the school siege in Ossetia capped outrages across the globe. In Iraq, 12 Nepalese hostages - lowly cooks and cleaners working for a Jordanian firm - were murdered, their fate almost forgotten in the welter of other outrages against civilians. Meanwhile, in Moscow, a female suicide bomber killed ten people outside an underground railway station. Responsibility was claimed by the same Chechen Jihadist group that downed two civilian airliners last week. And on Tuesday, 16 people were killed in suicide bombings on two buses in the southern Israeli city of Beersheba.

In the light of this carnage, it is reasonable to ask - three years after the 9/11 attacks - if the world is now any safer. Or, indeed, if the invasion of Iraq has actually made matters worse by dividing the west, inflaming a new generation of young Jihadists, and creating a raft of no-go zones in Iraq where they can arm and train. In New York, President George Bush made fighting terrorism the theme of his election campaign, but how can such rhetoric be turned into reality? Just how can the west defeat terrorism? And is the solution military or political?

Let us begin by putting this week into context. Since 9/11, no terrorist outrage has taken place in the United States or Britain, suggesting that security is by no means lax. Britons who lived through repeated IRA outrages should not dismiss this success lightly. Feeling psychologically under siege is a bit different from actually having bombs go off, and might owe more to the advent of 24-hour news than terrorist successes. Even the bus bombings in Israel are the first for a very long time and, in fact, against a relatively "soft" target in the normally peaceful Negev desert region. In central Israel, the controversial security fence seems to have made it far more difficult for the suicide bombers.

While none of this is cause for complacency, it does say that the security situation is not as bleak as some pretend. It is also the case that the various terrorist outrages are not masterminded centrally, but are the work of a host of diverse grouplets (although the Chechen guerrillas have been in contact with al-Qaeda). In one sense, that makes them difficult to penetrate or destroy. On the other hand, it reduces their ability to mount outrages such as 9/11 or gather the industrial capacity to build "dirty" nuclear explosives. Over the next few years, as biometric passports become common, and as the new anti-terrorist security agencies in the US and Europe get into their stride, the tide will turn remorselessly against the Jihadists. But the next American president must succeed in capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, if only as a symbolic way of showing the Jihad is doomed to failure.

That said, the war against terror also requires a political front, and it is here that matters are more confused than 18 months ago. The current wave of terror emanates from the cultural and economic crisis caused by the painful transition to modern society in the Middle East and central Asia. Civil institutions are weak and democracy limited, after centuries as colonies of either Turkey or Russia. Young men are frustrated economically and lack a secure personal identity. None of this justifies terror, nor can terror be appeased (as the French have discovered). But it suggests that Mr Bush’s call to further the democratisation of the Middle East is central to beating terrorism in the long run.

The route to such reform is probably more through economic change (to create a viable civil society and middle class) than by lecturing the Arab world in a patronising tone. This means the European Union’s policy of pouring cash into the Swiss bank accounts of the corrupt Palestinian Authority needs to be replaced with an emphasis on free trade. It means the west needs to take advantage of the new oil wealth flowing into the region, as petroleum prices surge, to urge market reforms and create jobs for young Arab men and women.

For such a medium-term strategy to succeed and cut the ground from under the terrorists means resolving the crises in Iraq, Palestine and Chechnya. But neither early elections in Iraq nor an Israeli pull-out from Gaza will work unless Iran is brought into line. The security imbroglio in Iraq has many possible causes - the early disbanding of the Iraqi army, or the disagreements between the Pentagon and the State Department to name only two. But these failures have been actively exploited by the clerical regime in Tehran. It is Iran which armed al-Sadr and other insurgent groups. It is Iran which funds the terror groups in Palestine. It is Iran which fears a democratic Iraq on its border. And it is Iran which is racing to build an atomic bomb.

IF THE west wants to neutralise terrorism in the long run, the problem lies beyond bin Laden in his arid Afghan cave in the palaces and laboratories of Tehran. Not even Mr Bush will pretend there is a military solution to Iran’s meddling. But Europe and the US do need to unite diplomatically to put pressure on Tehran to stop developing nuclear weapons and to stop funding terrorism, especially in Palestine. If the United States and EU are seen to act in concert, the Arab world will join them in isolating the fundamentalist Iranian regime.

As for the Chechen crisis, it is obvious that Russia’s heavy-handed intervention throughout the Caucasus has not brought any peace or stability. Russia is entitled to protect itself, but a more united west needs to tell President Putin that his divide-and-rule tactics throughout the region are part of the problem. If countries such as Georgia can be stabilised and made democratic, the Chechen boil may eventually be lanced.

However, the actions of hate-filled terrorists prepared to hold hundreds of children hostage are a reminder that this terrorism must be defeated twice over: militarily in the here and now, and then by the spreading the concepts of democracy, economic liberalism and freedom of the individual.

Straw says EU upset with Iran's mullahs on nukes
Persian Journal

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/printer_3600.shtml

Iran News
Straw says EU upset with Iran's mullahs on nukes
Reuters
Sep 3, 2004, 10:57

European Union foreign ministers, including Jack Straw, have voiced disenchantment at Iran's failure to cooperate more fully with U.N. efforts to ensure its nuclear programme is not a front for developing atomic weapons.

"We have all been perplexed and saddened that the Iranian government has not completed all the tasks it said it would," Straw said on arrival for an EU meeting in the Netherlands.

He said he would meet his counterparts from France and Germany on Friday to review their faltering diplomatic initiative to coax Iran into stopping uranium enrichment and complying fully with its treaty obligations.

"The responsibility for engagement rests on both sides," Straw told reporters, responding to criticism from the United States that the EU's Big Three have nothing to show from their attempt to engage with Tehran.

He said the latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, contained "clear reservations" about the nature of Iran's programme and past concealment efforts.

Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, told reporters it was no secret that the EU was deeply concerned about Tehran's nuclear programme.

The issue had cast a shadow over EU efforts to build closer relations with Iran through a trade and aid agreement, on which negotiations are stalled.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell urged the Europeans this week to stop offering "carrots" to Iran and join Washington in taking Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions over its alleged non-compliance with the IAEA.

Bot said the question EU ministers would have to consider was whether Iran had breached its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

However, EU diplomats in Brussels said most member states felt there was not enough evidence now to take Iran to the Security Council and did not wish to be locked into any automatic trigger for sanctions.

Excerpts of the IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program

Tehran Times Political Desk
VIENNA (MNA) -- The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a confidential report to its board of governors on Iran’s nuclear program on Wednesday. The board is going to study the report and start deliberations on the program in its meeting starting on September 13. The report by the IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei covers issues such as Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, the origins of nuclear contamination, P-2, laser enrichment, uranium conversion experiments, and etc. Extracts of the report gained by the Mehr News Agency are as follows:

The agency welcomes the new confirmation provided recently by Iran in response to the agency’s requests, although the process of providing information needs, in certain instances, to be accelerated. In some cases, such as Iran’s clarifications related to its initial declarations pursuant to its Additional Protocol, the provision of new information has been prompt. In other cases, sufficiently detailed information has, despite repeated requests, been provided so late that it has not been possible to include an assessment of its sufficiency and correctness in this report. The agency also welcomes the cooperation by Iran in providing access to locations in response to agency requests, including at the Lavisan-Shian site.

Although the agency is not yet in a position to draw definitive conclusions concerning the correctness and completeness of Iran’s declarations related to all aspects of its nuclear program, it continues to make steady progress in understanding the program. In this regard, the agency’s investigations have reached a point where, with respect to two aspects previously identified by the agency as requiring investigation (i.e. Iran’s declared laser enrichment activities and Iran’s declared uranium conversion experiments), further follow-up will be carried out as a routine safeguards implementation matter. Two issues remain key to understanding the extent and nature of Iran’s enrichment program:

*The first issue relates to the origin of uranium contamination found at various locations in Iran. Some progress has been made towards ascertaining the source of the HEU contamination found at the Kalaye Electric Company workshop and Natanz. From the agency’s analysis to date, it appears plausible that the HEU contamination found at the those locations may not have resulted from enrichment of uranium by Iran at the Kalaye Electric Company workshop or at Natanz. However, the agency will continue to pursue the identification of sources and reasons for such contamination. The agency will also continue with its efforts to understand the source of the LEU contamination found in various locations in Iran, including on domestically manufactured components.

*The second issue relates to the extent of Iran’s efforts to import, manufacture, and use centrifuges of both the P-1 and P-2 design. While the agency has gained a better understanding of Iran’s efforts relevant to both designs, additional work by the agency will be necessary, inter alia, to confirm Iran’s statements regarding the absence of P-2 centrifuge related activities in Iran between 1995 and 2002 and regarding P-2 centrifuge procurement related activities.

There are other issues that will also require further follow-up, for example the timeframe of Iran’s plutonium separation experiments.

The agency has been able to verify Iran’s suspension of enrichment related activities at specific facilities and sites, and has been able to confirm that it has not observed, to date, any activities at those locations inconsistent with its understanding of Iran’s current suspension undertakings.

It is important for Iran to support the agency’s efforts to gain a full understanding of all remaining issues by continuing to provide access to locations, personnel, and information relevant to safeguards implementation in response to agency requests – as well as by proactively providing any additional information that could enhance the agency’s understanding of Iran’s nuclear program.

The agency welcomes the cooperation of other states in response to agency requests, which is key to the agency’s ability to resolve some of the outstanding issues. Information received to date from other states has proven useful in understanding aspects of the uranium contamination found in Iran. The agency will continue to request states to actively assist the agency in resolving these issues.

The director general will report to the board as appropriate and not later than the November 2004 meeting of the board.

In Nuclear Shadow, EU Reviews Iran Ties

[Excerpt]

ROBERT WIELAARD

Associated Press

VALKENBURG, Netherlands - The European Union said Friday that Iran's nuclear program has cast a shadow over its relations with Europe, which has been at pains to forge closer trade and other ties in recent years.

"We want to send out a very strong signal that we mean business," said Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot, whose country holds the EU presidency. "We cannot accept ... the development of weapons grade uranium" by Iran.

He said a U.N. report this week shows Iran plans to process tons of raw uranium. Diplomats have told The Associated Press that Iran also is planning to restart some of its centrifuges.

This has strengthened suspicions in the international community that Iran is involved in activities that could be used to make nuclear warheads.

The ministers from the 25-nation bloc reassessed relations with Tehran. Bot said they took "a closer look at the way forward for our relations with Iran."

In recent years, the EU has pursued a "constructive engagement" policy toward Tehran designed to lead to a comprehensive free trade accord. In parallel, the EU has pursued dialogue on the status of human rights in Iran.

But Iran's failure to clear up questions over its nuclear program led the EU to suspend the trade talks in 2003.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he was "perplexed and saddened that the Iranian government" was sticking to its nuclear ambitions.

Britain, Germany and France have pushed Tehran to abide by its nonproliferation commitments.

REGION: EU upset by Iran’s nuclear obduracy, says Jack Straw

* Iran says it is ready to give guarantees on nuclear programme

VALKENBURG: European Union foreign ministers voiced disenchantment on Friday at Iran’s failure to cooperate more fully with UN efforts to ensure its nuclear programmeme is not a front for developing atomic weapons.

“We have all been perplexed and saddened that the Iranian government has not completed all the tasks it said it would,” British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said on arrival for an EU meeting in the Netherlands.

He said he would meet his counterparts from France and Germany later to review their faltering diplomatic initiative to coax Iran into stopping uranium enrichment and complying fully with its treaty obligations.

“The responsibility for engagement rests on both sides,” Straw told reporters, responding to criticism from the United States that the EU’s Big Three have nothing to show from their attempt to engage with Tehran.

Straw said the latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, contained “clear reservations” about the nature of Iran’s programme and past concealment efforts.

Several diplomats in Vienna said that the European trio were preparing to draft a resolution to be presented to the IAEA Board of Governors when it begins meeting on Sept. 13. The draft is not yet on paper, they said.

“The idea would be balance skepticism about Iran’s nuclear programme with criticism of their behaviour, but to point out that there would be a light at the end of the tunnel if they change their behaviour,” a diplomat on the 35-member board told Reuters.

Washington accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapons while the oil-producing Islamic Republic insists its programme is purely for peaceful purposes.

Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot, whose country holds the EU’s rotating presidency, told reporters it was no secret that the EU was deeply concerned about Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Meanwhile an Iranian nuclear official said on Thursday that Tehran was ready to provide guarantees that its enrichment programmemes would never be used for military purposes.

Hossein Musavian, an aide to the head of Iran’s nuclear programmeme, Hassan Rowhani, told state television that Tehran’s pursuit of enrichment has been the main concern of its European partners. “The Europeans know that if Iran masters the technology for enrichment it has a potential (military) nuclear capability and that will change the (political) equation” in the region, he said.

But Musavian said that Iran was prepared to guarantee that enrichment would not be used for military purposes.

“We are prepared to build trust and provide a guarantee that our enrichment activities will always be peaceful.”

Meanwhile, a senior ultra-conservative Iranian cleric hit out at the United States and its accusations against Iran’s nuclear programmeme.

“(The US) is constantly lying, you have a different policy every day. The Islamic republic has had a transparent policy since day one,” Ayatollah Emami Kashani said during Friday prayers in Tehran.

“We curse you who dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima. We curse you who have committed these crimes against humanity,” he continued, followed by the usual chants of “Death to America, down with Israel” from the congregation.

Iran was emboldened to advance its nuclear activities after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) again failed to produce a “smoking gun” confirming US allegations of a secret weapons drive in a report released on Wednesday.

However, Washington continued efforts to convince the 34 other members of the UN watchdog’s governing board to refer Iran to the Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear programmeme.

The IAEA report also signalled that Iran was determined to press on with work on the nuclear fuel cycle - permitted under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) despite its potentially dual-use nature. agencies

The fun in fundamentalism

In Iran, making music and drinking are defiant acts. Broadcaster Andy Kershaw goes undercover to find rappers, guitar heroes and Bing Crosby.
(Filed: 04/09/2004)

For those with a more conventional notion of having a good time, Iran can be less than electrifying. Almost everything that is enjoyable is banned by the clerics on the Council of Guardians. Except - an extraordinary demographic imbalance confirms - shagging. Almost 70 per cent of Iran's population is under the age of 30. But how on earth, I wanted to know, do all these young people have fun? Live music is banned. There are no bars or clubs. Alcohol is illegal. Public fraternisation between men and women is forbidden. So, it follows, is dancing.

The media is state-controlled. Satellite TV is outlawed. Iranian television offers little more than nightly and lengthy discussions between serious, bearded Islamic scholars on arcane aspects of the Koran ("Quick! It's already started..."). And despite Iran being home to some of the world's most respected film directors, the cinemas show only cheap, violent trash. On the face of it, young Iranians spend their evenings driving and walking around aimlessly, or visiting family and friends to share a glass of water.

I was facing a fortnight of this. There had to be, I said, speaking firmly to the wardrobe in my hotel room, something to do, something going on. At the surprisingly wonderful Beethoven record shop, a small oasis of culture and tolerance in central Teheran, I sought enlightenment.

"There are a lot of things that exist but you cannot see," said Barbak, the shop's owner, enigmatically. I was soon to find out just what he meant. He was cheerfully guiding me through his section featuring Western popular music - including Bob Marley and the Wailers, Bing Crosby, Jennifer Lopez, Queen, 10,000 Maniacs, Kenny Rogers, Red Hot Chilli Peppers - all of it officially banned but on open display in the shop. "I gave myself permission to sell it," Barbak chuckled. Posters of Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain filled one wall. Small busts of Western classical composers lined a shelf. I thumbed through a biography of the Backstreet Boys. In Farsi.

And if the Fun Police were to come bursting in? Well, he told me, they are more interested in the cheesy pre-revolution dance music made by the Iranian diaspora in Los Angeles and smuggled into Teheran. That, and the upkeep of moral standards among domestic musicians.

Women are not allowed to sing alone. A male crooner must be lurking in the background. On television, classical musicians' faces cannot be shown, only their hands. Pop music - even the domestic Iranian variety - is not broadcast at all.

So it was all the more surprising when Barbak handed me a copy of the first commercial release by an Iranian rapper. Sharkar Bineshpajooh's album is called Eskanas, meaning cash. The title track takes a swipe at the nouveau riche of Teheran, who have made fortunes from smuggling and corruption and are not shy about flaunting it.

Another number mocks those rap fans who suffer from what we doctors call Westwoodis Normalis: a tendency to copy the dress code, jewellery preferences and speech patterns of a Brooklyn crack dealer.

Sharkar greeted us at his sprawling, tasteful Teheran apartment, looking anything but a rap artist. A tall, upright, formal young man in a collar and tie and shiny shoes with swept-back Brylcreemed hair, he might have just slipped off a dinner jacket and rested a good cigar in the ashtray to answer the door. His manager and friend, a successful architect, served tea and fancy cakes.

The conversation was equally delicate. The album had been under the counter but had been recently legitimised by the Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance. How had this come about? (I pictured a panel of elderly, bearded, turbaned, Islamic scholars sitting down to consider a rap CD). "I can't tell you. If I did - well, you will be able to return to London but I have to stay here. But let's say there were no experts who were able to criticise my music..." Sharkar has no immediate plans to record a follow-up. He is not able to perform live and, for the moment, intends to return to his other occupations - poet and town planner.

"This is a country of contradictions," said Babak Riahipour, the bass player with Ohum, Iran's most popular and - needless to say - illegitimate rock band. We were sitting in the garden of the private music institute in Teheran at which he teaches. Ohum, under another name, are allowed to release bland instrumentals, but their meatier stuff has got them into trouble. Setting the words of Hafez, a 14th-century Iranian poet, to rock music ("For you, it would be like Shakespeare meets Metallica ") attracted the attention of the censors. One of the offending lines said, "You shouldn't tell other people what to do." That was considered political.

"We had a meeting with the censors," said Babak. "They said, `We are really proud of you. We are really glad you are here in Teheran but we can't let you play.' What they have done makes no sense. We are not political. We don't want a revolution. We just want to play our music. But they won't let us."

Ohum's music is freely available on the internet, making a nonsense of the ban on a commercial release. The censors block only political and pornographic websites.

Similarly, a failure to restrict the spread of the mobile phone has allowed the Iranian underground to thrive. Teherani youths are mobile-mad. News of illegal gigs and raves are spread by text message. The heavy metal band Mine (as in landmine) recently played a clandestine concert in a museum. The director is a friend of Mine's guitarist Amir. He led us up the stairs to a band rehearsal in the attic of his father's house. Halfway up, his dad emerged to sweep us into the living room for gin and tonics. "Teheran in the old days was a very glamorous place," he sighed. "It never slept." Did he worry that the neighbours might hear the racket?

"They do!" he laughed. "But they don't mind. Even when the noise knocked a plant pot off a shelf next door." He himself finds the thunder from upstairs reassuring: "I like having the house full of young people."

"There are many underground bands in Teheran," said Amir as we squeezed into the roof-space. The bass player was already there, draining a whisky bottle before placing it behind his amp. In the West this would amount to a rock and roll stereotype. But in Iran the combination of drinking and heavy metal is not some clichéd rebel pose. It is a political act. Mine's defiant determination to play rock music places them in genuine danger. The consequences, should they be caught, don't bear thinking about - especially as their biggest number is called It's Raining Blood On Friday (holy day).

As my network of new Iranian friends expanded, it became clear that forbidden fun was going on every night all over the vast, sprawling capital city. One undercover and dangerous late-night journalistic mission was as risky as anything I've done around the world's crackpot dictatorships and police states: I went to a party. The hosts were a brother and sister in their late teens. And their mother. The venue was their opulent apartment in the northern suburbs. Perhaps 50 bright young things cavorted in the enormous living room to a DJ playing European dance music.

The air was sweet with the fragrance of marijuana and the booze was flowing torrentially. I chatted to the brother about the risks. "Once," he said, "the police arrested me at a party. I was in prison for three days and I was beaten with a belt." Partying, he confirmed, was widespread and, yes, the authorities may have adopted an unofficial blind-eye policy towards it. Without this safety-valve, without any fun at all, he and his friends would take to the streets. He'd been in the thick of the student riots in 1999 and "when the time is right we will do it again".

Music, it would seem, pacifies not only the Iranian youth. An article in the English-language Iran Daily, "Persian Music Deserves Recognition", suggested that the authorities may recognise its potential to keep the regime in place. An academic at the university was quoted as saying: "On the benefits of music in everyday life, I believe it helps the elderly to boost their morale and stops old people being grumpy."

Andy Kershaw in the Axis of Evil - Iran' is broadcast at 10.15pm tomorrow on BBC Radio 3. Andy Kershaw's trip was arranged by Magic Carpet Travel (01344 622 832, www.magiccarpettravel.co.uk), which offers tailor-make itineraries in Iran for individuals or escorted groups. Popular tours include the eight-day "Iran - the essence", which takes in Teheran and Persepolis and costs £1,295, fully inclusive, and the 15-day "Enchanting Persia", which also includes the north-east of the country and costs £1,895.

Friday September 3, 05:53 PM

Hardliners demand clampdown on women's dress

Click to enlarge photo

TEHRAN (Reuters) - About 500 hardline vigilantes have taken to the streets in Tehran, demanding authorities crack down on women who wear colourful headscarves and figure-hugging coats which they denounce as "prostitution".

Tehran's hardline authorities have announced a clampdown on women who do not dress suitably modestly but the crowd, mainly composed of long-shirted black-bearded men, called on the police and new conservative parliamentarians to do more.

"The promotion of bad dress codes is the desire of arrogant powers, shame on the government," chanted the crowd, punching the air with their fists on Friday.

"Arrogant powers" is hardline rhetoric usually referring to the United States, Britain and Israel.

"We object to street prostitution and vice," read one placard brandished by protesters.

Dress codes eased a little after the election of reformist President Mohammad Khatami in 1997 but hardliners are trying to claw back these concessions since their conservative allies retook parliament in May.

Many Tehran girls wear heavy make-up, tight jackets, glitzy jewellery and bright headscarves that allow their hair to spill out.

The placards were signed by the conservative Ansar-e Hizbollah group which last year manned checkpoints around parts of Tehran where student demonstrations turned violent.

Witnesses said they saw the group's vigilantes thrashing people with sticks during the student protests.

"A proper dress code is defined by our religion and allows women to expose only their faces and hands," said a middle-aged female protester, one of more than 100 dressed in the all-enveloping black chador.

"We hate these girls who go around all dolled up in the streets."

One member of the Ansar-e Hizbollah, who declined to be named, said this was the first stage of the group's campaign but he did not reveal what the next would be.

Ansar-e Hizbollah members declined to comment on France's ban on Muslim headscarves in state schools.

The crackdown on dress has also targeted shop-window mannequins who must now wear the veil.

IRANIAN OPPOSITION URGES TEHRAN TO RESPECT NUCLEAR DEALS

By Safa Haeri
Posted Saturday, September 4, 2004

PARIS, 4 Sept. (IPS) As international pressures increases on the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning its controversial nuclear projects, several Iranian opposition personalities and groups urged the Iranian clerical-led authorities to stop at once all suspicious atomic activities.

On Friday 3 September, the European Union foreign affairs ministers said from Valkenburg, in Holland, that Iran's nuclear program has cast a shadow over its relations with Europe.

“We want to send out a very strong signal that we mean business", said Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot, whose country holds the EU presidency. "We cannot accept ... the development of weapons grade uranium by Iran”, he added, referring to a U.N. report this week showing that Iran plans to process tons of raw uranium.

Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's former envoy to the IAEA said Iran's uranium conversion facility in Isfahan has a capacity of converting more than 300 tons of uranium ore into hexafluoride gas annually.

This has strengthened suspicions in the international community that Iran is involved in activities that could be used to make nuclear warheads.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a report this week that Iran plans to process more than 40 tons of uranium into uranium hexafluoride gas. Experts said the amount was enough for four or five warheads.

On Thursday, Iran acknowledged it plans to process tons of raw uranium, but said the IAEA was informed long ago. Iran maintains its nuclear program is geared only toward producing electricity, not a nuclear bomb.

Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's former envoy to the IAEA said Iran's uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, in central Iran, has a capacity of converting more than 300 tons of uranium ore into hexafluoride gas annually.

"The agency knew the capacity of the facility before it was built. The facility is under IAEA safeguards", the AP quoted Mr. Salehi as having said, adding that the capacity of Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz was 30 tons per year.

The facility in Natanz uses centrifuges to enrich uranium hexafluoride gas and turn it into pellets that are then used as fuel in nuclear reactors.

The Isfahan facility was inaugurated in March, but last year Iran suspended uranium enrichment in Natanz as a confidence-building gesture toward the international community.

Washington, Tel Aviv and some European countries fears that Iran’s present atomic project for the construction of electricity plants are a lure to produce nuclear weapons aimed at destroying the Jewish States.

In a statement, the Union of Iranian Republicans (UIR) called Saturday on the authorities to respect its engagements with the IAEA, stay with the NPT and ratify the Additional Protocols.

At their recent meeting in the black Sea resort of Sochi, leaders of France, Germany and Russia stressed on their efforts and cooperation in stopping the Islamic Republic joining the Atomic Club by acquiring nuclear bomb.

Tehran vehemently denies all these allegations and insists that all its atomic projects are for purely civilian uses.

However, recent declarations by some high-ranking military officers and the test firing of the latest version of the Shahab-3 ballistic missile that can reach Israel have alarmed the international community the ruling ayatollah’s real intentions.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he was "perplexed and saddened that the Iranian government" was sticking to its nuclear ambitions.

In a compromise deal with France, Germany and United Kingdom last October, Iran accepted to sign the Additional Protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and suspend enriching uranium.

In a statement, the Union of Iranian Republicans (UIR) called Saturday on the authorities to respect its engagements with the IAEA, stay with the NPT and ratify the Additional Protocols.

“Our national interests make it necessary for Iran to convince the international community about its nuclear programs. We must remain within the NPT, continue suspending enriching uranium and build more centrifuges”, the UIR added in the statement published by the Germany-based Iran-Emrooz website. (www.iran-emrooz.de).

“We must present the world a crystal-clear picture of all our nuclear activities, in order to build confidence, we must continue not enriching uranium and put in use more centrifuges, we must at the same time respect all our engagements concerning atomic programs”, the organisation that fight for a secular and democratic Iran, said.

The UIR also expressed concern over present international atmosphere, the escalation of verbal threat between Tehran and Tel Aviv, the failure of all the last meetings between Iranian en European officials and above all, hawkish statements by Iranian militaries and clerical circles and calls in the Majles for rejecting the Additional Protocols to the NPT.

The Europeans know that if Iran masters the technology for enrichment it has a potential (military) nuclear capability and that will change the (political) equation in the region”, Hoseyn Mousavian, the Head of the International Department at the Supreme Council for National Security told the State-run Television, assuring that Iran was prepared to guarantee that enrichment would not be used for military purposes.

"We are prepared to build trust and provide a guarantee that our enrichment activities will always be peaceful", he said without elaborating further.

Not only Iran does not need a nuclear weapon, but also the nuclearisation of Iran would certainly trigger a race for such arms in the whole of the Middle East

But for the Iranian Republicans, no trust could be build seriously without prior normalisation with the United States, the superpower that has placed the Islamic Republic in its “axis of evil” and is applying formidable pressures on the regime to abandon its ambitions to become a nuclear military power.

In an article published in the London-based Nimrooz weekly newspaper, Mr. Dariush Homayoun, a veteran Iranian political analyst notes that the idea largely shared by many Iranians that we need to become nuclear as a deterrent force is wrong.

“Not only Iran does not need a nuclear weapon, but also the nuclearisation of Iran would certainly trigger a race for such arms in the whole of the Middle East", he added.

However, and despite increased pressures by Washington over the Vienna-based international nuclear watchdog to transfer the case of Iran to the United Nations Security Council for sanctions against Tehran in the one hand and growing dissatisfaction of Europe’s Big 3 with Iran, experts and diplomats said they doubt the IAEA, in its forthcoming meeting scheduled for 13 September, would oblige. ENDS IRAN NUCLEAR 4904

EU hopes to delay decision on Iran referral

By Daniel Dombey in Valkenburg and Roula Khalaf in London
Published: September 4 2004 03:00 | Last updated: September 4 2004 03:00

European governments are seeking to delay any decision over referring Iran's nuclear programme to the United Nations Security Council until November.

The move may upset the US, which is concerned that the programme, which Tehran says is intended to develop nuclear energy, is instead aimed at producing weapons of mass destruction.

The US has been lobbying for a referral to the Security Council at a September 13 board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog. But UK, French and German officials believe they need more information before taking decision.

The European governments may ask the IAEA for comprehensive assessment of Iran's nuclear programme in November, a document that could be used as the basis for a referral to the Security Council. They are also reluctant to end efforts to engage Iran through greater co-operation before the IAEA board meets again in November. A referral to the Security Council, the first step towards possible sanctions, would be a more confrontational approach.

Last year, the three countries reached a deal to put the Iranian programme under greater international supervision. However, there has been a series of setbacks this year, including Iran's decision to resume assembling equipment to enrich uranium, and elections that many western governments said were neither free nor fair.

At a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in the Netherlands yesterday, officials from the three countries briefed their counterparts on the issue.

"Iran should not miscalculate," said a spokesman for Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister. "The clear message that we are sending is that they have to keep their commitments." But some European officials believe it will be difficult to agree on any new measures before the US elections in November.

The IAEA's latest progress report said Iran was planning this August and September to convert as much as 37 tonnes of yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride - the material spun in centrifuges to make enriched uranium, which can then be used to make nuclear weapons or as fuel in reactors.

But the report, which detailed Iran's co-operation over the past two months, did not provide conclusions about Iran's intentions, and offered some positive assessments of co-operation.

Since UN nuclear inspectors began their investigations last year, Iran has provided just enough explanations for its experiments to balance every interim report and win sufficient support on the IAEA's governing board.

"Kill Americans"

By Barry Rubin
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 3, 2004

Something remarkable has happened, even by the Middle East's usual standards. For the first time in history, states in the region are conducting a systematic covert war against the United States. The question is what can America do about it? Not much.
The war is being conducted in Iraq, mainly by Iran but also by Syria.

In both cases, evidence indicates:

--Groups are being encouraged to attack and kill Americans in Iraq.

--Recruitment of terrorists is being freely allowed, as is their training, financing, arming, and transport to the Iraqi border where they are permitted to cross over to wage war on the United States.

In Iran, that country's own citizens are being used in a war against the United States in order to destabilize and try to take over Iraq. To some extent, Tehran exercises influence over the forces of Muqtada al-Sadr, who has repeatedly set off fighting with the coalition forces. While the exact extent of Iranian involvement can be debated, the fact that it exists on a large scale is clear.

Let there be no mistake, this is a major development and sets a dangerous precedent for the future. While there have been many reports about Syrian and Iranian involvement in the Iraq fighting, virtually no one has noted the implications. If Damascus and Tehran can get away with waging a direct war against America--not just a sporadic sponsorship of isolated terrorist attacks as has happened in the past--how much credibility and deterrence will the United States have against radical regimes? Moreover, this is taking place at a time when U.S. power and regional presence is at a peak.

Would there be violence in Iraq without this subversive intervention? Certainly, But it would be at a much lower level, meaning fewer American soldiers and civilians would be dying in Iraq, there would be more domestic support for continuing the commitment there, and the new Iraqi government would have a much better chance of reestablishing stability.

There are a variety of other charges that can be brought against the two radical regimes. Syria is suspected of hiding high-ranking Saddamist officials and weapons of mass destruction material. Iran had suspicious ties with Osama bin Ladin's al-Qaeda after it was driven out of Afghanistan. At a minimum, it gave safe passage to anti-American terrorists and probably is allowing them to operate from its soil. In addition, Iran is busily developing nuclear weapons and will soon have them, as well as the missiles to deliver them to distant targets.

Why, then, can the United States do so little about the problem?

First, the United States is overextended in Iraq, spending vast amounts of money and using pretty much all the available military forces.

Second, support for the presence in Iraq is already falling rapidly and there would be no domestic backing or international support for engaging in a wider war.

Third, after having been so criticized for going into Iraq in the first place, the administration would not have much credibility in charging that Iran and Syria are engaged in aggressive activities.

Finally, both Syria and Iran would be tougher adversaries than Iraq, resulting in horrendous, bloody, inconclusive, and endless wars if the United States decided to fight them.

The U.S. Congress has recently passed a law to penalize Syria for its behavior and there have long been sanctions against Iran. The former, however, are fairly meaningless while the latter have inflicted costs on Tehran but nowhere near enough to make it change policy. In both cases, too, Europe is ready, even eager, to violate the U.S. sanctions and tighten relations with these terrorist-sponsoring states.

Given U.S. inability to do much about the problem, even President George W. Bush--who coined the phrase "axis of evil" and calls for subverting dictators by supporting democracy--has been careful not to play up the issue. Imagine if it had been revealed five or ten years ago that Iran was urging, ordering, organizing, and paying hundreds or even thousands of people to kill Americans on a daily basis. Now this situation is being taken for granted.

If this situation can be ignored, it is unlikely that the United States, whoever is elected president in November, would take strong and direct action if Iran announced that it possessed nuclear weapons. These are uncomfortable realities and they must be faced. No matter what anyone argues, this passivity is not going to change. Having gone into Iraq and found that step so controversial and relatively unsuccessful, the United States is not going to undertake other offensive actions, whether or not they seem justifiable to some observers.

Arguably, what is happening in this respect is undoing any gain in the "fear factor" brought about by the U.S. overthrow of Saddam. Those who argue that, in the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini two decades ago, the United States cannot do a "damn thing" are having that feeling reinforced today.

The Iraq war's outcome has undermined the credibility of U.S. power no matter how long American forces remain in Iraq. Indeed, one could argue that the longer an American presence remains in Iraq the worse the problem will become.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs

(GLORIA) Center and co-author of Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography and Hating America: A History (Oxford University Press, August 2004). Read more about the book on its website: .

Kill Americans

By Barry Rubin
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 3, 2004

Something remarkable has happened, even by the Middle East's usual standards. For the first time in history, states in the region are conducting a systematic covert war against the United States. The question is what can America do about it? Not much.

The war is being conducted in Iraq, mainly by Iran but also by Syria.

In both cases, evidence indicates:

--Groups are being encouraged to attack and kill Americans in Iraq.

--Recruitment of terrorists is being freely allowed, as is their training, financing, arming, and transport to the Iraqi border where they are permitted to cross over to wage war on the United States.

In Iran, that country's own citizens are being used in a war against the United States in order to destabilize and try to take over Iraq. To some extent, Tehran exercises influence over the forces of Muqtada al-Sadr, who has repeatedly set off fighting with the coalition forces. While the exact extent of Iranian involvement can be debated, the fact that it exists on a large scale is clear.

Let there be no mistake, this is a major development and sets a dangerous precedent for the future. While there have been many reports about Syrian and Iranian involvement in the Iraq fighting, virtually no one has noted the implications. If Damascus and Tehran can get away with waging a direct war against America--not just a sporadic sponsorship of isolated terrorist attacks as has happened in the past--how much credibility and deterrence will the United States have against radical regimes? Moreover, this is taking place at a time when U.S. power and regional presence is at a peak.

Would there be violence in Iraq without this subversive intervention? Certainly, But it would be at a much lower level, meaning fewer American soldiers and civilians would be dying in Iraq, there would be more domestic support for continuing the commitment there, and the new Iraqi government would have a much better chance of reestablishing stability.

There are a variety of other charges that can be brought against the two radical regimes. Syria is suspected of hiding high-ranking Saddamist officials and weapons of mass destruction material. Iran had suspicious ties with Osama bin Ladin's al-Qaeda after it was driven out of Afghanistan. At a minimum, it gave safe passage to anti-American terrorists and probably is allowing them to operate from its soil. In addition, Iran is busily developing nuclear weapons and will soon have them, as well as the missiles to deliver them to distant targets.

Why, then, can the United States do so little about the problem?

First, the United States is overextended in Iraq, spending vast amounts of money and using pretty much all the available military forces.

Second, support for the presence in Iraq is already falling rapidly and there would be no domestic backing or international support for engaging in a wider war.

Third, after having been so criticized for going into Iraq in the first place, the administration would not have much credibility in charging that Iran and Syria are engaged in aggressive activities.

Finally, both Syria and Iran would be tougher adversaries than Iraq, resulting in horrendous, bloody, inconclusive, and endless wars if the United States decided to fight them.

The U.S. Congress has recently passed a law to penalize Syria for its behavior and there have long been sanctions against Iran. The former, however, are fairly meaningless while the latter have inflicted costs on Tehran but nowhere near enough to make it change policy. In both cases, too, Europe is ready, even eager, to violate the U.S. sanctions and tighten relations with these terrorist-sponsoring states.

Given U.S. inability to do much about the problem, even President George W. Bush--who coined the phrase "axis of evil" and calls for subverting dictators by supporting democracy--has been careful not to play up the issue. Imagine if it had been revealed five or ten years ago that Iran was urging, ordering, organizing, and paying hundreds or even thousands of people to kill Americans on a daily basis. Now this situation is being taken for granted.

If this situation can be ignored, it is unlikely that the United States, whoever is elected president in November, would take strong and direct action if Iran announced that it possessed nuclear weapons. These are uncomfortable realities and they must be faced. No matter what anyone argues, this passivity is not going to change. Having gone into Iraq and found that step so controversial and relatively unsuccessful, the United States is not going to undertake other offensive actions, whether or not they seem justifiable to some observers.

Arguably, what is happening in this respect is undoing any gain in the "fear factor" brought about by the U.S. overthrow of Saddam. Those who argue that, in the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini two decades ago, the United States cannot do a "damn thing" are having that feeling reinforced today.

The Iraq war's outcome has undermined the credibility of U.S. power no matter how long American forces remain in Iraq. Indeed, one could argue that the longer an American presence remains in Iraq the worse the problem will become.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs

(GLORIA) Center and co-author of Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography and Hating America: A History (Oxford University Press, August 2004). Read more about the book on its website: .

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.